IMPORTANT POINT
The reliability of eyewitness testimony and the relevance of physical evidence such as the recovery of the weapon of offence and dress in establishing guilt.

he sole accused in S.C.No.2476 of 2004 on the files of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. He was tried by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram on a charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He was convicted for the offence under Section 304, Part I of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence are under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code).

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

At about 5.30 p.m. on 27.05.2001 the appellant inflicted injuries to his wife using a chopper at her neck and other parts of the body at the kitchen of the house of PW2. The injured succumbed to the injuries on her way to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant caused murder of his wife, doubting her chastity.

3. On the appellant denying the charge, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 18 and proved Exts.P1 to P17. MOs.1 to 11 were identified also. When examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code, the appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances appeared against him in evidence. He maintained that he was innocent. He stated that the chopper and the shirt seized by the police did not belong to him. He was taken to the police station for questioning with an assurance that he would be released after questioning. The police, instead, falsely implicated him in the case. The defence evidence let in was Exts.D1 to D3, which are the contradictions in the evidence of PWs.2 and 5.

4. The trial court considered the evidence in detail. The discrepancies and improbabilities pointed out by the appellant were explained away by the trial court. The court had concluded that the evidence tendered by the prosecution proved beyond doubt that the fatal injuries were inflicted to the deceased by the appellant. It was, however, held that the evidence tendered by the prosecution was insufficient to prove that the appellant did so with the intention to cause the death of his wife. Accordingly, the trial court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304, Part I of the IPC as against the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. Direct evidence let in by the prosecution to prove the incident is that of PW2. The deceased is the cousin of PW2. His parents are PWs.3 and 5. The deceased is the daughter of PW3’s sister. The appellant was the husband of the deceased and they were residing on a rental premises. It was a lean-to like portion of the house of one Raveendran. The incident had occurred at the kitchen of the house of PW2. He along with PWs.3 and 5 was residing in that house. The rented house of the appellant is not far away and only house is between is that of one Remadevi. These facts, which are deposed to by PWs.2, 3 and 5 as also the other witnesses, including PW1, who was a Member of the local grama panchayat and person launched Ext.P1 F.I. statement, are not in dispute.

7. The version of PW2 is that coming back home in the afternoon after work, he had his lunch and went to sleep. He slept at the verandah of his house, which adjoins the kitchen. He deposed that on hearing the cry of the deceased, "" he woke up and then saw the appellant slashing chopper against the deceased. She sustained injuries and fell down. He immediately went to his grandmother’s house, where his parents were. As informed by him, his parents, PWs.3 and 5, rushed to their house. Soon, PWs.2 and 3 with the help of others had taken the deceased first to a hospital at Peyad and from there to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. The Doctor in the Medical College Hospital pronounced the injured dead.

8. PWs.3 and 5 deposed as regards their getting information about the incident, rushing to