A conviction in a criminal trial can be validly based on the testimony of a single, credible eye-witness. Furthermore, the burden of proving the plea of legal insanity rests on the accused, who must rebut the presumption of sanity by establishing a condition that precluded understanding the act.

JUDGMENT :

K. V. JAYAKUMAR, J.

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No.731 of 2014 on the files of the Special Court for the Trial of Offences against Women and Children (Additional Sessions Court-I), Thalassery. The appellant stood for trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. By the impugned judgment dated 14.03.2018, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, convicted him, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with a default clause.

3. The prosecution case concerns the brutal uxoricide of one Subadra @ Subha by Raju, the appellant herein.

The prosecution case

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that, on 25.03.2014 at about 12.15 p.m., the accused inflicted multiple chop wounds on the vital parts of the victim while they were residing in building No. II/682 of Payam Grama Panchayat. According to the prosecution, the alleged motive for the crime was the suspicion of the accused regarding the chastity of the deceased, Subadra @ Subha.

5. The injured was immediately taken to the Medical College Hospital, Pariyaram. However, on 03.04.2014 she succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the said hospital.

The Registration of FIR and the Investigation

6. On the basis of Ext.P1 FIS lodged by PW1 (Rajan C.K.), PW13 (Jayan J.E.), the Station House Officer, Iritty Police Station registered Ext.P12 FIR on 25.03.2014 at about 3:30 p.m.

7. PW14 (Manoj V.V.), the Circle Inspector of Police took up the investigation on 26.03.2014. He proceeded to the place of occurrence at 2.30 p.m. along with tester Inspector of Finger Print Bureau and seized MO1 chopper, after preparing Ext.P4 seizure mahazar. Thereafter, at 3.00 p.m. on that day, he prepared Ext.P5 scene mahazar of the place of occurrence in the presence of the witnesses. He arrested the accused at 5.00 p.m. on the same day itself, after preparing Ext.P13 arrest memo and Ext.P14 inspection memo. He obtained the ownership certificate from the Panchayat Secretary concerned.

8. He produced the accused before the court on 27.03.2014 along with Ext.P15 remand report. On 03.04.2014, he got information that the injured in this case passed away. On 04.04.2014 he conducted the inquest and prepared Ext.P6 inquest report. Thereafter, he submitted Ext.P16 report before the jurisdictional Magistrate, adding Section 302 and deleting Section 307 of the IPC. The body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination. He seized a brown packet produced by the forensic surgeon on 26.04.2014 after preparing Ext.P8 mahazar. The articles seized were forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate along with property lists. He questioned the material witnesses, completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

The proceedings before the trial court

9. The learned Magistrate, after completing the preliminary steps, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thalassery. The learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the Special Court for the Trial of Offences against Women and Children (Additional Sessions Court-I), Thalassery. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge after hearing both sides. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances put to him and maintained the stand of innocence.

10. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P21 were marked. MO1 and MO2 series were identified and marked. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

11. On the side of the defence, no evidence was adduced. After a full fledged trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life. Impugning the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, this app