Mack, J.- The appellant, a Mopla, has been found guilty under section 302 Indian Penal Code, of the murder of his wife Pathu, aged 25, on 20th August, 1954, some time between 9-30 p.m. and 11-45 p.m., and sentenced to transportation for life by the learned Sessions Judge of North Malabar.

The facts of this case are very tragic, the murder being founded really on desperate poverty, the evidence showing no unchastity or even any suspicion of it on the part of this wife. The body was found on the bench of an aided elementary school in Badagara at 7 a.m . the following morning by a school teacher, P.W.1, with ghastly wounds on her’ neck which have been proved to have been caused by a small pen-knife M.O. 9. There was an incised wound 8“x 4” x 3“across and around portion of the neck cutting the muscles, veins, arteries, nerves and trachea. There was another wound 10” x 5“x 2½” from the middle of the neck to the left side cutting all structures. There were also two comparatively minor-incised wounds.

The accused was arrested on 26th August, 1954, by the Sub-Inspector, P.W. 24, on the road near Badagara Railway Station. He had in his possession a penknife M.O.9 and a dhoti M.O.10 on which, however, no human bloodstains were found. On 4th September, 1954, he made a confession, Exhibit P-6, before a Magistrate’ which we have no hesitation in holding to have been voluntarily made in which he confessed to killing his wife under extraordinary circumstances pleading that he did so with her consent.

The evidence shows that the accused lived with his wife in the house of P.W. 4 on a rent of Rs.3 a month which had gone into arrears. According to P.W.4 the accused and his wife used to quarrel mainly because the former did not bring home anything for food. A few days before the murder, on Perunal day, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife. When he enquired, Pathu complained that the accused did not bring anything for food even on Perunal day and that after quarrelling the accused beat her. P.W.4, then warned them that as they were in arrears for three months they must quit the house if they created disturbances of that kind. The accused said that he would leave the house on the following Friday, that is, about a week later, and, in due course, on the day of the murder, surrendered the key of the portion he was occupying at about 8-30 p.m. and went away with Pathu taking their younger child with them. In his confession Exhibit P. 6, the accused said that after being given notice by P.W.4, the elder child was sent to his father’s house and after leaving P.W.4’s house he went with his wife and tried to persuade her to go to her mother’s house. As they were coming near the school it began to rain heavily, and, it would appear they had an argument as to what they should do. Pathu refused to go back to her mother’s house and said that if the accused insisted it was better that she was killed. In Exhibit P. 6, the accused said that he asked her two or three times whether she did not wish to live and she told him that she did not want to do so. He then described how he took his pen-knife and cut her with it on the neck. She struggled and when he realised that she would make a noise he thrust a cloth into her month. After life became extinct he took away his child and went to his father’s house. He stuck to this confession in the committing Court but resiled from it in the Sessions Court where he took refuge in complete ignorance as to how his wife came by her death.

There can be no doubt at all that it was the appellant that killed his wife after both left the house of P.W. 4. They were seen by a witness P.W.8 going together very near the school at about 9-30 p.m. Another witness P.W.9, saw the accused returning along with the child from the direction of the school at about 11-45 p.m. The confession voluntarily made and adhered to in the committing Court lays at. rest any doubt as regards guilt of the accused - who undoubtedly cut his wife’s thr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document