The court upheld the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, affirming that procedural lapses did not undermine the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/sole accused in the judgment in S.C.No.67 of 2013 dated 27.08.2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, by convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The appellant herein is the sole accused in S.C. No. 67 of 2013. It is a case of murder of wife by the husband.

3. According to the prosecution, the appellant herein had estranged relationship with his wife Bharadha Devi. On 03.08.2012, took her in his two wheeler under the pretext of going to temple, but took her to an isolated place and stabbed her repeatedly causing her death. It is the further case of the prosecution is that on hearing the scream of Bharadha Devi, P.W.2 rushed to the place and saw Bharadha Devi in pool of blood with several injuries. When he enquired her, she told him that she and her husband came in a two wheeler to go for a temple, her husband stabbed her and ran away. At that time, another person of his village called Ramasamy came and they both called 108 ambulance and send the injured persons to Sivagangai Government Hospital.

4. On intimation, the Village Administrative Officer went to the spot and after ascertaining the occurrence given a complaint to the Respondent Police at about 4.30 p.m. His complaint is marked as Ex.P.1 and informant examined as P.W.1.

5. The owner of the house in which the deceased was residing with her children examined by the prosecution as P.W.12 and she has deposed that Bharadha Devi came as a tenant three (3) months prior to the occurrence and day before the occurrence her husband came and stayed with her along with the children. On 03.08.2012, after sending the children to the School, they both left the house in a two wheeler informing her that they are going to temple. Thereafter, she came to know that Bharadha Devi was stabbed to death. The postmortem Doctor had deposed that Bharadha Devi had sustained multiple lacerated injuries and opined that should have died due to injury of vital organ.

6. Based on the materials placed, the Sessions Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC and tried the accused.

7. In the whole, the prosecution case based on 13 witnesses, 12 exhibits and 8 material objects were found to be sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and therefore, the trial Court sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. The said judgment of conviction and sentence is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial Court erred in holding the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 as wholly reliable. The contradictions between the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 go to show that they are not at all witness to the occurrence, particularly, they had deposed that after calling 108 ambulance, they sent the injured person in the ambulance to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai, but did not accompany the injured. The fate of the injured person not spoken by them. P.W.3 in his evidence claims that he saw the assailant running and sought the help of the cattle grazers to catch him. However, P.W.2 had not whispered about the presence of the assailant.

9. That apart, the learned counsel also submitted that the informant examined as P.W.1 is the Village Administrative Officer. According to him, he received the information at about 1.30 p.m., on that day, however, he had gone to the Police Station and given the complaint Ex.P.1 only at 16.30 hours. He has not explained the reason for delay. Admittedly, when he went to the spot, the injured person was not in the spot. The content of the information converted into FIR belatedly does not reflect the true o