The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(ii) IPC due to grave and sudden provocation.

JUDGMENT :

(G. JAYACHANDRAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ.)

The Appellant Ayyappan and his wife Vellammal got married about 17 years prior to the incident. After getting job as mason in Kuwait, the appellant was for nearly 6 years living abroad and came back to the South Elanthai village on 01.02.2012. He was suspicious about the fidelity of his wife used to frequently quarrel with his wife. When he was back to the Village, his wife was not in the home. Coming to know that she is in her parents house at Puthiyamputtur Village, the appellant went to Puthiyamputtur and asked her to come with him, but she refused. A week before the incident, he took the village headman Arunachalam with him to Valliammal house. Arunachalam persuaded Valliammal and Velammal. As a result, Velammal went with the appellant. However, very next day, Velammal came back to her parent’s home unbearable of the torture given by th appellant. Two days prior to the incident, the appellant again went to the house of Valliammal and requested to join him. Velammal and her mother Valliammal came to the house of the appellant and stayed in his house. On 08.02.2012, the brother of the appellant came and informed that, Velammal had gone to her parents’ home without paying Electrical bill, so he paid it. In this regard, there was exchange of words between the brother of the appellant and Velammal. After, his brother left the home, the appellant caught the hair of his wife dragged her inside the room and cut her with the billhook and almost severed her head. Valliammal the mother of the deceased, who was present at that time, tried to save her daughter. The appellant caught the neck of Valliammal and pushed her down. A street vendor by name Thangamaharajan, who on hearing the commotion in the house of the accused, came rushing to the house of the accused. He saw the appellant attacking Velammal. Since the appellant threatened if anybody come forward to give evidence, they will also face the same fate, Thangamaharajan left the place. Then, the appellant after changing his clothes left the house carrying the aruval.

2. Valliammal, the mother of the deceased, went to Kayattar Police Station and gave complaint at about 17.00 hrs. The Inspector of Police, K.Senthilmaran registered the case in Cr.No.48 of 2012 for offence under Sections 323 , 302 and 506(ii) IPC against the appellant and took up the investigation. He went to the scene of crime. After preparing the observation mahazar and rough sketch, he sent the body of the deceased to the hospital for post mortem. He prepared inquest report and recorded the statements of the witnesses. On receipt of the information that the accused surrendered and confessed before the Village Administrative Officer by name Karuthapandian and VAO had brought the appellant to the Police Station, the Investigating Officer went to the Police Station and arrested the appellant. Based on the confession given by the appellant, the Investigating Officer in the presence of the witnesses, recovered under a mahazar, the blood stained lungi, shirt and the blood stained billhook(aruval) measuring 53 cm.

3.The Investigating Officer collected the post-mortem report from the hospital and recorded the statement of the Post-mortem Doctor. Sent the material objects for biological and serological analysis. On obtaining the reports from the Scientific Officers, completed the investigation and filed the final report.

4.The appellant was served with copies of the documents relied by the prosecution. On committal of the case to the Court of sessions, at Thoothukudi, the Trial Court framed charges under sections 323 IPC , 302 IPC and 506(ii) IPC . The appellant had admitted the guilt of the charges under section 323 IPC and 302 IPC . He denied the charge of offence under section 506 (ii) IPC . However, the trial Court proceeded with the examination of witnesses for prosecution.

5.To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, marked 19 documents as exhibits and 9 mater