K.T.Sankaran, J.
The appellant was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No.81/2005 on the file of the Court of Session, Palakkad Division and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.31/2007 before the High Court. A Division Bench of this Court, by the judgment dated 06/09/2010 set aside the conviction and sentence and remanded the case to the Sessions Court. The Division Bench held thus while remanding the case to the Sessions Court:-
“.........So we find that it would be just and appropriate to give an opportunity to the appellant to assail Ext.P22 and for that purpose, we cannot avoid a remand for the limited purpose of examining the scientific expert who issued Ext.P22 and to allow the appellant to cross examine the scientific expert and also for putting Ext.P22 to the appellant during the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Unless it is so done there is every likelihood of causing prejudice to the appellant. In the above circumstances, we do not propose to go into the merits of the other evidence on record at this stage.
8. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the conviction and sentence under challenge and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for examining the scientific expert who issued Ext.P22 and providing an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine him and also to explain Ext.P22 during questioning under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. We clarify that the remand is only for the above purpose. It goes without saying that the appellant would be entitled to an opportunity to adduce defence evidence if he so proposes. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant sought for an order to release the appellant on bail. The appellant is at liberty to move the trial court and to get appropriate orders. The case being an old one, we are sure that the trial court shall give top priority.”
2. After remand, Ext.P22 was proved by PW30, the Scientific Assistant. The accused was questioned again under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Court by the judgment dated 08/02/2011 found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant challenges the conviction and sentence.
3. The prosecution case is that on 21/10/2002, at about 11.15 a.m, the accused stabbed the deceased on her neck and chest with MO1 knife on the pathway on the eastern side of the residential compound of one Dr.George. The deceased was none other than the wife of the accused. Since 1987, the accused and the deceased were residing separately. The accused and the deceased have three children, two males and a female. It has come out in evidence that the sons of the accused got married and the accused did not participate for the wedding. His daughter was in love with one Mohanan and the accused did not like that relationship. On 21/10/2002, at about 10 a.m., the accused took the deceased in his jeep. The accused is a driver by profession. The prosecution alleged that after taking the deceased to the place of incident, he committed the murder of the deceased.
4. The prosecution alleged that after committing the murder, the accused went to the Police Station. He was carrying a plastic bag in which the weapon of the offence and the blood-stained clothes which he were wearing were kept. He met the Additional Sub Inspector of Police and narrated the incident, on the basis of which the Additional Sub Inspector of Police (PW1) registered Ext.P1 F.I.R. The articles found in the possession of the accused were seized as per Ext.P2 mahazar which were attested by PWs.2 and 3.
5. PW10, the District Police Surgeon conducted the postmortem and issued Ext.P5 postmortem certificate. In Ext.P5 postmortem certificate, the following ante-mortem injuries were noted:-
1) Incised penetrating wound 7 X 1.5 X 10.5 cm, vertically oblique, on left side of neck, upper front round cut end 4.3 cm behind root of left ear lobule. The lower back sharp cut end was 2 cm above root of neck and 11 cm outer midline. The wound extended medially from the inner border 0.3 cm above the lower end, the medial extension measuring 4.5 X 2 X 3.4 cm and superficial towards midline back of neck. The wound cut the sub- cutaneus tissues, muscles, blood vessels including left common carotid artery nerves underneath. The esophagus was cut partially. In its depth the wound cut the front aspect of left half of sixth cervical vertebra and front aspect of body of seventh cervical vertebra obliquely in partial thickness. The wound was directed downwards, backwards and to right.
2) Incised wound 5 X 1.5 X 0.7 cm, on right half of back of neck, oblique with beveling upwards, upper outer sharp cut end 2 cm above root of neck and 3 cm outer to midline. The lower inner sharp cut end was in midline root of neck. The wound cut the sub-
cutaneous tissues and muscles underneath and was directed upwards and to right.
3) Incised penetrating wound, 4.5 X 1.4 cm, on back of left chest, transversely oblique, upper inner round cut end placed 2 cm to the left of midline and 1 cm below root of neck. The lower outer sharp cut end was placed at 3 cm below top of shoulder and 6.3 cm outer to midline. The wound cut sub- cutaneous tissues and muscles underneath and penetrated the left chest cavity by cutting through the second intercostals space and cutting the second rib partially. The wound on rib cage was placed 1 cm to the left of spinal column. The wound on chest wall measured 5.5 cm in depth, thus making the total minimum depth 9 cm. Underneath the wound, there was an incised penetrating wound 3 X 0.5 X 3.5 cm, on upper lobe of left lung. The left chest cavity contained 350 ml of blood. The wound was directed to right, to front and down wards.
4) Incised penetrating wound, 7 X 1.5 cm, vertically oblique on right half of front of neck and upper part of front of right chest, with upper right sharp cut end 5.5 cm to right of midline and 1.5 cm above collar bone. The left inner sharp cut end was on front of right chest 3 cm below collar bone and 2 cm outer to midline. The wound cut the sub-cutaneous tissues underneath, just cut the inner surface of right collar bone and partially cut the first rib on right side to penetrate the right chest cavity through its apex. The wound on apex of chest wall measured 6.5 cm in depth. An incised wound 2.5 X 0.4 X 1.5 cm was seen on the front aspect of upper lobe of right lung in continuation of the wound on apex of chest wall. The wound was directed downwards and slightly to left. Right chest cavity contained 450 ml of blood.
5) Incised wound 1.8 X 0.3 X .6cm, transversely oblique on left side of face, lower outer end 2 cm above jaw margin and 1 cm outer to left angle of mouth. The upper inner end was at lower lip, 0.6 cm inner to left angle of mouth.
6) Incised wound, gaping, 14 X 2 X 5.4 cm, transversely oblique on front of neck, right lower sharp cut end on right side of neck 6.5 cm outer to midline and 2 cm above root of neck. The left upper sharp cut end was on left side of neck 7.2 cm outer to midline and 2.8 cm above root of neck. The wound cut the sub-cutaneous tissues, muscles, blood vessels including jugulars and nerves underneath. The trachea was cut in full thickness and the esophagus was cut in two third thickness.
The wound was directed backwards, upwards and to the right. From the lower border at 2.5 cm inner to left upper end, there was a superficial side cut 2.7 X 0.4 cm. From the lower border at 3.5 cm inner to the right lower and another side cut, 1.5 X 0.5 cm, superficial. A superficial incised wound, 1.8 cm, was seen parallel to and 0.4 cm below the middle portion of lower edge of the wound.
7) Superficial contusion 2 X 1.5 cm, on front of left thigh, 3 cm above knee.”
PW10 opined in Ext.P5 postmortem certificate as to the cause of death, thus: “the deceased died due to incised penetrating injury to chest and cut injury to neck”.
6. On behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 30 were examined, Exts.P1 to P22 were marked and MOs.1 to 8 were identified. Ext.D1 contradiction was marked on the side of the accused.
7. PWs.4 to 6 were examined to prove that the accused and the deceased were last seen together on the date of incident. PW4 is the owner of the house in which the accused was staying on the day of the incident. He identified the accused and stated that on the date of incident, at about 10 a.m., the accused went out of the house with his wife. He also stated that the wife of the accused was seen with him for the last two days before the incident. He was also a witness to the search list.
8. PW5 is the wife of PW4. She stated that the accused was residing alone in the house and two days before the date of incident, his wife came to the house and stayed there. PW5 stated that she saw the accused and the deceased going out in a jeep. She stated that the accused used to park the jeep in front of her house. She also stated that the accused was carrying MO2 plastic cover with him. PW6 is an employee in a nearby hotel. He knew the accused. The accused used to take food from the hotel in which PW6 was working. PW6 stated that on the date of incident, at about 9-9.30 a.m., the wife of the accused came to the shop, bought food from the hotel and took the same to the room where she was staying.
9. PWs.15 and 18 were also examined by the prosecution to prove that the accused and the deceased were last seen together by them. PW15 is an autorickshaw driver. On the date of incident, he saw the accused in front of a hospital at Thachambara. A woman was also with the accused. PW18 stated that accused was residing on rent in the house of PW4 and it is situated very close to his house. He had seen the deceased at the residence of the accused. He also saw the accused and deceased going out in the jeep belonging to the accused. He also saw the deceased thereafter. He also saw the dead body of the deceased. He witnessed the search conducted at the residence of the accused and signed Ext.P4 search list as an attester.
10. The Trial Court held that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.4 to 6, 15 and 18. The testimony of PW18 corroborates the testimony of PWs.4 and 5. It is also established by the evidence of PW18 that the woman, who was found with the accused on the date of the incident, went with the accused in a jeep and she was none other than the deceased. Thus, it is established from the evidence of PWs.4 to 6, 15 and 18 that the accused and deceased were last seen together at about 10 a.m. and they left together in the jeep belonging to and driven by the accused. PW15 had seen the accused and the deceased near the hospital at Thachambara, which is not far away from the place of occurrence.
11. PW19 is the son of the accused, while PW20 is the brother of the deceased. The prosecution relies on their evidence to prove the motive of the accused to commit the crime. PW19 stated that the accused and the deceased were living separately since 1987. He stated they separated when the accused insisted on sale of the property belonging to the deceased. The witness also stated that the accused did not attend his wedding and his brother’s wedding. The witness further stated that the accused used to manhandle his wife (the deceased) after consuming alcohol. The witness stated that the deceased had an impression that the accused had abandoned the habit of taking alcoholic drinks and, therefore, she used to meet the accused. The witness also stated that he had cautioned his mother (the deceased) that it was a trap by his father (the accused) and that she should not fall in that trap.
12. PW20, the brother of the deceased stated that at the time of marriage of his sister with the accused, his father had given one acre of land to his sister. The accused and the deceased sold that property. On account of the same, there was quarrel between the accused and deceased. Since 1987, they were living separately. The deceased was staying in the house of PW20. The witness stated that he purchased an extent of 1.35 acre for his sister. That property was also sold by his sister. His sister and her son purchased 35 cents and a house and they started residing in that house. The witness also stated that the accused did not attend the wedding of his sons. The deceased went to the house of the accused and stayed there for a few days. But she came back on account of the physical torture made by the accused. PW20 also stated that some Christian priests came to their house and stated that the accused had stopped taking alcoholic drinks after attending a religious retreat. The deceased believed the same to be true and she started going to the house of the accused occasionally. The deceased went to the house of the accused four days before her death.
13. The Trial Court believed the evidence of PWs.19 and 20 and held that their evidence was not shaken in cross-examination.
14. The Trial Court also held that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 regarding the seizure of MOs.1 to 5 from the possession of the accused as per Ext.P2 seizure mahazar. PWs.2 and 3 are the attestors to Ext.P2 seizure mahazar. PW16, the autorickshaw driver stated that at about 12 noon on the date of incident, the accused hired his autorickshaw and went to the police station. The witness stated that at that time the accused was carrying a cover.
15. MOs.1 to 5 were subjected to chemical analysis at the Forensic Science laboratory by PW30, who issued Ext.P22 report. Ext.P22 report shows that human blood was found on MO1 knife, MO2 plastic cover, MO4 shirt and MO5 bath towel.
16. The trial court found that various circumstances were established by the prosecution. Those circumstances are the following:
“1. The accused and the deceased were found leaving together from the residence of the accused on the morning, at about 10 a.m., on the day on which the deceased died. The deceased was last seen with the accused before her death.
2. The accused appeared at the police station at 12.30 p.m. on 21/10/2002 with a plastic cover containing blood-stained knife and clothes and PW1 Additional Sub Inspector registered Ext.P1 F.I.R. and seized the plastic cover and the articles contained in it from the possession of the accused as per Ext.P2 mahazar.
3. There was human blood on MO1 knife and the shirt and the thorthu and the plastic cover seized from the possession of the accused.
4. The accused and the deceased were not on cordial terms. The accused was on inimical terms with the deceased.”
17. The Trial Court considered these circumstances in the light of the well settled principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the various judgments referred to therein and held that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and it does not leave any reasonable ground for arriving at the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. It was further held that the chain of circumstances is such as to show that within all human probability the murder of the deceased was committed by the accused and none else.
18. Having carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence, we do not find any ground to disagree with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the court below. The circumstantial evidence proved by the prosecution would lead to the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The accused and the deceased were last seen together at a time proximate to the time of her death. There is no indication anywhere that any person other than the accused was found with the deceased. The motive suggested by the prosecution is also proved in the case. The conduct of the accused in producing the material objects before the Police immediately after the occurrence would also lend assurance to the truth of the prosecution story. We are of the view that evidence in the case would establish that the accused committed the murder of his wife and that he is guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed by the court below is also reasonable.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below. The criminal appeal fails and, accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ms \\True Copy// PS to Judge