302 Life sentence THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM CHENNAI – 600 003. Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L., Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai Dated, Monday, the 16th day of May, 2022 2053 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. RgfpUJ itfhrp jp’;fs; 2Mk; ehs; jp’;fl;fpHik JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No. 221/2017

J.F.No. 61 – Page
Judicial Form No. 61
(Cr.R.P 106)
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM CHENNAI – 600 003.
Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L., Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai
Dated, Monday, the 16th day of May, 2022
2053 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. RgfpUJ itfhrp jp’;fs; 2Mk; ehs; jp’;fl;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No. 221/2017
(CNR NO. TNCH01- 010191-2017)
ON TH FILE OF MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, CHENNAI
(P.R.C. No.81/2017 in (Crime No.754/2017-N-2, Kasimedu P.S.) on the file of the
Learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, committed to the
Court of Principal Judge, Chennai for the offences against the accused under Section
324 and 302 of IPC and made over to this court for enquiry and trial)
Complainant The Inspector of Police (Law & Order), N-2, Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai.
(Crime No.754/2017)
Name of the Accused Mathi, M/A.52/2017, S/o.Krishnan
Offence charges Under Sections 324 and 302 IPC
Plea of accused Not guilty
Finding In the result the accused is found guilty as charged under Sections 324 and 302 IPC.
Sentence Hence, the accused is accordingly convicted under Section 324 and 302 IPC and sentenced as below;
J.F.No. 61 – Page
(i) to undergo THREE YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of
Rs.5000/- under Section 324 IPC, in default to pay fine, to under Simple Imprisonment for 1 month; and
(ii) to undergo LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay fine of Rs.10000/- under Section 302 IPC, in default to pay fine, to under Simple
Imprisonment for 3 months;
(iii) the sentences imposed shall run concurrently;
(iv) the period already undergone by the accused from 11.04.2017 to 21.08.2017 and from the date of re-arrest from 25.11.2021 to till date shall be set-off under Section 428 IPC;
(v) Total fine Rs.15,000/-.
Order U/s. 452 Cr.P.C. The case properties P.M.O.1-Blood stained piece of cot mattress, P.M.O.2-sample piece of cot mattress, P.M.O.3Blood stained bent knife with plastic handle-1, P.M.O.4-
Blood stained sandle colour half hand shirt-1 and P.M.O.5Blood stained blue and white colour with black lined lunghi-1 are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal. The unmarked case properties, namely, the blood stained dresses of the deceased are also ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
Compensation Order U/s. 357 or 357A Cr.P.C In fine, out of the fine of Rs.15,000/- paid by the accused, it is ordered to pay Rs.4000/- each to P.W1-Tr. Aanestraj (Son of the deceased), P.W.2-Tr.Ajithkumar (Son of the
J.F.No. 61 – Page
deceased) and P.W.3-Tmt. Anusuya (Daughter of the deceased), as compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. Total compensation Rs.12,000/-. The compensation amount is to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
Further, recommendation is made under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to P.W1-Tr. Aanestraj (Son of the deceased), P.W.2-Tr.Ajithkumar (Son of the deceased) and P.W.3-Tmt. Anusuya (Daughter of the deceased), out of the Victim Compensation Fund created U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C.
The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) CrPC out of the Victim Compensation Fund.

Description of the accused
Serial No. Name Father’s
Name Caste or race Occupation Residence Age
1. Mathi Krishnan Hindu Fishing No.70, Indira Nagar HB, Kasimedu, Chennai – 13.
52/2014

Date of Occurrence 11.04.2017
Complaint-Final Report 18.08.2017
Apprehension or appearance 11.04.2017
Rearrest on 25.11.2021
J.F.No. 61 – Page
Released on bail 21.08.2017
(As per the Order of the Hon’ble Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Crl.M.P.No.2383/2017 dated 25.07.2017).
Commitment 01.09.2017
Commencement of
Trial 27.12.2017
Close of trial 09.05.2022
Sentence or Order 16.05.2022
Service of Copy of Judgment or finding on accused 16.05.2022
Explanation of delay Delay in producing witnesses.
Counsel for the Complainant Ms.B.Aarathi, B.A., B.L.,
Special Public Prosecutor.
Counsel for the Accused Mr.P.Karthik (Nominated as Legal Aid through District
Legal Services Authority, Chennai)
Sd/-T.H.Mohammed Farooq
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM CHENNAI – 600 003.
Present : Thiru. T.H. Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai
Dated, Monday, the 16th day of May, 2022
2053 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. RgfpUJ itfhrp jp’;fs; 2Mk; ehs; jp’;fl;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No. 221/2017
(CNR NO. TNCH01- 010191-2017)
The Inspector of Police (Law & Order), N-2, Kasimedu Police Station, Chennai -13.
(Crime No.754/2017) … Complainant.
– Vs. –

Mathi, M/A.52/2017,
S/o.Krishnan,
No.70, Indira Nagar HB,
Kasimedu, Chennai – 13. … Accused.
This Sessions case is taken on file on 11.09.2017 and came up on
09.05.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of
Ms. B.Aarathi, B.A., B.L., Special Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Mr. P. Karthik, Advocate for the Accused, (Nominated as Legal Aid through District Legal Services Authority, Chennai) and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing the material records and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
….2.
JUDGMENT
Final Report:
1. The Inspector of Police, N-2, Kasimedu Police Station, has laid a Final Report in Cr. No.754/2017, before the committal Court of the Learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, alleging that on 11.04.2017 at about 5.30 a.m. the accused committed committed the offences punishable under Section 324 and 302 of IPC.
2. It is alleged that the accused is the husband of the deceased
Tmt.Desam. They were residing along with their sons and daughter
Tr.Aanestraj, Tr.Ajithkumar and Tmt.Anusuya at No.70, Indira Nagar Housing Board, Kasimedu, Chennai-13. The accused used to suspect the deceased and also demand money for drinking and quarrel with her. On the night of 10.04.2017 the accused quarrel with the deceased demanding money for drinking. They are pacified by their sons and daughter all went to sleep. On the next day 11.04.2017 at about 5.30 a.m. the accused quarrel with the deceased Tmt.Desam demanding money for drinking and suddenly pulled a knife and saying “ஓதத்ா தேதவடியா முண்ட எனக்கா குடிக்க காசு தரமாட்தேடங்கிற,
இத்தேதாடு ஒழிச்சு கட்டு தேறன் பாரு , இத்தேதாடு ஒழிந்து தேபா” and tried to stab the deceased on her abdomen. When their son Tr.Ajithkumar try to prevent the
….3.
accused from stabbing the deceased, the accused cut on his hand and pushed him away and stabbed the deceased on her abdomen several times. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to Government Stanley Hospital where she declared dead at 6.40 a.m. Hence the above final report.
3. C ognizance and Committal: Upon taken cognizance of the offences by the Committal Court and on appear of the accused, all the copies of documents relied on the side of the prosecution, were furnished to the accused by the Committal Court in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, as the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the Learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, vide Order dated 01.09.2017 in P.R.C. No.81/2017 has committed the case U/S 209 Cr.P.C. to the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. As the accused was on bail, he was bound over the accused to appear before the Sessions Court.
The same is taken on file as Sessions case by the Learned Principal Session Judge, Chennai and in turn made over it to this Court for enquiry and trial in accordance with law.
4. Appearance of accused and Framing of Charges : On appearance of the accused before this Court and in the presence of the learned Advocate for the accused, the learned Special Public Prosecutor opened the case of the
….4.
prosecution U/s.226 Cr.P.C. by describing the charge brought against the accused and the evidence based on which the charge is proposed to be proved. After hearing both sides and perusing the material records, as there were grounds for presuming that the accused has committed offences which are exclusively triable by this Court of Sessions, charge was framed under Section 324 and 302 IPC. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused and questioned, he pleaded not guilty. Hence, proceedings were issued for trial. Pending trial the accused absconded. Non-Bailable warrant was issued and the accused was re-arrested on 25.11.2021 and remanded to judicial custody. Since then he is in judicial custody in the prison,
5. Prosecution side evidence : In order to prove the charge against the accused, out of 19 witnesses cited, 12 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibits Exs-P.1 to P.21 and material objects as P.M.O.1 to P.M.O.5 are marked on the side of the prosecution.
6. The facts set-out by the prosecution through the above oral and documentary evidence can be succinctly narrated as follows:-
6.1. P.W.1, Tr. Aanestraj and P.W.2, Tr.Ajithkumar are the sons of the accused and the deceased Tmt.Desam. P.W.3, Tmt.Anusuya is their daughter. P.W.3 is married. But she was separated from husband
….5.
and living with her parents. P.Ws. 1 to 3 along with the accused and the deceased were residing at the place of occurrence situated at No.70, Indira Nagar Housing Board, Kasimedu, Chennai-13. The deceased was running a Tiffen shop and the accused used to go for fishing. Recently, the accused did not go for any work and used to suspect the deceased and also quarrel with her demanding money for drinking.
6.2. Similarly, on the night of 10.04.2017 the accused quarrel with her demanding money for drinking. However P.Ws. 1 to 3 pacified both of them and then they all went to sleep. On the next day, 11.04.2017 morning at about 5.30 a.m., P.W.2 Tr. Ajithkumar heard the sound of her mother and woke up from his sleep. He saw the accused quarreling with his mother demanding money for drinking. Hearing the noise the other son and daughter P.W1 and P.W.3 respectively, also woke up. At the time the accused scolded the deceased with obscene words and by saying “தேதவிடியா இன்னிக் தேக உன்னைன முடிக்கிதேறன் பாா் ” and he pulled a knife which he had hidden on him and stab the deceased on her abdomen and side of the abdomen. When P.W.1 try to prevent the accused by holding on the knife, the accused stabbed on his right hand finger and then held the deceased on her neck and stabbed her on her abdomen.
….6.
Seeing this P.Ws. 1 to 3 caught hold the deceased and pulled away, at the time he tried to stab further and the knife hit the floor and got bent. Hearing the screaming noise, the neighbours P.W.4, Tr.Vinoth, P.W.5, Tr.Selvam and P.W.6,Tr. Appu, residing in the same building came to the house of the accused and saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood at her residence. They were informed that the accused has stabbed and escaped. In fact P.W.4 saw the accused getting out of his house with blood stained knife.
6.3. Seeing the deceased injured, P.Ws. 1 to 3 along with the neighbours took the deceased to Government Stanley Hospital for treatment. P.W.7, Dr.Muthunarayanan was then working as Casualty Medical officer at Government Stanley Hospital. On 11.04.2017 at about 06.00 a.m. he examined the deceased Tmt.Desam brought by her son P.W.1, Tr. Aanestraj, with the history of stabbing by a known person at her residence at 5.30 a.m. When he examined the deceased, he found four stab injuries measuring 3 x 1 x 1 cm on the abdomen, out of which 2 were on the center of abdomen, one on the right upper part of abdomen and one on the left upper part of abdomen. He gave first aid and admitted the deceased as inpatient
….7.
for further treatment. Ex-P.7 is the accident register given by him in this regard.
6.4. Further on the same day at about 6.05 a.m. he examined P.W.2, Tr.Ajithkumar who was brought with the same history. On examination P.W.2 was conscious and there was a laceration injuries 3 x 1 x 1 cm. between right thumb and index fingers. He was also given first aid and admitted as inpatient. Ex-P.8 is the accident register issued by him.
6.5. While undergoing treatment, on the same day 11.04.2017 at about 6.40 a.m., the deceased died at the Hospital. Coming to know about the same, P.W.1, Tr. Aanestraj went to the Police station and lodged a Complaint in Ex-P.1 with assistance of his friend, who reduced the complaint into writing.
6.6. P.W.11, Tr.Manikandan who was then Sub-Inspector of Police at N.2 Kasimedu Police Station, at 08.00 a.m. on 11.04.2017 received the complaint given by P.W.1 and registered the case in Cr. No.754/2018 under Section 324 and 302 of IPC. Ex-P.16 is the First Information Report. He sent the original complaint and F.I.R. to the Court and kept the case file for investigation by the Inspector of Police.
….8.
6.7. P.W.12, Tr.Chidambarabarathy, who was then Inspector of Police at N2 Kasimedu Police Station, received the complaint and F.I.R. and took up the case for investigation. Immediately, he went to the place of occurrence situated at No.70, Indira Nagar Housing Board,
Kasimedu, Chennai and in the presence of witnesses Tr.Panneerselvam and P.W.6, Tr.Appu inspecting the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar in Ex-P.5 and rough sketch in Ex-P.17. Further he seized P.M.O.1 blood stained piece of mattress and P.M.O.2 a sample piece of mattress from the place of occurrence under the cover of mahazar in Ex-P.6 in the presence of the same witnesses. Thereafter he examined the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 6 and recorded their statements. P.W.6 has corroborated the evidence of P.W.12 regarding the preparation of observation mahazar in Ex-P.5 and the recovery of P.M.O.1 and P.M.O.2 under the cover of mahazar in Ex-P.6. The seized case properties in P.M.O.1 and P.M.O.2 were sent to Court under Form95 in Ex-P.18.
6.8. Thereafter in continuation of his investigation, P.W.12 (I.O.) went to the mortuary at Stanley Government Hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased on 11.04.2017 between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. in the presence of panch witnesses and prepared
….9.
inquest report in Ex-P.19. Then he gave a requisition for conducting postmortem. Based on the said requisition P.W.9, Dr.Priyadarshini, who was then working as Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Stanley Medical College Hospital, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 11.04.2017 at 2.25 p.m. and issued postmortem report in Ex-P.11, which reads as below:
The body was first seen by the undersigned at 2.25P.M. on 11.4.17. Its condition then was Rigor Mortis present all over the body.
Post-mortem commenced at 2.25 P.M. on 11.4.17
Appearances found at the post-mortem: Moderately nourished female body with the following antemortem injuries.
1) Horizontal oblique stab wound 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the outer aspect of right forearm, 10 cm below right elbow.
2) Horizontal stab wound 3 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the back of right writ. 3) Horizontal stab wound 2.5 x 0.5 x 0.1 cm on the back of right arm, 7 cm above the right elbow.
4) Horizontal stab wound 4 x 0.5 x 1 cm on the inner aspect of right ankle.
5) Oblique stab wound 3 x 0.5 x cavity deep on the upper part of right side of the abdomen; 10 cm below right nipple; on further dissection: the stab wound penetrates the peritoneal cavity and ends by causing stab injury to the right lobe of the liver; abdominal cavity contained fluid blood.
….10.

6) Oblique stab wound 3 x 0.5 x 1 cm on the center of the abdomen, 8 cm below xiphiod process
7) Oblique stab wound 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the left side of the abdomen, 10 cm below let nipple.
8) Oblique stab wound 3 x 0.5 cm cavity deep on the right side of the lower part of the abdomen, 14 cm above anterior superior iliac spine.
(One margin of the above mentioned stab wound was acute and the other margin was obtuse)
On dissection of the neck: Dark red diffuse contusion 3 x 2 x 0.5 cm on the left side of the neck; Hyoid bone: Intact.
Heard: Normal in size; C/S: chambers were empty; valves and great vessels: Normal Lungs: Normal in size; C/S: Pale
Stomach: contained 100 grams of greenish partly digested cooked rice particles with no specific odour; Mucosa: Pale
Spleen and Kidneys: Normal in size; C/S. Pale
Bladder: Empty
Uterus: Normal in size; c/s: cavity empty
Pelvis and spinal column: Intact
Scalp. vault and dura: Intact; Brain: Normal in size; c/s: Pale
(Viscera Preserved for chemical analysis)
6.9. During postmortem the viscera taken from the body of the deceased and gauze cloth with the blood stains of the deceased were to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination and the Biological
….11.
report in Ex-P.13 and Serology report in Ex-P.14 were received. As per Ex-P.13, poison was not detected in any of the items sent in the viscera and as per Ex-P.14 the blood group of the deceased is that of group ‘A’. Based on the above postmortem P.W.9 gave an
opinion that;
Opinion:
The deceased would appear to have died of shock and hameorrhage due to stab injury to the abdomen.
(Time since death was 6 – 12 hours prior to postmortem examination).
6.10. After postmortem, the body of the deceased was handed over to P.W.1 for doing the last rites. The dress of the deceased were also collected and sent for forensic examination as per the records.
6.11. In the meantime, P.W.12, the Investigating Officer kept vigil for the accused. Later, based on the information that the accused was available near S-4 Bus Stand, Suriyanarayana Chetty Road, he went there and arrested the accused on 11.04.2017 at about 2.30 p.m. The accused gave a voluntarily confession statement which was recorded in the presence of P.W.8/Tr.Angappan and Tr.Pradeep. The accused gave a disclosure statement that he would identified and produced the knife used in the commission of the offence and his blood stained cloths from the hidden place. The admissible
….12.
portion of the confession statement is marked as Ex-P.9. Accordingly, the accused took them near children home on S.N.Chetty Street and from a bush nearby he identified and produced the blood stained knife (P.M.O.3), blood stained half hand shirt (P.M.O.4) and blood stained blue and white colour with black lined lunghi (P.M.O.5). P.W.12 (I.O.) seized the same under the cover of mahazar in Ex-P.10 in the presence of the same witnesses. P.W.8, Tr.Angappan corroborated the testimony of P.W.12 regarding the arrest, confession and recovery. He has identified the material objects seized from the possession of the accused. Thereafter the accused was sent for remand and the case properties in P.M.Os 3 to 5 were sent to Court under Form-95 in Ex-P.20. P.W.12 examined P.W.8 Tr.Angappan and Tr.Pradeep and recorded their statements.
6.12. Further P.W.12 (I.O.) examined medical officers P.W.9, Dr.Priyadarshini, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, P.W.7, Dr.Muthunarayanan, who gave the accident registers and P.W.10, Dr.Mathusuthanan, who gave treatment to the injured witness P.W.2 Tr.Ajithkumar.
6.13. P.W.10, Dr.Mathusuthanan has deposed regarding the witness P.W.2 admitted as inpatient on 11.04.2017 at 6.04 a.m. with the history of
….13.
assault by known person with the knife. On examination there was lacerate injuries 6 x 3 x 1cm with right thumb and index finger. Further there was a lacerate injuries 4 x 1 x 1 cm on the right forearm hand. Opinion were taken from the specialist and he was given treatment as patient. But, P.W.2 abscond from the hospital. Therefore, P.W.10 is unable to give opinion regarding the injury sustained by P.W.2. Ex-P.15 is the wound certificate given by him that he cannot give any opinion, since the patient absconded.
6.14. Further in continuation of his investigation, P.W.12 (I.O.) gave a requisition to the Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, to record the statement of witnesses P.W.s 1 to 3 under
Section 164 CrPC. The statement were recorded on 09.05.2017.
P.Ws. 1 to 3 have identified the statement given by them before the Learned Magistrate and marked as Ex-P2 to Ex-P.4 respectively.
6.15. Further P.W.12 gave a requisition to send the seized case properties for Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. Accordingly the case properties in P.M.Os. 1 to 5 along with the dresses of the deceased were sent to FSL and the Biological report in Ex-P.12 and the Serology report in Ex-P.21 was received with the opinion that except in P.M.O.2 (sample piece of mattress) in all other items blood was detected and the blood is of human orgigin.
….14.
The blood found in the blouse, in-skirt and saree of the deceased and the blood stained knife (P.M.O.3) and shirt (P.M.O.4) seized from the accused were of the group ‘A’. Thus, after collecting the above materials during investigation P.W.12(I.O.) completed the investigation and laid a final report against the accused on
31.07.2017 for the alleged offences under Section 324 and 302 IPC. Examination of Accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. a nd his defence:
7. Upon closing the prosecution evidences, the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution side evidence against the accused was put to him and examined U/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. During examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused has denied the incriminating circumstances and his defence is that of total denial. The accused reported no evidence on his side and the defence was closed.
8. P oint for determination : Now the point that arise for
determination is;
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under sections 324 and 302 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt or not?
On the Point :
9. Heard the arguments submitted on the side of the prosecution and on the side of the accused.
….15.
10. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor arguing for the prosecution submitted that, P.Ws. 1 to 3 are the sons and daughter of the deceased and the accused, that they have identified the accused and have deposed about witnessing the occurrence in which the accused stabbed the deceased to death. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 also materially corroborated by the independent witnesses P.Ws. 4 to 6 who have immediately gone to the house of the deceased and found the deceased with bleeding injuries and then sent her to the hospital. Further, it is submitted that the complicity of the accused is also proved by recovering the weapon of assault P.M.O.3 knife and blood stained cloths of the accused based on the disclosure statement given by him. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the above seized properties are linked with the occurrence by the Forensic Science report showing that human blood were detected in knife and dresses seized from the accused and that they matched with the blood group of the deceased. Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no animosity for the witnesses to depose falsely against the accused and that they have witnessed the occurrence and cogently testified before this Court proving the guilt of the accused. Further, it is submitted that the medical evidence would also corroborate the oral testimony and thereby prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
….16.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is not guilt and he is falsely implicated in this case due to family dispute. Further the learned counsel for the accused submitted that even if it is found that the accused has caused the death of the deceased, he submitted that it will not amount to murder, but it will only be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the occurrence took place in a fit of anger in a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. Hence, it is submitted that the evidence of murder is not attracted against the accused.
12. This Court gave careful consideration to the rival contentions and examined the oral and documentary evidence in detail. The identity of the accused and the deceased is not disputed. P.Ws. 1 to 3, who are the sons and daughter of the accused and the deceased, have identified the deceased as their mother Tmt.Desam and the accused as their father. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have cogently and consistently deposed before this Court vividly narrating the matter in which the occurrence took place. The date, time and place of occurrence is clearly spoken by them. They have clearly deposed that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased suspecting her as well as demanding money for drinking. On the night prior to the occurrence i.e. 10.04.2017, the accused quarrel with the deceased demanding money. P.Ws 1 to 3 were present at the time in the house.
They have deposed that they pacified their parents and all went to sleep.
….17.
Suddenly, on the next day earlier morning at about 5.30 a.m. on 11.04.2017,
P.W.2 first woke up hearing the noise of his mother followed by P.W.1 and P.W.3. They all deposed that they saw the accused quarreling with their mother demanding money for drinking. At the time the accused pulled a knife and tried to stab the deceased. Seeing it P.W.2 says that he caught hold of him and try to pull the knife, at the time the accused caused injuries to P.W.2 with the knife. He then pushing him away stabbed the deceased on the abdomen and side of the abdomen (விலா). They further deposed that all 3 of them try to pull the accused and prevent him from stabbed her mother, at the time the accused try to further stab and the knife hit the floor and got bent. They further deposed that after hearing the noise, the neighbours came, and the accused escaped from the place of occurrence. The above testimony of P.Ws 1 to 3 is no way dislodged and discredit during cross-examination. There is no material to show that their testimony is tainted with and animosity or falseness. There presence at the time of occurrence at their residence is most probable and can be believed. Moreover, P.W.2 is one of the injures witness in the occurrence and his presence cannot be doubted. There is no contradiction or embellishment established during crossexamination. The Complaint in Ex-P1 and the statements in Exs-P.2 to P.4, recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., corroborate the oral testimony in all material particulars and prove the occurrence.
….18.
13. Further the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is materially corroborated by P.W.s 4 to 6, who are the neighbours. P.W.4 has clearly deposed that they came to the house of the accused hearing the noise, he saw the accused going with blood stained knife. P.W.5 and P.W.6 have deposed that when they went to the house of the deceased they saw the deceased in a pool of blood lying down on the cot and P.Ws. 1 to 3 were present. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 is fully corroborated by the independent witnesses. There is no material to show that these witnesses have any animosity or grievance against the accused to implicate him falsely.
14. The above testimony of the ocular witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence through P.W.7, Dr.Muthunarayanan, which establish that soon after the occurrence, by 6.30 a.m. on the same day, the deceased and P.W.2 were brought to Government Stanley Hospital with injuries with the history of assault by known person at their residence. The deceased was declared dead at 6.40 a.m. This fact is corroborated by the inquest report in Ex-P.19. Hence, the oral and documentary medical evidence in Exs-P.7 and P.8 would established that the accused caused stab injuries on the deceased and also injuries to P.W.2
with the knife.
15. The cause of death that the deceased died of shock and hameorrhage due to stab injury to the abdomen is proved through P.W.9,
….19.
Dr.Priyadarshini and the postmortem report in Ex-P.11. Further, the prosecution has produced the weapon of assault P.M.O.3 knife which is proved to have a link with the commission of the offence by subjecting the same to Forensic Science examination. The recover of P.M.Os. 3 to 5, the knife and blood stained cloths from the accused based on his disclosure statement is prove from the clear and cogent evidence of P.W.12 (I.O.) corroborated by P.W.8 independent witness for the recovery. Further, Ex-P.12 and Ex-P.21, the Biological and Serology Reports given by the Forensic Science Lab establish human blood was detected in P.M.O.3 knife and it is of the group ‘A’ that belongs to the deceased. Hence, the above materials further established the complicity of the accused in committing the death of his wife, the deceased Tmt.Desam.
16. The learned counsel for the accused would argue that the act of the accused will not amount to murder, but it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, that will fall under the exception (1) or (4) under Section 300 of IPC. Exception (1) to Section 300 of IPC reads as below:
Exception 1.—When culpable homicide is not murder.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of selfcontrol by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:—
First.—That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
….20.
Secondly.—That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly.—That the provocation is not given by anything done in
the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation.—Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact
17. Thus, to fall under the exception (1), the grave and provocation provocation must be given by the deceased. In the case on hand the accused had quarreled with the deceased demanding money. There is no material elicited during cross-examination of any of the witnesses that the deceased caused grave or sudden provocation, such that, the accused lost control of himself. Hence, Exception (1) will not come in aid of the accused.
18. Similarly, Exception (4) to Section 300 says;
Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner
19. It is not a case of sudden fight. The accused has quarreled on the previous night demanding money for drinking. They were pacified and went to sleep. Then, in the next date early morning the accused again quarreled with the deceased demanding money for drinking. At that time the accused had pick a knife hidden on him and stabbed the deceased. It is not a case of single blow.
….21.
The medical evidence shows that multiple stab injuries were found on the abdomen region and also on the right ankle, wrist and arm. Even when the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 tried to catch hold of the accused, he forcefully and aggressively attacked the deceased on her vital parts with a dangerous weapon, knife, fully knowing the consequence thereof and intention to kill the deceased. So, the act of the accused would not come under the category of sudden fight or quarrel. Further, to come under Exception (4), the act of the accused should be such that he has not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. But, the act of the accused was quit opposite to it.
20. In the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju vs. State of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 444, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the intention to cause death. It was observed and held that the intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances. It is held;
“18. Therefore, the court should proceed to decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and caution, as that will decide whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many petty or insignificant matters _ plucking of a fruit, straying of a cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead to altercations and group clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed,
….22.
jealousy or suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There may be no intention. There may be no premeditation. In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as murder punishable under section 302. The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances : (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as it may.”
21. Applying the above ratio to the case on hand and careful
examining the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no material to bring
….23.
the act of the accused within the Exception (1) or (4) given under Section 300 of IPC. There is no sudden quarrel or any sustained provocation given by the deceased. The accused quarreled on the previous night demanding money for drinking. In continuation of the same on the next day morning, the accused quarrel with the deceased. The weapon used was in his possession and the injuries caused are on the vital parts of the body and the words uttered by the accused while causing the injures is significant to establish his intention to cause death.
22. Apart from that, the act of the accused would clearly show that he has the knowledge that the deceased would be dead if the stab injuries are caused. This act of the accused would fall under Clauses thirdly and fourthly of Section 300 IPC. Clauses thirdly and fourthly of Section 300 IPC read as under:
“Thirdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
Fourthly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.”
….24.
23. Hence if the case falls within Clauses thirdly and fourthly to
Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide can be said to be amounting to murder. Apart from the fact that the accused has the intention to commit murder, the fact proved by the prosecution will clearly fall within the Clauses thirdly and fourthly to Section 300 of IPC to attract the offence of Murder. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the act of the accused would not fall under any of the exception under Section 300 of IPC to reduce the nature of the offence to culpable homicide not amount to murder. Hence the contention in this regard on the side of the accused cannot be sustained.
24. Further, the accused is charged under Section 324 IPC for causing simple injuries to P.W.2 with dangerous weapon, namely, P.M.O.3 knife. This fact is spoken by P.Ws. 1 to 3. When P.W.2 prevented the accused from stabbing the deceased, the accused caused injuries to P.W.2 on his hand.
This fact is corroborated by the medical evidence from P.W.7, Dr.Muthunarayanan and the evidence of P.W.10, Dr.Mathusudanan. Ex-P.8, the accident register and Ex-P.15, the wound certificate prove that P.W.2 has sustained lacerate injuries between the right thumb and index finger and another lacerate injury on his right forearm. These injuries are proved to be caused by the accused in the occurrence. P.W.10 Dr.Mathusudanan has given Ex-P.15 wound report that he cannot give opinion on the nature of injuries as the patient
….25.
has abscond. However, the causing of laceration injuries is proved. Hence it can be held that the accused has causing simple injuries with dangerous weapon in P.M.O.3. Therefore, the charged under Section 324 IPC is proved by the prosecution.
25. Based on the above discussed materials and facts and
circumstances of the case, it is concluded that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused as charged beyond all reasonable doubt and the point for determination is therefore answered in the affirmative.
26. Result : In the result the accused is found guilty as charged under
Sections 324 and 302 IPC.
//Directly typed to my dictation in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16th day of May, 2022//

Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….26.
S.C. N o. 221 /20 17 ( State by The Inspector of Police Vs. Mathi ) Examination u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. Date: 16.05. 2022 at 2.45 P.M .
22. After pronouncing the verdict of guilty in the open Court, the accused was examined under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. regarding the question of sentence. The accused pleaded as below;
Xd;Wk; ,yi; y/ ehd; gd;dtpy;iy/
23. Recorded the answers given by the accused. For hearing both side on question of sentence and for orders on sentence, the matter is adjourned to 3.45 P.M. today.
Pronounced in open Court on this the 16th day of May, 2022.
Sd/-T.H.Mohammed Farooq
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….27.
ORDER OF SENTENCE IN S.C. No. 221 /20 17 – DATED: 16.05.2022 AT
3.45 P.M.
24. Heard both sides on the question of sentence. Upon considering the contentions and the plea of the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds there is no mitigating circumstances to show any leniency. The nature of injuries found on the deceased would show the graveness and the brutality in which the accused has premeditated and killed her without mercy and any concern for the invaluable human life. The only mitigating circumstances may be that he may remorse for his ghastly act and may reform in the long run. Hence, considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, this Court is of the view that this case may not fall under the category of rarest of rare case to impose capital punishment.
25. Hence, the accused is accordingly convicted under Section 324 and 302 IPC and sentenced as below;
(i) to undergo THREE YEARS RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT and
to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 324 IPC, in default to pay fine, to under Simple Imprisonment for 1 month; and
….28.
(ii) to undergo LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay fine of Rs.10000/under Section 302 IPC, in default to pay fine, to under Simple
Imprisonment for 3 months;
(iii) the sentences imposed shall run concurrently;
(iv) the period already undergone by the accused from 11.04.2017 to 21.08.2017 and from the date of re-arrest from 25.11.2021 to till date shall be set-off under Section 428 IPC;
(v) Total fine Rs.15,000/-.
26. Order under Section 452 Cr.P.C .: The case properties P.M.O.1-
Blood stained piece of cot mattress, P.M.O.2-sample piece of cot mattress, P.M.O.3-Blood stained bent knife with plastic handle-1, P.M.O.4-Blood stained sandle colour half hand shirt-1 and P.M.O.5-Blood stained blue and white colour with black lined lunghi-1 are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal. The unmarked case properties , namely, the blood stained dresses of the deceased are also ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
….29.
27. Compensation Order U/s 357 or 357A Cr.P.C.: – Perused the oral and documentary evidence and examined the fact and circumstances of the case. The deceased is stabbed to death by the accused (husband) before the eyes of her sons and daughter P.Ws. 1 to 3. They have lost their loving mother and her love and affection once for all due to the act of crime/offence committed by the accused.
28. Section 357A Cr.P.C. provides for victim compensation scheme for the purpose of providing compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. P.W.3, the daughter of the deceased is separated from her husband and was residing under the care of the deceased. The deceased was running a Tiffen shop and taking care of her sons and daughter. If the deceased had been alive she would have taken care of the them and also shared her love and affection to them. Due to commission of the crime P.W.s 1 to3 have suffered loss and injuries and required to be rehabilitated by giving adequately compensation. Hence to meet the ends of justice it is necessarily to restitute the loss and injury suffered by them by means of adequate compensation.
29. Hence, out of the fine amount of Rs.15,000/- paid by the accused this Court is inclined to award a compensation of Rs.4,000/- each to P.W1-Tr. Aanestraj (Son of the deceased), P.W.2-Tr.Ajithkumar (Son of the deceased) and
….30.
P.W.3-Tmt. Anusuya (Daughter of the deceased), under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. (Total Compensation Rs.12,000/-).
30. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the compensation awarded under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. is only a pittance and not adequate to fully compensate them. Hence, it is necessary to recommend to The District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to conduct enquiry and award adequate compensation to P.W.1 to P.W.3 out of the Victim Compensation Fund created under Section 357A(1) Cr.P.C.
31. In fine, out of the fine of Rs.15,000/- paid by the accused, it is ordered to pay Rs.4000/- each to P.W1-Tr. Aanestraj (Son of the deceased), P.W.2-Tr.Ajithkumar (Son of the deceased) and P.W.3-Tmt. Anusuya (Daughter of the deceased), as compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. Total compensation Rs.12,000/-. The compensation amount is to be paid after the expiry of appeal time, if there be any appeal, after the disposal of the appeal.
32. Further, recommendation is made under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to P.W1-Tr. Aanestraj (Son of the deceased), P.W.2Tr.Ajithkumar (Son of the deceased) and P.W.3-Tmt. Anusuya (Daughter of the deceased), out of the Victim Compensation Fund created U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C.
….31.
33. The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) CrPC out of the Victim Compensation Fund.
//Directly typed to my dictation in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 16th day of May, 2022//
Sd/-T.H.Mohammed Farooq
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.
List of Witnesses examined:
On the side of the prosecution:-

P.W.1 :: Tr. Aanestraj (Son of the deceased)
P.W.2 :: Tr.Ajithkumar (Son of the deceased)
P.W.3 :: Tmt. Anusuya (Daughter of the deceased)
P.W.4 :: Tmt. Vinoth
P.W.5 :: Tr. Selvam
P.W.6 :: Tr. Appu
P.W.7 :: Dr. Muthunarayanan (A.R. Doctor)
P.W.8 :: Tr. Angappan
P.W.9 :: Dr. Priyadharshini (Post-mortem Doctor)
P.W.10 :: Dr. Madusudanan
P.W.11 :: Tr. Manikandan (S.I. of Police)
P.W.12 :: Tr. Chidambarabarathy (Investigating Officer)
….32.
On the side of the accused: Nil

List of Exhibits Marked
On the side of the prosecution :
Exhibit Date Particulars
Ex-P. 1 11.04.2017 Complaint given by P.W.1
Ex-P. 2 09.05.2017 Statement given by P.W.1 u/s. 164 CrPC
Ex-P. 3 09.05.2017 Statement given by P.W.2 u/s. 164 CrPC
Ex-P. 4 09.05.2017 Statement given by P.W.3 u/s. 164 CrPC
Ex-P. 5 11.04.2017 Observation Mahazar
Ex-P. 6 11.04.2017 Seizure Mahazar
Ex-P. 7 11.04.2017 Accident Register(Copy)
Ex-P. 8 11.04.2017 Accident Register(Copy)
Ex-P. 9 11.04.2017 Admissible portion of the confession statement given by accused
Ex-P. 10 11.04.2017 Seizure Mahazar
Ex-P. 11 11.04.2017 Postmortem Certificate (PM No.450/17)
Ex-P. 12 07.07.2017 Biological Report (BIOL 155/2017)
Ex-P. 13 17.05.2017 Toxicological Report (TO.H.No.888/2017)
Ex-P. 14 19.09.2017 Serology Report (T.No.2823/2017 SER’C-40/2017)
Ex-P. 15 11.04.2017 Medico Legal opinion
Ex-P. 16 11.04.2017 First Information Report (C 8104089)
Ex-P. 17 11.07.2017 Rough sketch
….33.

Ex-P. 18 11.04.2017 Form-95 (Blood stained pieces of cot matters and sample piece of cot matters piece)
Ex-P. 19 11.04.2017 Inquest Report
Ex-P. 20 11.04.2017 Form-95 (Blood stained bend knife with plastic handle-1, Blood stained half hand shirt-1 and blood stained lungi-1)
Ex-P.21 19.09.2017 Serology Report (T.N.6222/2017 SER/176/2017)
On the side of accused: Nil
List of Material Objects Marked: On the side of Prosecution:
Exhibit No. Particulars
M.O.1 Blood stained cot mattress
M.O.2 Sample cot mattress
M.O.3 Blood stained bend knife with plastic handle-1
M.O.4 Blood stained sandle colour half hand shirt-1
M.O.5 Blood stained blue and white colour with black lined lunghi
On the side of the Accused: Nil
/True Copy/ Sd/-T.H.Mohammed Farooq
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….34.