9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 302, IPC 2. Circumstantial Evidence 3. Medical Evidence 4. Evidence of Witnesses 5. Letter Found on the Dead Body 6. Nature of the Offence 7. Compliance with Section 207-A(4) and (9) of CrPC 8. Applicability of Section 537, CrPC 9. Sentence Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Conviction under Section 302, IPC: The accused was initially convicted under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge, Medak District. The prosecution's version was that the accused, suspecting his wife of infidelity and pregnancy by another man, strangled her to death. 2. Circumstantial Evidence: There were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and the case was decided on circumstantial evidence. The principle of criminal jurisprudence applied here is that "circumstantial evidence must be consistent and consistent only with the guilt of the accused and that if the evidence is consistent with any other rational explanation, then there is an element of doubt of which the accused must be given the benefit." 3. Medical Evidence: The doctor who performed the autopsy described the condition of the body and concluded that death was due to asphyxia caused by pressure on the neck by some blunt weapon. This uncontradicted evidence established that the deceased was strangled to death. 4. Evidence of Witnesses: - P.Ws. 9 and 10 (Parents of the Deceased): They described the circumstances under which the accused took the deceased to his sister's house. Their evidence proved that the deceased continued to live in that house till she died. - P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 (Sister of the Accused and Her Husband): They narrated the events of the night of the murder, indicating that the accused and the deceased slept in a room and the deceased was found dead in the morning. - P.W. 6 (Husband of Deceased's Maternal Aunt): His evidence about the accused's alleged confession was not accepted as it seemed improvised. 5. Letter Found on the Dead Body: Ex. P-5, a letter found on the dead body, was written by the accused. The letter contained the accused's emotional outpourings and confession that he attempted to commit the act due to his wife's alleged infidelity and pregnancy by another man. The court accepted the contents of the letter as representing the true state of facts. 6. Nature of the Offence: The court considered whether the act fell under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC, which deals with culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to grave and sudden provocation. The court concluded that the provocation was both sudden and grave, and the accused, deprived of his self-control, strangled his wife. The act was not premeditated but was a result of sudden provocation. 7. Compliance with Section 207-A(4) and (9) of CrPC: - Section 207-A(4): The argument that the Magistrate should have examined eyewitnesses first was rejected. The court held that the Magistrate could proceed with circumstantial evidence if no eyewitnesses were available. - Section 207-A(9): The Magistrate failed to require the accused to give a list of witnesses to be summoned for trial, which was a contravention of the provision. 8. Applicability of Section 537, CrPC: Despite the breach of Section 207-A(9), the court held that such irregularity did not invalidate the entire trial. Section 537, CrPC, which cures irregularities unless they cause a failure of justice, was applied. The court found no failure of justice in this case. 9. Sentence: The court set aside the conviction for murder and the death sentence, instead convicting the accused for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, considering the grave and sudden provocation under which the act was committed.
|
