N. Sathish Kumar, J.
1. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.13 of 2013, dated 17.03.2021, the appellant/sole accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
The defacto complainant/P.W.1, Jeyanthi, was working as a sweeper in M/s. Prestige Palalladium Company. When she was working as sweeper in ABN Amro Bank, Nungampakkam Branch, the accused was working as a security guard. During that period, they developed a relationship. Later, the accused got married, and therefore, P.W.1 stopped speaking to him. Thereafter, on a call from the accused, she went to Poondi and when the accused checked her mobile, she found the name Poobalan and suspected that Jeyanthi was having an illegal contact with Poobalan. On 04.11.2012, the accused went to her parents’ house and quarrelled with her and hence, she gave a complaint against the accused before the Ponnery Police Station
(ii) Since, he had doubt over her conduct, with an intention to murder her, on 15.11.2012, when P.W.1 was returning from her office at 5.15 p.m., in Greams Road, the accused repeatedly stabbed Jeyanthi with a knife.(M.O.2.). Immediately she was taken to Appollo Hospital, and the hospital authorities sent an intimation to the police.
(iii) Upon receiving the intimation(Ex.P.2), P.W.13, Sub Inspector of Police, went to the Apollo Hospital and recorded the complaint of Jeyanthi (Ex.P.1) and registered a case in Crime No.1190 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 IPC and prepared First Information Report (Ex.P.5). P.W.1 handed over the blood stained clothes (.M.O.1 series). Thereafter, she forwarded the FIR to the jurisdictional Court and a copy to the Investigation Officer.
(iv) P.W.14, Inspector of Police, on receipt of the First Information report, commenced the investigation, recorded the statement P.W.1.Jeyanthi and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar(Ex.P.7) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.6) in the presence of the witnesses Arul and Ravi and seized the blood stained knife(M.O.2), tiffin box (M.O.3 series), ID card of P.W.1, Jeyanthi(M.O.4), a pair of chappals (M.O.5 series) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P.8) in the presence of the same witnesses. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses.
(v) On 16.11.2012, he arrested the accused and recorded his confession. Based on his confession, he recovered the blood stained dress of the accused (M.O.6 series) under Form 95 (Ex.P.9). Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the Doctor, who treated P.W.1 Jeyanthi in Apollo Hospital.
(vi) P.W.9, Medical Officer, attached to the Apollo Hospital, treated P.W.1, Jeyanthi and issued an accident report along with intimation(Ex.P.2) to the police. Before him, P.W.1 informed that her husband Muthiya assaulted her with a knife. He has found cut injuries on various parts of the body as follows:-
“ i) 6 x 2 c.m. cut injury on the right neck
ii) Small cut injury on the left shoulder
iii) swelling on the left forearm with blood vessels cut.
iv) cut injuries found other parts of the body, viz., chest, stomach, back and also right knee.”
Since she refused to take further treatment in Apollo Hospital, she was shifted to Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai.
(vii) P.W.10 Medical Officer, attached to the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, Chennai gave further treatment to P.W.1 and noticed a cut injury in Bronchial vein. Surgery was performed, and bypass surgery was also done to set right the veins. After treatment, she was discharged on 22.11.2012. He had given opinion that the injuries on the right neck is simple in nature and the injuries on the left fore arm was grievous in nature and issued Wound Certificate with opinion Ex.P.3.
(viii) After recording the statement of the doctor, who treated P.W.1 in the Apollo Hospital, and the doctor, who conducted surgery in the Rajiv Gandhi Medical College Hospital, P.W.14 laid charge sheet under Section 341, 294(b) and 307 IPC.
3. The Trial Court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant records, framed a charge against the accused for offence under Sections 341, 294(b), and 307 of IPC and the same have been read over and explained to the accused. The accused has denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as fourteen witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 14 and nine documents were marked as Ex.Ps.1 to 9. Besides, six Material Objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 6.
5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any documents on his side.
6. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the entire evidence on the side of the prosecution and the exhibits marked, including the materials objects, had convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as follows:
| Offence | Imprisonment | Fine |
| 341 IPC | One month Simple Imprisonment | Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one week. |
| 307 IPC | Imprisonment for life | Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. |
7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not proved the case. Except P.W.1, there is no other witness available to prove the charge against the accused and all other eye-witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, the Trial Court believing the version of P.W.1 alone, and convicting the accused is not proper. At any event, it is the contention of the learned counsel that imposition of life sentence for the offence under Section 307 of IPC is not warranted. The accused is having three children to raise. Therefore, some leniency may be shown to him since he is already in prison for more than 5 years.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that P.W.1 clearly proved the fact that the accused has caused multiple cut injuries, which has been supported by P.W.9 and P.W.10, the Medical Officers attached to the Apollo Hospital and the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital. Ex.P.3 indicates that the injury on the left forearm was grievous in nature. In fact bronchial vein was cut. The same is nothing, but grievous injury.
9. We have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on records carefully.
10. The sole eye-witness is the injured witness. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicates that while P.W.1 and the accused were working together, previously, they developed some relationship. However, the accused also used to follow P.W.1. As against which, a complaint also came to be lodged on an earlier occasion, i.e., on 04.11.2012. Later on 15.11.2012, after finishing her work, when P.W.1 came out from her office, the accused waylaid P.W.1 and caused multiple injuries, not only on the neck , but on the other parts of the body. P.W.4 also saw the accused was causing injury to P.W.1 and he has also seen that the accused was caught hold by others and was beaten by them. P.W.1 was immediately rushed to the Apollo Hosspital, where P.W.9 has noted down cut injuries on various part of the body, i.e., right neck, left shoulder and left forearm. Immediately, first aid was given. Later she was shifted to the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital, where P.W.10, Medical Officer, found that the left forearm bronchial vein was cut and surgery was done on the same day and bypass surgery has also been done to set right the veins and later bleeding was arrested. According to P.W.10, the injury on the left forearm is serious in nature.
11. The evidence with regard to P.W.1 that the accused came there and caused serious stab injuries is not even disputed in the entire cross examination. Therefore, we are not in a position to find any discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1. There was no reason as to why she has implicated the accused. The relationship is also established. In this aspect, there was no cross examination.
12. P.Ws.2 and 3 had seen the pool of blood and P.W.3 in fact had seen the lady with blood injuries and later she was sent to the hospital. P.W.4 has also seen the accused causing injuries to P.W.1. P.W.5, also saw that PW.1 left the office on the same day at 5.15 hours, and thereafter, he also heard that she was taken to the hospital. P.Ws.4 and 6 seen the people beating the accused immediately after the occurrence. P.Ws.5 and 6, also working in the same company, where P.W.1 was working. P.W.7, Manager of the company, went to the hospital and had seen P.W.1. P.W.8 heard about the occurrence soon after the incident.
13. From all the above evidences, the presence of the accused was clearly established. P.W.1 has clearly spoken about the nature of the occurrence. The evidence of Medical officers, P.Ws.9 and 10 clearly indicates that the nature of the injuries caused by the accused are grievous in nature and the intention of the accused to cause death is clearly established from the nature of the injuries. Therefore, we are of the view that the Trial Court finding the guilt of the accused under Section 307 does not need any interference.
14. However, with regard to the quantum of punishment, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the accused due to some frustration because of the relationship has caused such injuries, which are not intentional. He had three children to raise. He would further submit that the minimum punishment will meet the ends of justice.
15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also did not dispute with regard to the family background of the accused.
16. Considering all these aspects and the fact that P.W.1was in the hospital for eight days. some injuries, in fact, is found to be simple in nature and only the injury on the left forearm was found to be grievous in nature, we are of the view that justice will be met if the punishment is reduced to the period of seven years Rigorous Imprisonment.
17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant/accused under Sections 341 and 307 IPC(126 and 109 of BNS) is confirmed. However, the sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 307 IPC(109 BNS) is modified to rigorous imprisonment for seven(7) years. The sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 341 IPC(126 BNS) is confirmed. The period of sentence already undergone by appellant/accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C(468 of BNSS). Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.