(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai in S.C.No.153 of 2017 dated 25.06.2020.)

N. Anand Venkatesh, J.

1. The sole accused assails the judgment passed in S.C.No.153 of 2017 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai dated 25.06.2020, wherein, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and convicted under Section 341 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Nagammal is the first wife of the accused and while the first wife was alive, the accused had married one Deivanai and the first wife and her children and the second wife and her children were living along with the accused person. There used to be frequent fight between the deceased Nagammal and the accused and hence, the deceased started living separately with her children. The marriage arrangement was made for the son of the deceased (P.W.1) and in the invitation, the name of the accused was printed, but, however, he was not invited for the wedding. This was questioned by the accused and there was a wordy quarrel. P.W.1 is said to have asked the accused for the ration card to include the name of his wife and this was refused by the accused. Further, the deceased asked the accused to partition the property between the children of the first and second wives equally and there was a wordy quarrel. It is alleged that all these factors created previous enmity and as a result, the accused on 20.12.2016 at about 08.10 a.m., forcibly restrained the deceased and attacked her on the neck with M.O.1, as a result of which, the head got severed and the deceased died instantaneously.

3. P.W.1 is said to have witnessed this incident and immediately with the help of the villagers, he went to Viralimalai Police Station at about 09.00 a.m., and lodged a complaint (Ex.P.1) before P.W.11 and an FIR (Ex.P.10) was registered by P.W.11 for the offence under Section 302 IPC in Crime No.382 of 2016.

4. The investigation was taken up by P.W.12, who went to the scene of occurrence at about 09.15 a.m., on 20.12.2016 and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.11). He also seized M.O.5 to M.O.8 under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P.3).

5. P.W.12 thereafter conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.P.12).

6. The dead body was sent through the Head Constable. The postmortem was conducted by P.W.10, who issued the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P.8) and the following injuries were recorded.

                   “1).Obliquely horizontal decapitation injury present on front of the neck; It was 1 cm below chin; 5 cm below right mastoid process on right side of the neck; 2cm below left mastoid process on left side of neck; 7 cm above supra-sternal notch; on examination

                   i)The underlying muscles of entire neck, blood vessels, nerves were cut and severed;

                   ii)Complete cut fracture of the second cervical vertebra with complete transection of the underlying spinal cord with dark red extravasation of blood;

                   iii) Hyoid bone, laryngeal and tracheal cartilage and trachea were intact and present on the lower part of injured neck portion;

                   iv) Epiglottis and the cut section of windpipe and oropharynx with its cavity found above the level of injured neck portion. The margins of the decapitation injury were well defined regular and clean cut. Decapitated head aligned well with trunk portion in colour and contour and belongs to the one and the same individual.

7. The Investigation Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Apart from that, he also took steps to record the statements of P.W.2 and P.W.3 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The 164 statement was marked as Ex.P.13. The accused persons was arrested on 20.12.2016 at about 16.45 hours and based on his confession, M.O.1 was seized. The accused was remanded to judicial custody.

8. On completion of investigation, the police report was laid before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Keeranoor and after the supply of copies to the accused person under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, which was taken on file in S.C.No.153 of 2017.

9. The trial Court framed charges for the offence under Sections 341 and 302 IPC and when the accused was questioned, he denied the same.

10. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and also relied upon M.O.1 to M.O.8.

11. The incriminating evidence and circumstances were put to the accused person when he was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and he denied the same as false

12. The accused person did not examine any witness nor did he rely upon any document.

13. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused person in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.

14. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on records.

15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the so-called evidence of eye witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 is highly doubtful since there were discrepancies in their evidence. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and the accused is none other than his father. He has spoken about the misunderstanding between the accused and the deceased and the dispute that took place when the accused was not invited for the marriage even though his name was printed in the marriage invitation. P.W.1 has specifically stated that on 20.12.2016, at around 07.00 a.m., he saw the accused holding the aruval (M.O.1) and was enquiring as to where the deceased had gone. From there, he left to the place where the deceased was working under the 100 days' Scheme and on seeing the deceased, he called her and attacked her with the M.O.1 on the neck, which resulted in the head severing from the body.

16. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who were working along with the deceased in the 100 days' Scheme is also to the same effect. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 has not been discredited in the cross examination and there is absolutely no reason as to why their evidence must be disbelieved.

17. The incident had taken place around 08.10 a.m., and the FIR was registered at 09.00 a.m. The express FIR was also sent by P.W.11 to the Magistrate Court through P.W.8.

18. The evidence of the Doctor (P.W.10) and the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P.8) corroborates the ocular evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3

19. Even though motive takes a back seat when there is a clear eye-witness account, the same has also been established in this case through the evidence of P.W.1.

20. This is an unfortunate case where the head was severed from the body and P.W.10 (Postmortem Doctor) while giving the Postmortem report has stated that the decapitated head aligned well with the trunk portion and that it belongs to the same individual. Even in the Rough Sketch under Ex.P.11, the trunk and the head were lying separately and the fact that it belongs to the same individual has been confirmed by P.W. 10.

21. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and the Court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused person. There is absolutely no ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial Court and the same is hereby confirmed and this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.