The concept of provocation, which is integral part of the offence of man-slaughter in English Criminal Law has been imported to Indian Criminal Law. In this regard, both the Legal Systems are common. The reasons are obvious. The pivotal point in "provocation" is the offender having lost his mental balance, self-control due to the provocation caused to him or the situations under which he was so placed. But it should not be a self created or induced one. {Para 29}
30. Under the English Criminal Law, the provocation must be grave and also sudden. But, by way of judicial thinking, the Indian Criminal Law has gone ahead. (K.M. Nanavathi Vs. State of Maharastra MANU/SC/0147/1961 : A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 605) In our system, there is the concept of "sustained provocation". It is concerned with the duration of the provocation. There may be incidents/occurrences, which are such that they may not make the offender suddenly to make his outburst by his overt act. However, it may be lingering in his mind for quite sometime, torment continuously and at one point of time erupt, make him to lose his self control, make his mind to go astray, the mind may not be under his control/ command and results in the offender committing the offence. The sustained provocation/frustration nurtured in the mind of the accused reached the end of breaking point, under that accused causes the murder of the deceased.
31. In Boya Munigadu Vs. The Queen ILR 3 MAD 33, this Court held that the State of the mind of the accused, having regard to the earlier conduct of the deceased, may be taken into consideration in considering whether the subsequent act would be sufficient provocation to bring the case within the Exception.
32. In In Re, C. Narayan MANU/AP/0044/1957 : A.I.R. 1958 A.P. 235, it was held that the mental state created by an earlier act may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether a subsequent act was sufficient to make the assailant to lose his self - control.
33. These aspects were also discussed in NANAVATI (supra) with reference to several English and Indian cases on the aspect of sudden provocation.
34. In Suyambukkani v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/TN/0504/1989 : 1989 LW (Crl.) 86, it is held as under :-
Though there has been here and there attempts in those decisions to bring the sustained provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300, I.P.C., there is a cardinal difference between provocation as defined under Exception I and sustained provocation. The only word which is common is 'provocation.' What Exception I contemplates is a grave and sudden provocation, whereas the ingredient of sustained provocation is a series of acts more or less grave spread over a certain period of time, the last of which acting as the last straw breaking the camel's back may even be a very trifling one. We are, therefore, far from grave and sudden provocation contemplated under Exception 1 to S. 300, I.P.C. Sustained provocation is undoubtedly an addition by Courts, as anticipated by the architects of the Indian Penal Code.
35. In Sankaral Alias Sankarayee V. State MANU/TN/0554/1989 : 1989 L.W. (Crl.) 468, a Division Bench of this Court has held as under:-
When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other type of cases, where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation which is the route cause for the commission of the offence need not arise at the spur of the moment.
36. In Chandran, In Re 1988 Mad LW (CRL.) 113 another Division Bench of this Court, while considering the sustained, sudden and grave provocation, would hold as follows :-
As the prosecution itself is relying on the confessional statement of the accused under Section Ex. P-13, we have no reservation in accepting the case of the accused that he cut the deceased on account of the sudden and grave provocation caused by the deceased and also on account of the sustained provocation the accused has been nurturing for a long period because of the conduct of the deceased in having illicit intimacy with his wife. Hence, we hold that the accused is entitled to Exception 1 to Section 300, I.P.C.
37. In Guruswami Pillai V. State 1991 (1) M.W.N. (Crl.) 153, at page 157, another Division Bench of this Court has held as follows :
Therefore, though technically the exceptions to Section 300 I.P.C. appear to be limitative they can no longer be considered so, after efflux of time. In fact, Courts have added one more exception known as "sustained provocation'... Now that it is clear that the exceptions under S. 300, I.P.C. are not limitative, we have to examine whether Nallathangal's syndrome can be considered as one of the exceptions. Since the Code in the structure makes the exceptions limitative, Courts have to show restraint on circumspection in adding exceptions and such additions should be ejusdem generis.
38. In Chinnan @ Chinnaswami and Another V. State (1995) (2) M.W.N. (Cr.) 178, another Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the decisions mentioned above, has held as under :-
While we accept the suggestion that the last straw could be considered as grave and sudden in a series of provocations, we are of the opinion that the last straw should at least be in the nature of provocation referred to in the earlier case reported in MANU/TN/0410/1987 : 1988 L.W. (CRL.) 113.
39. These decisions would show that the Court could add the 'sustained provocation' as one of the Exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 30 of 2011
Decided On: 08.02.2012
Poovammal Vs. State
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasantha Kumar and Mr. Justice P. Devadass
Author: P. Devadass, J.
Citation: MANU/TN/0189/2012.
1. Indeed, this is an unfortunate case.
2. This appeal depicts the pathetic case of a mother, having boundless love for her son.
3. On 23.10.2007, at about 6.30 a.m., before the house of Poovammal, in Church Street, in North Agasthiarpuram, near Vikramapurasingapuram (V.K. Puram), in Ambasamudram Taluk, in Tirunelveli District, huge crowd gathered. It went inside. Poovammal was standing with M.O.1 - Axe. There was blood all over her clothes (M.Os.3 and 4). Near her, her dear son's (Deivendran) dead body was lying with five cut injuries, remaining 6 are defensive in nature (Ex.P.8 post-mortem certificate). Near the dead body, Vijayalakshmi (P.W.1), the wife of the deceased was crying. Poovammal went inside the room and bolted. Murugan (P.W.3) informed Ramachandran, VAO, V.K. Puram. On his information, Vergin Savio (P.W.8), Sub-Inspector of Police, V.K. Puram came. P.W.1 gave her Ex.P.1 - complaint. Poovammal was taken to V.K. Puram Police Station with M.Os.1 and 2 axe and bill-hook. A case in crime No. 257 of 2007 for an offence under Section 302 IPC was registered (Ex.P.10 FIR). She was arrested. Sundararajan, Inspector, V.K. Puram Police Station (P.W.12) took up investigation. At the scene place, in the presence of witnesses, he prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P.2), site - plan (Ex.P.17). At the Govt. Hospital, Ambasamudram, Dr. Sankara Venkatesh (P.W.7) performed autopsy. He opined that the death was due to the injuries sustained and the injuries are possible by a weapon like M.O.1. P.W.12 recorded the statement of material witnesses, obtained post-mortem certificate, chemical and serological reports, completing his investigation, filed the Final Report for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C.
4. Poovammal was charged under Section 302 I.P.C, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined, Exs.P.1 to 20 were marked and M.Os.1 to 7 were exhibited. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, she denied her complicity, she did not let in any evidence.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence, on 17.11.2008, found her guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced her to life and also fined Rs. 1,000/- in default, directed her to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and ordered adjusting of her remand period against the said sentence vide Section 428 Cr.P.C.
6. In view of the clinching oral, documentary evidence and material objects, Mr. S. Jeyasingh, learned counsel for the appellant confined his arguments only to the nature of the offence established, precisely, he argued on the sentence aspect.
7. We have also carefully perused the voluminous evidence on record. We concur with the view of the learned Sessions Judge that appellant killed her son.
8. In support of his plea to dilute the rigor of the sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted as under:
(i) After the death of her husband, Poovammal was left alone, none to support her, in the circumstances, her only hope is her son. Inspite of her continued demand, he had decided to leave her alone, it created anguish, frustration in her.
(ii) Even prior to the occurrence, she was continuously demanding him to live with her. But, he refused. Frustration developed in her. It sustained in her mind.
(iii) In these circumstances, on the occurrence day, she lost her mind and done away with her son and also attempted suicide.
(iv) In the circumstances, it will not be murder; it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
9. Mr. K.S. Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused having killed her son has been established, in the circumstances, she has been so sentenced.
10. Now, the question is whether Poovammal's case falls under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 I.P.C, part I or Part II.
11. Manickam and Poovammal are spouses. Their only son is Deivendran. They belong to Maruthuvar (Barber) community. They belong to lower strata of society. They are very poor. They were residing at Door No. 80/E3, Church Street, North Agasthiarpuram, near V.K. Puram, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. Father and son were working in some saloons in V.K. Puram. Deivendran married Vijaya Lakshmi (P.W.1). She belongs to Thalaiyuthu. It is far away from V.K. Puram. Later, Deivendran set up his family in Thalaiyuthu. He was working in a saloon there.
12. Manickam and Poovammal were living alone in their village. On 5.10.2007, Manickam passed away due to heart-attack. Deivendran and Vijaya Lakshmi came to North Agasthiarpuram to attend the funeral rites and connected ceremonies.
13. The accused was then about 55 years old. She had lost her husband. She has no property. No house. She is living in a rented house. Her only hope of life is her son. She had boundless love and affection for him. In the circumstances, she requested him to stay with her in Agasthiarpuram, work in a saloon in V.K. Puram and support her and if he leaves her alone, she will die. However, he was not for it. Vijalaya Lakshmi was also not for it. They wanted to go to Thalaiyuthu. Discussion on this issue was going on between them for quite some time (See Ex.P.1 - complaint).
14. On 22.10.2007, accused renewed her request. But, her son refused. This led to so much frustration in her. She was desperate. She is not willing to spare her beloved son. It was persisting in her mind. On the night, all in the house ate and slept.
15. On 23.10.2007, early morning, accused and P.W.1 were cooking. Deivendran told his wife to finish the work early as they have to leave for Thalaiyuthu. Then his mother was also present. Again, he went to sleep. Accused was seen in an agitative mood.
16. In these circumstances, suddenly she picked up the available M.O.1 axe and assaulted her son killing him on the spot. Thereafter, she went inside the room, locked herself, in her bid to end her life, inflicted injuries on her neck and abdomen with MO.2 bill-hook (see Ex.P.9 Accident Register).
17. In this backdrop of the matter, now we will go to the legal position concerning culpable homicide not amounting to murder and see whether Poovammal's case is one such case.
18. The offence affecting life, namely, taking away of one's life has been dealt with in Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (shortly, hereinafter, I.P.C.) under the caption "Offences affecting the Human Body". "Culpable homicide" has been explained and illustrated in Section 299 I.P.C. and "murder" has been explained and illustrated in Section 300 I.P.C. In both the cases, there will be killing of a person. But, both Section 299 I.P.C, 300 I.P.C, and their related penal provisions, namely, Section 302 I.P.C, Section 304 I.P.C, both part I and part II I.P.C. do not deviate from the basic principle of Criminology and Criminal Law. The two essential elements that constitutes an offence, namely, mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (overt act) are present in both Section 299 and Section 300 I.P.C. Mens rea has been expressed in two forms in Section 299 I.P.C. and in Section 300 I.P.C., namely, acts committed with intention, (intentional acts), acts committed with the knowledge that it would likely to cause death or sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
19. It is axiomatic that "all murders are culpable homicide, but not vice verse", that is to say, all murders are not culpable homicide. Culpable homicide is genus of which murder is species. Culpable homicide is stated in three circumstances, viz.
(i) with the intention of causing death; or
(ii) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
(iii) with the knowledge that the doer is likely by such act to cause death.
20. A culpable homicide falling under any one of the three classes, namely, 2ndly 3rdly and 4thly amounts to murder. It is punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Section 300 I.P.C. itself contains five Exceptions with certain restrictions/ conditions. If the culpable homicide falls under any one of the Exceptions, then it will not be murder, it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. If it is an intentional act, it will fall under part I, if it is with knowledge, it will fall under part II. Both these parts differ in severity of punishment.
21. Culpable homicide amounting to murder or not amounting to murder, have been conceived in the Penal Code to consider mitigating circumstances under which the offence was committed, it is intended to reduce/dilute the rigor of punishment.
22. The marked distinction between the offences under Section 302 I.P.C. and under Section 299 I.P.C. brought out by Justice Melvill in R. Vs. Govinda, (1876) 1 Bom 342 has been reiterated in State of A.P. Vs. Rayavarappu Punnayya MANU/SC/0180/1976 : AIR 1977 SC 45 by Justice SARKARIA in the following words:
In the scheme of the Penal Code, 'culpable homicide' is genus and murder its specie. All 'murder' is culpable homicide but not vice versa. Speaking generally 'culpable homicide sans 'special characteristics of murder' is culpable homicide not amounting to murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic offence, the Code practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, culpable homicide of the first degree. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide which is defined in Section 300 as 'murder'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. This is punishable under the 1st part of Section 304. Then, there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable under the Second Part of Section 304.
23. In English Criminal Law, the Indian culpable homicide not amounting to murder is known as "voluntary man-slaughter". It mainly concerned with killing of a person during abnormality of mind, at a time when the accused has lost his self control and is not master of his mind.
24. Now, we go to the two specific Exceptions 1 and 4 in Section 300 I.P.C. dealing with the offence of murder, which makes the culpable homicide not amounting to murder. These Exceptions centers around the mind of the offender, when the offence was committed, when the accused lost his power of self-control, due to grave and sudden provocation. When the offence was committed without premeditation in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion.
25. The main point is "provocation". Commission of offence under provocation. In HALSBURY's Laws of England, 4th edition, Volume 11, paragraph 1163, page 619 provocation is stated as under:
Provocation may reduce a charge of murder to one of manslaughter. It consists of something done which would cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes in the defendant, a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, making him so subject to passing that he is not the master of his mind. Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person charged was provoked, whether by things done or said, to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did must be left to be determined by the jury. In determining that question the jury must take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which, in the jury's opinion, it would have on a reasonable man.
26. KENNY, an acclaimed authority on English Criminal Law, in his oft-quoted magnum opus, "Outlines of Criminal Law", 19th edition, pages 171 - 172, at paragraph 117 puts "provocation" as under:
The cases in which it has been held that provocation may reduce a homicide from murder to manslaughter have throughout the ages been those in which the killing was intentional but done by the prisoner when so inflamed by passion that he was for the moment not the master of his mind. This kind of homicide has been traditionally termed 'voluntary manslaughter.
27. LORD GODDARD, C.J, in R. DUFFY (1949-1 ALL ER 932) defines provocation thus:
Provocation is some act, or series of acts, done by the dead man to the accused which would cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes in the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self - control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not master of his mind.
28. In K.M. Nanavati Vs. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0147/1961 : A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 605, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in India words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first Exception to S. 300 I.P.C.
29. The concept of provocation, which is integral part of the offence of man-slaughter in English Criminal Law has been imported to Indian Criminal Law. In this regard, both the Legal Systems are common. The reasons are obvious. The pivotal point in "provocation" is the offender having lost his mental balance, self-control due to the provocation caused to him or the situations under which he was so placed. But it should not be a self created or induced one.
30. Under the English Criminal Law, the provocation must be grave and also sudden. But, by way of judicial thinking, the Indian Criminal Law has gone ahead. (K.M. Nanavathi Vs. State of Maharastra MANU/SC/0147/1961 : A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 605) In our system, there is the concept of "sustained provocation". It is concerned with the duration of the provocation. There may be incidents/occurrences, which are such that they may not make the offender suddenly to make his outburst by his overt act. However, it may be lingering in his mind for quite sometime, torment continuously and at one point of time erupt, make him to lose his self control, make his mind to go astray, the mind may not be under his control/ command and results in the offender committing the offence. The sustained provocation/frustration nurtured in the mind of the accused reached the end of breaking point, under that accused causes the murder of the deceased.
31. In Boya Munigadu Vs. The Queen ILR 3 MAD 33, this Court held that the State of the mind of the accused, having regard to the earlier conduct of the deceased, may be taken into consideration in considering whether the subsequent act would be sufficient provocation to bring the case within the Exception.
32. In In Re, C. Narayan MANU/AP/0044/1957 : A.I.R. 1958 A.P. 235, it was held that the mental state created by an earlier act may be taken into consideration in ascertaining whether a subsequent act was sufficient to make the assailant to lose his self - control.
33. These aspects were also discussed in NANAVATI (supra) with reference to several English and Indian cases on the aspect of sudden provocation.
34. In Suyambukkani v. State of Tamil Nadu MANU/TN/0504/1989 : 1989 LW (Crl.) 86, it is held as under :-
Though there has been here and there attempts in those decisions to bring the sustained provocation under Exception 1 to Section 300, I.P.C., there is a cardinal difference between provocation as defined under Exception I and sustained provocation. The only word which is common is 'provocation.' What Exception I contemplates is a grave and sudden provocation, whereas the ingredient of sustained provocation is a series of acts more or less grave spread over a certain period of time, the last of which acting as the last straw breaking the camel's back may even be a very trifling one. We are, therefore, far from grave and sudden provocation contemplated under Exception 1 to S. 300, I.P.C. Sustained provocation is undoubtedly an addition by Courts, as anticipated by the architects of the Indian Penal Code.
35. In Sankaral Alias Sankarayee V. State MANU/TN/0554/1989 : 1989 L.W. (Crl.) 468, a Division Bench of this Court has held as under:-
When there is positive evidence to show that there was grave and sudden provocation at or about the time of occurrence, there would be no difficulty in applying the said principles. There are other type of cases, where there has been sustained provocation for a considerable length of time and there would not have been a real sudden provocation immediately preceding the murder. In such cases, the Courts have given the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300, I.P.C. on the ground that the provocation which is the route cause for the commission of the offence need not arise at the spur of the moment.
36. In Chandran, In Re 1988 Mad LW (CRL.) 113 another Division Bench of this Court, while considering the sustained, sudden and grave provocation, would hold as follows :-
As the prosecution itself is relying on the confessional statement of the accused under Section Ex. P-13, we have no reservation in accepting the case of the accused that he cut the deceased on account of the sudden and grave provocation caused by the deceased and also on account of the sustained provocation the accused has been nurturing for a long period because of the conduct of the deceased in having illicit intimacy with his wife. Hence, we hold that the accused is entitled to Exception 1 to Section 300, I.P.C.
37. In Guruswami Pillai V. State 1991 (1) M.W.N. (Crl.) 153, at page 157, another Division Bench of this Court has held as follows :
Therefore, though technically the exceptions to Section 300 I.P.C. appear to be limitative they can no longer be considered so, after efflux of time. In fact, Courts have added one more exception known as "sustained provocation'... Now that it is clear that the exceptions under S. 300, I.P.C. are not limitative, we have to examine whether Nallathangal's syndrome can be considered as one of the exceptions. Since the Code in the structure makes the exceptions limitative, Courts have to show restraint on circumspection in adding exceptions and such additions should be ejusdem generis.
38. In Chinnan @ Chinnaswami and Another V. State (1995) (2) M.W.N. (Cr.) 178, another Division Bench of this Court, after referring to the decisions mentioned above, has held as under :-
While we accept the suggestion that the last straw could be considered as grave and sudden in a series of provocations, we are of the opinion that the last straw should at least be in the nature of provocation referred to in the earlier case reported in MANU/TN/0410/1987 : 1988 L.W. (CRL.) 113.
39. These decisions would show that the Court could add the 'sustained provocation' as one of the Exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
40. These principles were reiterated in Rajendran & Another Vs. State of Tamilnadu MANU/TN/0146/1997 : 1997 2 L.W. (Crl.) 520and in Aiyyasamy Vs. State of Tamilnadu Rep. by Inspector of Police, Podanur Police Station, Coimbatore District 2005 1 L.W. (Cri.) 299.
41. Now, with this background of principles of Criminal Law on the point we shall look at the case of Poovammal.
42. Poovammal and Manicam are spouses. Their only son is deceased Deivendran. They are poor barbers. On 05.10.2007, Poovammal lost her husband. She lost the sole breadwinner of her family. She has no land. No property. Suddenly, she was placed in tragic circumstances. She has no support. Her very survival is in question. Her only hope is her son. She requested him to stay with her in the village. She pleaded with him. She almost begged him. But, he was adamant. He preferred his wife than his helpless mother. He prepared to abandon his mother and settle once for all in his wife's place Thalaiyuthu, which is far away from his mother's house. Every day she pleaded with the son to support her. He refused it. It was going on. The mother has been tormented mentally. The helpless mother was put to such a situation to feel that she will be deserted by her own son soon. She became desperate. She was frustrated. It was lingering in her mind. On the night of 22.10.2007, as usual the mother pleaded with the son and the son flatly rejected her request. On the next day, early morning, her son told his wife to get ready to leave the village for Thalaiyuthu, that is to say desert/abandon his helpless mother. He told this right in front of his mother. In the circumstances, she suddenly picked up the available weapon, M.O.1 - Axe and with that assaulted him and went into the room and closed it, wept and inflicted injuries on her abdomen and neck indicating that she had also decided to leave the world. It is pertinent to note that in her complaint P.W.1 herself had stated that her mother-in-law told the deceased that if he leave her alone, she will not live. So, at the time when the offence was committed, she lost her mental balance. She was not the master of her mind. The frustration and anguish created by the deceased in her mind continuously after 05.10.2007, got erupted in the form of her overt act on 23.10.2007.
43. There was no premeditation. She suddenly picked up the axe. The situation was not created by her. It was created by her son. Her immediate post conduct was her attempt to kill herself. What she did was killing of her son. In the facts and circumstances, it is an intentional act, why and under what circumstances she did it, we have already seen. So Poovammal's case will not fall under Section 300 I.P.C. read with Section 302 I.P.C. but will fall under Exception I to Section 300 I.P.C, so she become punishable under Section 304 I.P.C, part I.
44. In the administration of criminal justice, it is crime and punishment. Crime and punishment are not one and the same. They are not synonyms. But, they are one after the other. Crime part is defined in the statute, for instance, in this case, Section 304 I.P.C, part I. That has to be established by the prosecution and that part is over. Then comes punishment part.
45. Long back, we have bid farewell to HAMURABI'S CODE of 'Eye for Eye' and 'Tooth for Tooth'. That type of penology has become a relic of the past. Now, during sentencing, sociological considerations must also have a say.
46. It is relevant here to note the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Goraksha Ambaji Adsul 2011 (3) SCC (Cri) 255 at special page 263, wherein it was observed as under:
The principles governing the sentencing policy in our Criminal jurisprudence have more or less been consistent, right from the pronouncement of the Constitution Bench judgment of this court in Bachan Singh Vs. state of Punjab MANU/SC/0077/1979 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 580. Awarding punishment is certainly an onerous function in the dispensation of criminal justice. The Court is expected to keep in mind the facts and circumstances of a case, the principles of law governing award of sentence, the legislative intent of special or general statute raised in the case and impact of awarding punishment. These are the nuances which need to be examined by the Court with discernment and in depth.
47. At the time of occurrence, Poovammal was 55 years old. Now, she is about 60 years. She had lost her husband. She had also lost her only beloved son. As and when his glimpses comes before her, we have no words to explain the mental torture that she will undergo and it will be ever as long as she is in this world. This is her pitiable plight. But, we are not to justify her killing.
48. On the other hand, Vijayalakshmi lost her husband. Her daughter now 5 years old lost her father. As and when glimpses of her deceased husband comes before her, we have no words to explain the widow's suffering There is no limit for it.
49. Considering these extreme ends, to meet the ends of justice, appropriate punishment is required to be imposed upon her.
50. In the result,
(i) This Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) Appellant's conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and the life sentence imposed on her in S.C. No. 165 of 2008 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli on 17.11.2008 are set aside.
(iii) Instead, she is convicted under Section 304, part I, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 6 years Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment.
(iv) Her remand period shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
No comments:
Post a Comment