No murder, just a killing

CHENNAI: A man who surrendered to the police after killing his wife, and did not deny the charges before the court, was found ‘not guilty’ of murder charges by a City court recently.

He was instead found guilty for a lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 302 (1) IPC) and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment as the court held that there was sustained provocation due to the conduct of the deceased, which led to the sudden murder.

The accused, M Nithiyanandam (36), a driver, inflicted multiple stab wounds on his wife, Bhuvaneshwari at their rented house in Guindy after he found her on a video call with another man.

“I did it in a fit of rage. Her conduct was not good. I accept my crime,” he deposed before the court when the charges against him were read out.

Nithiyanandam got married to Bhuvaneswari in November 2020. The couple were living at a rented house in Labour Colony, Guindy. According to the prosecution, he would fight with her even if she spoke to her family members on the phone.

On July 12, 2021, the house owner had received a phone call from Bhuvaneswari’s relative stating that the accused had called his co-worker and told him that he had “done something wrong” and asked the owner to check the house. When he went to the couple’s portion, he saw Bhuvaneswari lying dead on the cot.

Nithiyanandam surrendered at the Guindy police station the next day. The post mortem revealed 16 stab injuries on the woman. Guindy police filed a final report against Nithiyanandam invoking charges under Section 302 IPC (murder).

During the trial, he told the court that he had already warned his wife several times over her behaviour and even spoke to her family about it. “During the COVID-induced lockdown, I was driving vehicles carrying medical supplies and one night when I came home after work, her brother-in-law, a police constable was at home and he threatened me to not make it a big issue,” Nithiyanandam told the court. “She was on a video call with the constable again. I lost control and stabbed her.”

While not denying the plea made by the accused admitting to the guilt, his counsel argued that it was not pre-meditated murder and that it was committed in a fit of rage due to sustained provocation and submitted that charges under Section 302 were not applicable.

After perusing arguments from both sides, Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, TH Mohammed Farooq noted that Nithiyanandam’s testimony was not denied or discredited by the prosecution in any manner. “It’s trite law that the accused is also a competent witness and his testimony has to be treated equally and shall be taken into consideration. The testimony would clearly indicate that there was severe matrimonial discord between the accused and the deceased regarding her conduct,” the court stated, and pointed out that police had not explained why the mobile phone was not seized and subjected to forensic examination to confirm whether the confession given by the accused was true or not.

Further, the investigating agency had also failed to collect the call details records of the mobile phones used by the couple in order to verify the correctness of the confession statement given by Nithiyanandam.

“Therefore, the prosecution’s evidence will prove that the accused had killed his wife. But, the evidence of the accused would establish the circumstances in which he killed his wife,” the Sessions Judge stated. “The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused murdered his wife with the premeditated intent to attract the charge under Section 302.”

On the other hand, the materials on record would establish that the accused had committed a lesser offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (part-I) of IPC, the court held and sentenced him for 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000.

Under Section 302, life imprisoment guaranteed

While the police would have viewed it as an open-and-shut case with the accused confessing to the killing of his wife and the weapons seized, it’s a case that highlights the importance of evidence gathering and presenting it before the trial court.

“The investigating agency that had recorded the accused’s confession has not explained why the mobile phones were not seized and subjected to forensic examination to confirm whether the confession was true or not. Further, the agency has also failed to collect the call details records of the deceased and the accused to verify the authenticity of the confession statement given by the accused,” the sessions court had noted.

It also pointed out that the agency’s omission to seize the mobile phones and produce them as evidence would lead to an inference that the explanation given by the accused about the circumstance in which he killed his wife can be believed and relied upon. While in this case, the accused still gets to serve jail time under a lesser charge, legal experts say that in most crimes of passion (murder cases), police get conviction.