IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1933 CRL.A.No. 171 of 2007 ----------------------- SC.714/2004 of I ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/ACCUSED: ---------------------- SURESH, S/O.KUNJAPPAN, PLACHERY VEEDU, MEKKAPPALA KARA, KOMBANADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIV NAMBISAN RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA C.I. OF POLICE, KURUPPAMPADY REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. by PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI ROY THOMAS THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH,JJ ============================== CRL.A. NO. 171 OF 2007 ============================ Dated this the 16th November 2011 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The appellant/accused assails the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence and the sentence imposed on him in a prosecution under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He faces the sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. 2. The prosecution alleged that the appellant/accused had caused the death of his brother-in-law Raghavan by stabbing him with MO.1 knife on 24/3/2001 at 3.40 p.m. inside a bus which was parked at the bus stop. Investigation commenced with Ext.P1 F.I.statement lodged by PW1. Investigation was completed and final report was filed by PW14. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The appellant denied the allegations against CRL.A. 171/2007 2 him. 3. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 14 and proved Exts.P1 to P17. Mos.1 to 7 were also marked. The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied all circumstances which appeared in evidence and which were put to him. He did not examine any defence witness. No defence Exhibits were also also marked. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, on an anxious evaluation of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. 5. An appellate judgment must essentially be read in continuation of the judgment of the trial court. We are not, hence, embarking on a detailed re-narration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. Suffice it to say that counsel have taken us through the entire oral and CRL.A. 171/2007 3 documentary evidence available in this case as also other materials including the 313 statement of the accused. 6. The prosecution primarily relied on the oral evidence of PWs.1,2 and 5 as witnesses to the occurrence. PW2 is the sister of the appellant and the wife of the deceased. The elder sister of PW2 was the wife of the deceased. She committed suicide. Thereafter PW2, who was living separately from her husband, joined the deceased and they started living as husband and wife. The appellant was evidently not happy with the said relationship. There was strain in the relationship between the appellant and the deceased. It is this animosity which allegedly led to the commission of the offence. 7. The deceased, his wife PW2 and his co-worker,PW5 had gone to their place of work. They worked in the forest collecting dried leaves. They finished their work. They had to return to their place of residence in a bus. PWs.3, 5 and the deceased had boarded the bus. It was parked in the bus terminus. It was CRL.A. 171/2007 4 then that the appellant also came in to the bus. He, who was available in the bus, took out MO.1 knife and stabbed the deceased. PWs.2 and 5, who were allegedly available in the bus, had seen the incident. PW1 is the conductor of the bus . The bus was parked at the bus terminus. The crew of the bus including PW1 were having tea in a nearby tea shop. It is then that the incident took place and when PW1 along with other members of the crew of the bus had rushed to the scene of occurrence, they found the deceased in an injured condition and the appellant/accused near him with the knife. The deceased was holding the hand of the appellant and crying for help when PW1 reached the bus. PW1 had taken the deceased, who was seriously injured, in the very same bus to make medical treatment available to him. The bus stopped at a point and thereafter, the deceased was moved to the hospital in a jeep. There, PW4 doctor examined him and issued Ext.P3 wound certificate. A surgery was performed on him and PW6 proved CRL.A. 171/2007 5 the said surgery. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on the same evening by about 9-10 p.m. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor have advanced their arguments. Learned counsel assails the impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence on two specific grounds. They are i)The learned Sessions Judge erred in accepting and acting upon the oral evidence of PWs.1,2 and 5. ii)At any rate the learned Sessions Judge ought to have held that the ingredients of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.have not been validly established. 9. We have considered all the relevant inputs. PWs.1,2 and 5 have tendered evidence in support of the prosecution case. PW2 is said to be an interested witness. She is none other than the wife of the deceased and the brother of the appellant. The only area of disagreement between PW2 and the appellant is that the appellant did not approve of her conduct of living with CRL.A. 171/2007 6 the deceased. No other reasons are even suggested to exist. That is a double edged weapon. That allegedly operated as the motive, according to the prosecution. The same allegedly operated as a motive for false implication, according to the appellant. PW5 is a co-worker of the deceased. Except that they were co-workers and had come together in the scene of occurrence in connection with the work which he, the deceased, PW2 and some others had undertaken, there is no semblance of material to assume that PW5 was in any way interested in falsely implicating the appellant. PWs.2 and 5 were available inside the bus when the incident took place. They are indisputably the most natural witnesses who could have been present at the scene of occurrence. There is of course material to show that others inside and outside the bus were also occurrence witnesses. PW1 is the only other witness examined the prosecution to prove the incident. PW1 is the conductor of the vehicle and he is, in any view of the matter, the person best CRL.A. 171/2007 7 suited to give the most disinterested evidence. He has witnessed the incident - at least substantial portion of the incident. That exactly is what PW1 spoke about. He did not witness the act of infliction of the injury. But hearing the commotion, he rushed to the bus from the neighbouring tea shop to see the deceased with the injury, the accused holding the knife and the deceased attempting to ward off further attack on the part of the appellant. The deceased was holding the hand of the accused and was crying for help. This is the consistent evidence of PWs.1,2 and 5. 10. Even adopting the most critical of standards, we find absolutely no reason for this court to approach the evidence of PWs.1,2 and 5 with any amount of doubt, distrust or suspicion. Their evidence support each other inter se. Their evidence is supported by the earliest version in Ext.P1 F.I. statement. Their evidence is further supported by the medical evidence about the injuries suffered. Their evidence is further broadly supported by CRL.A. 171/2007 8 the recovery of MO.1 knife from the bus. Viewed from any angle, we find no reason to doubt, suspect or discard the available evidence or even to approach the evidence of PWs.1,2 and 5 with any amount of reservation. 11. Having rendered our very anxious consideration to all the relevant inputs, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has committed no error in choosing to accept and act upon the oral evidence of PWs.1,2 and 5. 12. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to contend that the appellant, if the prosecution versions were true, had a lot of opportunity earlier to inflict the injury. That certainly is not a very vital input while considering the oral evidence of PWs.1,2 and 5 which broadly inspires the confidence. The omission of the prosecution to examine the other witnesses who may have seen the occurrence, which is another important plank of challenge, does not also in any way persuade us to approach the evidence of PWs.1,2 and 5 with CRL.A. 171/2007 9 reservation. It is significant that the appellant has no specific defence except a blank and vague total denial of all circumstances. In any view of the matter, we are satisfied that the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of PWs.1,2 and 5 can be believed does not warrant interference. 13. We now come to the next ground of challenge. The oral evidence of PWs.1,2 and 5, if believed clearly establishes that the appellant had inflicted the fatal injury on the deceased with MO.1 weapon. Learned counsel argues that the appellant had no intention to cause the death of the deceased. The injury, it is evident, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Vital organs were injured and there was copious bleeding into the peritoneal cavity. The injury, it is clear beyond doubt was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was intentional infliction of the very same injury. In these circumstances, the offence proved against the appellant/accused squarely falls within the sweep of clause “thirdly” of Section CRL.A. 171/2007 10 300 I.P.C. We find no merit in the challenge raised against the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. 14. The sentence imposed is also most reasonable, fair and modest. The same does not also warrant interference. 15. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. R.BASANT, JUDGE V. CHITAMBARESH,JUDGE ks. CRL.A. 171/2007 11