IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2009 / 22ND ASWINA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1566 of 2005() ------------------------ (S.C. NO. 147 OF 2003 OF 1ST ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM) APPELLANT(S): ACCUSED IN SC.NO.147/03: ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHNY, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, EZHUTHAICKAL VEEDU, KUTTAMPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT IN SC.NO.147/03: --------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAVINDRA BABU. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. NOBLE MATHEW. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON 14/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. Appeal No. 1566 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J, The accused was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also directed to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of which he has to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of five months. 2. P.W.1, a mason by profession, and the cousin of th deceased, on 25.2.2001 at 12.30 p.m. was on his way to the market to purchase vegetables. On the way he met his sister, namely, Philomina. They were going along the Kuttampuzha bridge. They heard a loud noise from behind. They turned round and found the accused stabbing the deceased with M.O.1 knife repeatedly. P.W.1 and others removed the deceased to the hospital. On reaching the hospital the doctor pronounced Crl.A.1566/2005. 2 him dead and Ext.P4 is the relevant certificate. By about 2.30 p.m. on the same day, P.W.1 laid Ext.P1 first information statement. Ext.P1 first information statement was recorded by P.W.15, who registered Crime No.14 of 2001 as per Ext.P11 FIR. Investigation was taken over by P.W.16. On 25.2.2001 at about 3.45 p.m. he conducted inquest over the body of deceased and prepared Ext.P2 inquest report. He had M.Os. 5 and 6 seized. The body was sent for postmortem examination. P.W.10, the Forensic Surgeon conducted autopsy and furnished Ext.P6 report. P.W.16 prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar and had M.O.1 chopper seized as per Ext.P7 mahazar. As per Ext.P10 he seized M.O.4 Lunki said to have been worn by the accused at the time of the incident. He arrested the accused. He had also seized a complaint given by the deceased against the accused on the very same day morning as per Ext.P12 mahazar. He had the articles seized during the investigation sent for chemical examination and Ext.P13 is the chemical analysis Crl.A.1566/2005. 3 report. The accused was produced before court on 9.3.2001 and he was remanded to judicial custody. P.W.16 had recorded the statements of witnesses and completed major portion of the investigation. P.W.17 is his successor in office who completed the investigation and laid charge before court. 3. JFCM, Kothamangalam took cognizance of the offence. On appearance of the accused before the said court, all legal formalities were complied with. The learned Magistrate complied with all the necessary legal formalities. The learned Magistrate found that the case is one exclusively triable by a court of Sessions and therefore committed the case to Sessions Court, Ernakulam under Section 209 Criminal Procedure Code. On receipt of the records, the said court made over the case to First Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. 4. The said court, on receipt of records, issued summons to the accused and he entered appearance. After hearing Crl.A.1566/2005. 4 both sides, charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. It was read over to the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution had therefore P.Ws. 1 to 17 examined Exts.P1 to P15 (a) marked. M.Os. 1 to 8 were identified and marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him and maintained that he is innocent. In his defence he stated that he was innocent and he had nothing to do with the incident. He denied that his clothes have been seized. He said that he had no ill feeling towards the deceased. On 23.2.2001 at about 5.30 P.M. he had hired the vehicle of one Kurian Joy and had gone to Kannur for selling the pine apple grown by him. When he returned in the evening on the date of the incident, he came to know about the same. He enquired about the reason for the incident. When he Crl.A.1566/2005. 5 enquired about the incident he came to know that there was some money transaction between the deceased and the person who committed the offence. On the next day he participated in the funeral ceremony of the deceased. On the next day also, as usual, he went to Cherthala for his business purpose. He would depose that Korakkal Jose was enimical towards him for the reason that he had spoken against him in the Panchayat election. Jose holds considerable influence in the area. It is out of that vengeance he had been falsely implicated. 5. Finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Criminal Procedure Code, he was asked to enter on his defence. He had D.Ws. 1 to 3 examined and Exts.D1 to D4 (a) marked. On a consideration of the materials before it, the court below found that the prosecution had established the case against the accused and accordingly conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed. The said conviction and sentence are assailed Crl.A.1566/2005. 6 in this appeal. 6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the court below was justified in holding that the accused was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code. 7. The prosecution case in brief is that on the date of the incident in the afternoon while P.W.1 and his sister were going along, they happened to see the accused stabbing the deceased. It appears that the prosecution case is that there was a quarrel between them on the previous day and that resulted in the incident. In order to prove the incident the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6. Even though P.W.12 was examined by the prosecution, he turned hostile. The court below found the evidence adduced by the prosecution sufficient to hold the accused guilty. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the accused pointed out that the court below has not appreciated the evidence in the Crl.A.1566/2005. 7 proper perspective and that has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It was pointed out that there is intrinsic evidence to show that P.W.1 was not at the place of the incident at the relevant time and that he had come much later. The glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 make them unworthy of credit. According to the learned counsel, the deceased had four other brothers by name Korakkal Jose, Korakkal Johny, Korakkal Paily and Korakkal Devassykutty. Sijo is the son of Korakkal Paily. According to the counsel, in order to save Sijo, who had committed the murder, the accused had been falsely implicated. Korakkal family is very powerful and influential. None in the locality dared to speak against them. Even going by the prosecution case, according to the learned counsel, the police station is only 300 meters away from the place of incident and the injured had, while being taken to the hospital, to pass by the police station. It is inconceivable that, till P.W.1 laid First Information Crl.A.1566/2005. 8 Station at 3.30 p.m., the police had no information about the incident. It is highly improbable also. P.W.1's evidence is that his clothes were drenched with blood, but for the reasons best known to the investigating agency they did not feel it necessary to seize those clothes. P.W.1 had stated that Sijo is very dear to him and he would do anything for him. Relying on the sketch prepared by the Village Officer, it was pointed out that the location of the place of occurrence was unreliable and that cuts the root of the prosecution case. The sketch has not been properly drawn. The result according to the learned counsel is that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the case against the accused. 9. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the court below has taken pains to meticulously analyse the evidence. The court below found the evidence adduced sufficient enough and entered a finding that the offence had been established. Drawing attention of this court to the fact that the plea of the accused was Crl.A.1566/2005. 9 infact one of alibi and that he had examined three witnesses in that regard, learned Public Prosecutor stressed that the accused had not succeeded in establishing the plea of alibi. That is a strong circumstance which goes against the accused. The claim of the accused is that he was nowhere at the place of the incident and it was Sijo who had done the mischief. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that his plea of alibi was put forward for the first time at the time of being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. There was no suggestion regarding the defence set up by him to any of the prosecution witnesses at all. True,, P.W.12 has chosen to betray the prosecution and has chosen to support the accused. But a close reading of the evidence shows that his evidence is not worthy of credit. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that one cannot omit to note that the incident has taken place in broad day light in a public road and it is inconceivable that anyone could have been falsely implicated. Learned Public Prosecutor also Crl.A.1566/2005. 10 pointed out that the reasons given for falsely implicating the accused are too feeble. According to the accused, he had spoken ill about the deceased in a Panchayat election. It was after considering all these aspects, the court below has come to the conclusion that the offence had been established. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that no grounds are made out to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded by the court below. 10. One of the principal witness for the prosecution is P.W.1. He, as already noticed, is related to the deceased. He would say that on the date of the incident he was on his way to purchase vegetables from the market. On the way, he was joined by his sister. While going along the bridge, they happened to hear a sound from behind. They turned round. They saw the accused repeatedly stabbing the deceased. He would depose that P.W.12 wrested the weapon from the hands of the accused. P.W.1 claims Crl.A.1566/2005. 11 to have rushed to the aid of the deceased. The deceased was removed to the hospital in a jeep. As soon as they reached the hospital, Doctor pronounced him dead. He would then depose that he had then gone to the police station and laid Ext.P1 First Information Statement. 11. P.W.2 is an eye wintess to the incident. So also P.W.3. They are husband and wife. They run a tea shop. The tea shop is situated in Arekkar Junction. They open the tea shop at 6 a.m.. The date of the incident was a Sunday. On that day also the tea shop was open. P.W.2 would say that on that day at about 10 -10.30 a.m. deceased Baby had come along with his child to the tea shop and had food from there. He waited for his wife to return from the Church. While so, these witnesses would depose that the accused came near the tea shop and there was an exchange of words between them regrading the money to be paid to the accused. P.W.2 would say that as the accused was leaving the Crl.A.1566/2005. 12 place, the deceased challenged him. Infuriated, according to this witness, the accused took out a knife from the big shopper bag he was carrying and stabbed the deceased. The incident happened near the Kuttampuzha bridge. He says that he and his wife, namely P.W.3 came out of their tea shop and they saw the accused repeatedly stabbing the deceased. Seeing the incident, the child of the deceased cried and ran out. The child was taken inside the shop by P.W.3. As soon as she entered the tea shop she became unconscious. By that time, people had gathered at the spot and P.W.12 had wrested the knife from the accused. A jeep was brought and the deceased was removed to the hospital. The accused managed to escape. He later came to know that the injured was no more. 12. P.W.3, as already stated, is the wife of P.W.2. She also speaks about the incident. She too speaks about P.W.12 having wrested the knife from the hands of the accused. She took Crl.A.1566/2005. 13 the child of Baby (deceased) inside the tea shop and she became unconscious soon thereafter. She speaks about the quarrel between the deceased and the accused with reference to the money to be paid for having purchased meat on the previous day. 13. P.W.4 runs a stationary shop. He says that the accused happened to pass by his shop and when he asked about the quarrel between the deceased and the accused on the previous day, the accused told him that the deceased had given a complaint against him to the police and that he would do away with him. Soon thereafter this witness claims that he heard a loud noise from near the bridge and when he reached the spot he found P.W.12 wresting the knife from the accused. He would depose that the deceased was removed to the hospital. 14. P.W.5 says that hearing the noise when he reached the spot, he found the deceased lying there with the stab injuries. He along with others removed the deceased to the hospital. Crl.A.1566/2005. 14 15. P.W.6 too says about having seen P.W.12 wresting knife from the accused and the deceased being taken to the hospital. He would also depose that he saw the accused running away from the place. 16. P.W.7, the witness speaks about the quarrel on the previous day of the incident between the accused and the deceased. He would say that he heard the accused threatening the deceased. 17. These are the main items of evidence. It is not in dispute that Baby died due to stab injuries. This would be clear from the evidence of P.W.10 and Ext.P6 postmortem certificate. P.W.10 has categorically stated that the death was caused due to injury No.4, which was on the chest of the deceased. He speaks about the other injuries also found on the body of the deceased. He is of the opinion that injury No.4 could have been caused by using M.O.1. Crl.A.1566/2005. 15 18. Before going into the other questions, one contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant may be noticed. It was contended that the weapon of the nature like M.O.1 could not have been caused the injuries made mention of in Ext.P6 certificate taken by P.W.10. According to learned counsel, the weapon has a slight hook at the tip and that could not cause the nature of injuries said to have been inflicted on the deceased. 19. There is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Doctor has given details regarding the injuries and also the fact that those injuries could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1. He was subjected to extensive cross examination, but he stood his ground and reiterated that the injuries could be caused by a weapon like M.O.1. In fact there was no suggestion to the doctor that any other weapon had been used. The Forensic Surgeon has given detailed explanation regarding the injuries and how it could have been caused with M.O.1 weapon. Crl.A.1566/2005. 16 20. There may be some substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 was not at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. His evidence had already been referred to. When one recalls the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, they say about Baby, the deceased, having come to the tea shop with his child. One shall not forget the fact that P.W.1 is closely related to the deceased. The child was aged only about two and a half years. After the accused had quarreled with the deceased and was about to leave the place, he was challenged by the deceased and thereafter the unfortunate incident took place. The defence has a case that P.W.1 came at a much later stage in fact at the time of removing the deceased to the hospital, and that he was nowhere at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time. 21. Going by the evidence of P.W.1, he happened to meet his sister Philomina and they were walking along the bridge that then the unfortunate incident occurred. They happened to see Crl.A.1566/2005. 17 the accused stabbing the deceased and they rushed to the aid of the deceased. P.Ws. 2 and 3 had categorically stated that seeing the attack on his father the child ran out crying 'Papa Papa'. Obviously, if P.W.1 and his sister were present at the place, they could not have omitted to notice the child. P.W.1 does not say anything about the presence of the child at all. The further evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 are to the effect that the child was taken back to the tea shop by P.W.3 and soon thereafter P.W.3 became unconscious. Even assuming that P.W.1 was immediately concerned with rescuing the victim, and taking him to the hospital, his sister could not have omitted to take care of the child. This glaring omission in the evidence of P.W.1 cause some doubt about his presence at the place of the incident at the relevant time. 22. There is yet another glaring aspect. P.W.1 claims to have rushed to the aid of the victim. At that time, even according to this witness, the victim was bleeding profusely. He Crl.A.1566/2005. 18 claims to have carried the deceased to the autorickshaw along with two others and he also claims that his clothes were drenched in blood. It is rather strange to note that his clothes were not seized by the investigating officer for the reasons best known to them. It is also interesting to note that going by the evidence of P.W.1, after taking the victim to the hospital, when they were told that the victim is no more, P.W.1 claims to have directly gone to the police station. If as a matter of fact, what P.W.1 says is true, obviously his clothes would have been seized by the police. However, even going by the defence version, he joined the others at the time when the victim was being taken to the hospital. That appears to be more probable. It cannot be said that the evidence of P.W.1 is above board. His claim that he had actually seen the stabbing of the victim by the accused is open to doubt. 23. However, the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 stand on a different footing. They are two independent and natural witnesses. Crl.A.1566/2005. 19 Of course there are some inconsistencies and minor contradictions in their evidence. But they are of trivial in nature. 24. In the decision reported in Kulesh Mondal v. State of West Bengal (AIR 2007 SC 3228), it was held as follows: “To the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh (IR 1973 SC 2407) and Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002 (3) SCC 76). As observed by this court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt.Kalki and Anr. (AIR 1981 SC 1390), normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock ad horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there, however, honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so. These aspects were highlighted in Crl.A.1566/2005. 20 Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar etc (JT 2002 (4) SC 186).” 25. In the decision reported in Ramappa Halappa Pujar v. State of Karnataka ((2009) 1 SCC (Crl) 250) it was observed that when the witnesses deposed after several years of the incident, it is only natural that minor inconsistencies and contradictions creep into their evidence. But unless they are shown to be material and unless they affect the prosecution, they cannot be given undue importance. 26. It may be that the witnesses, when they depose after a long time may omit to speak about the minor details and there may be some inconsistencies and contradictions in their evidence. But these inconsistencies and contradictions by themselves are insufficient to make them unworthy of credit. Irrelevant details which do not in any way affect the credibility of the witnesses cannot be labelled as omissions and contradictions. Crl.A.1566/2005. 21 27. It is the quality of the evidence one has to look at and not the quantity. Unless there are compelling circumstances, it may not be possible to reject the evidence of a witness based on minor contradictions and inconsistencies. The witnesses cannot be expected to retain photographic memory of the incident and moreover the power of reception, retention and reproduction varies from person to person. The attempt is to see if there is a ring of truth in the evidence and whether there is any reason to falsely implicate the accused. 28. One cannot omit to note that P.Ws. 2 and 3 are natural witnesses. It is not disputed that they were running the tea shop very near to the place of incident. Of course, there is a suggestion that they could not have seen the incident from the tea shop. But evidence shows that they could have seen the incident and also that they had come out hearing the sounds. Reliance placed on the scene plan is not of much consequence. It is in tune Crl.A.1566/2005. 22 with the mahazar prepared by the investigating officer and it does not suffer from any infirmities as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is significant to notice that there is no suggestion to the witnesses who supported the prosecution case that it was not the accused who had committed the act, but Sijo. No suggestion is made to them as to why they should falsely implicate the accused. The story given at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is clearly an after thought and has no substance at all. 29. There is nothing to indicate that even assuming that the evidence of P.W.1 is not fully acceptable, P.Ws. 2 to 7 had any reason to speak against the accused. They are natural witnesses. Of course the defence has a case that Korakkal family terrorise the area and all people are afraid of them. If that be true, the accused would not have got persons to speak in his favour. The above claim is too fragile. There is no basis for it at all. Crl.A.1566/2005. 23