IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.HEMA THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010/27TH KARTHIKA, 1932 CRL.A.No. 554 of 2010 (D) ------------------------- SC.131/2009 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KOTTAYAM CP.26/2008 of J.M.F.C.,PALA APPELLANT(S): ------------ GOPI,C.NO.4553, CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-12 BY ADV. SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): -------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. REKHA C. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-11-2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl. Appeal No. 554 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------- Dated 18th November, 2010. JUDGMENT This appeal arises from the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by Additional Sessions Court for offence under Section 307 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to under go rigorous imprisonment for six months. Out of fine, if realised, an amount of Rs.5000/- was ordered to be paid as compensation to PW1. 2. According to prosecution, on 26.4.2008 at about 4 p.m. PW1 was going through the public road and when he reached near a bridge accused, owing to previous enmity, stabbed PW1 with a knife on the chest and abdomen and attempted to commit murder. To prove the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 and MO1 were marked. On the side of accused DW1 was examined. The accused pleaded innocence. 3. On an analysis of the evidence, the trial court found that the evidence of PW1 stands fully corroborated by the evidence of [Crl.A. No.554/2010] 2 Pws 2 and 3 and medical evidence of PWs.6 and 7. It was also held that the act of the appellant was that the knowledge that the stabbing of PW1 on the vital part of the body could cause death. The evidence of DW1 was rejected as hearsay evidence. 4. The accused was undefended and therefore Sri. Vipin Narayanan was appointed as State Brief. According to the appellant, evidence of PWs1 to 3 ought not to have been believed by the court. No recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is effected in this case and hence there is nothing to connect the appellant with the crime, except the evidence of PW1, it is submitted. There was a scuffle between the appellant and PW1 and as a result of which PW1 fell down on an iron rod and he sustained injuries. His hands were also inured due to the fall, it is contended. 5. On going through the records, I find that to prove the occurrence, PWs 1 to 3 were examined by the prosecution. PW1 is the injured himself. He has given evidence consistent with the prosecution case. He deposed that on the date of occurrence at 4 p.m. he was walking through the public road near a bridge while the accused came from the opposite direction and stating that he had asked on several occasions not to tie the cow in [Crl.A. No.554/2010] 3 Thirumeni's plot and thereafter caught hold of the collar of shirt of PW1. To prevent the attack, he caught the accused while he took out a knife and stabbed him on the left side of the chest and also on the centre of the chest above stomach. 6. PW1 deposed that he caught the knife while he sustained injuries on 4 fingers of the left hand. PW3, who is a friend of PW2, came running and intervened. PW1 fell down and he was taken to the hospital. PW2 corroborated the above evidence to a certain extent. He stated that on 24.6.2008, at about 4 p.m., an incident happened near a bridge and he saw PW1 catching the hand of the accused. PW1 also was found to be injured and blood was oozing out of his chest. PW2 caught the knife from accused's hands and PW1 fell down. He produced the knife MO1 before the police which was seized by the police. 7. According to PW3, he had not seen PW1 sustaining injury but about 4 p.m. PW2, PW3 and one Suresh Babu had intervened and PW1 was found bleeding from the chest. He also saw PW2 taking out something from the hands of the accused. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is corroborated by the medical evidence given by Pws 6 and 7. PW6 the Doctor examined PW1 and noted two injuries on the chest and also on the fingers. The cause of [Crl.A. No.554/2010] 4 alleged injury was stabbing with knife. 8. The accused has a case that the injures were sustained by falling on the iron rod etc. but the doctor emphatically denied such possibility in examination. He stated that injuries 1 to 3 cannot be caused falling on stone stick etc. and that those are multiple injuries. He stated that MO3 cannot cannot be caused by falling on the road. PW7 stated that surgery was done on PW1 and the discharge certificate is Ext.P5. He is a Lecturer in Surgery at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. He also stated that grievous injury sustained by PW1 is not likely to be caused by a fall. There is absolutely no reason to discard the medical evidence. 9. It is also relevant to note that as per the evidence, PW1 was taken to three different hospitals and surgery was also conducted. He was on bed for a very long period of time. PW6 and PW7 categorically deposed that the nature of the injures sustained by PW1 is grievous and it can cause death. Two injuries were sustained on the chest and it is clear from the evidence that the accused had inflicted grievous injury which can cause death. Accused must be having knowledge that infliction of injury with a knife on the chest would cause death. While the accused [Crl.A. No.554/2010] 5 challenges the conviction on various grounds, learned Public Prosecutor supported the evidence of the appellate court stating that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and the medical evidence. It is also argued that there is nothing to accept the defence evidence to hold that the incident occurred in the course of attack made on the accused. 10. The accused put forward a case that he had sustained injury. DW1 was examined to show that it was accused who was beaten up. Suggestions were also made to the effect that another person was attacking the wife. DW1 was examined to prove this fact but the trial court has rightly rejected his evidence. He only stated that his wife told him that accused was being beaten up. He has a case that his eye-sight is very poor and he has no case that he saw the accused. That apart, from the evidence of PW2, it is clear that some time after the incident, the accused was beaten up. 11. But it is clear from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 that nothing happened to the accused while PW1 was attacked by him. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that PW1 sustained injuries while accused was being beaten up or attacked by some other persons. The case put forward by the [Crl.A. No.554/2010] 6 defence cannot be accepted at all. On going through the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, the trial court found that there is nothing to discredit their version. The trial court has analysed the evidence in detail and I do not find any reason to come to a different finding. In the above circumstances, I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the conviction. The sentence awarded is also proportionate to the gravity of offence. This appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Krs. K. HEMA, JUDGE.