IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1133 of 2006(C) ------------------------ SC.673/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT-II, THRISSUR CP.59/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM .................... APPELLANT : (ACCUSED IN SC.673/2004): --------------------------------------- KRISHNAN KUTTY @ VASUTTAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, CHENAMCHATTIL HOUSE, KAIPPARAMBU VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT --------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 ***************************** Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Is it safe to place reliance on the oral evidence of the occurrence witness PW2? ii) Is the accused entitled to the benefit of any doubt? iii) Is the verdict of guilty and conviction under Section 302 I.P.C justified? These are the questions that have been raised before us for consideration by Advocate C.D.Dileep, the counsel for the appellant in this appeal. 2. The appellant faced indictment for uxoricide. He is alleged to have caused the death of his wife Padmini by inflicting multiple injuries on her with M.O1 chopper on the public road while she was walking along the public road - returning from her place of work. The alleged motive is the refusal of Padmini to return to live with the appellant/accused. 3. Investigation commenced with the registration of Ext.P13 F.I.R proved by PW15 on the basis of Ext.P1 F.I Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 2 statement lodged by PW1. The incident allegedly took place at 6 p.m on 06.05.2002. The F.I statement was lodged at the police station by PW1 at 8 p.m on the same date. The F.I.R, it is seen from the records, had reached the learned Magistrate at 11 a.m on 07.05.2002. 4. After completing the investigation, it was PW17, who filed final report/charge sheet raising the allegation under Section 302 I.P.C against the appellant. The learned Magistrate duly committed the case to the Court of Session. Before the Court of Session, the appellant/accused denied the charge levelled against him. Thereupon the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence in support of the charge and the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 17 and proved exhibits P1 to P25. M.Os 1 to 5 were also marked. 5. On the side of the accused, no evidence - oral or documentary, was adduced. The court below, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances, came to the conclusion that it is absolutely safe to rely on the oral evidence of PW2, the only occurrence witness, who had tendered evidence in support of the prosecution. Accordingly the court below proceeded to pass the impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 3 sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant/accused faces a sentence of imprisonment for life. 6. An appellate judgment is and has to be read as continuation of the judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has adverted to the oral and documentary evidence as also all the other materials and matters before it. It is unnecessary, in these circumstances, for us to attempt to re-narrate the relevant facts, evidence, materials and matters in this appellate judgment. We shall not do the same. We may hasten to observe that the learned counsel for the appellant has taken us exhaustively through the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 17 and Exts.P1 to P25 as also all other relevant matters/materials. We shall advert to the relevant evidence/matters as and when necessary in the course of our discussions in this judgment. 7. The prosecution had wanted to rely upon the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who had allegedly witnessed the occurrence. The incident took place on a public road lying east- west. She was returning from west to east after her day's work in a precious stone polishing establishment. The accused allegedly came on his bicycle from west towards east. He stopped when he reached the deceased. He got down from his Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 4 cycle. In the cycle, he had kept M.O1 chopper. He took out M.O1 chopper and inflicted multiple injuries on the deceased from the rear. PW1 has his residence on the northern side of the spot of occurrence, whereas PW2 has her residence on the southern side of the place of occurrence. The incident and the cries of the deceased attracted the attention of persons like PWs 1 and 2. They had witnessed the occurrence. The accused after the incident allegedly went away from the scene of the crime on his bicycle carrying M.O1 weapon along with him. Neighbours and local persons rushed the deceased to the hospital. She succumbed to the injuries on 07.05.2002. 8. As stated earlier, on the date of the occurrence itself, within 2 hours of the actual occurrence, we find PW1 reaching the local police station to lodge Ext.P1 F.I statement. The contents of Ext.P1 F.I statement completely support the case of the prosecution against the appellant/accused. However, PW1 turned hostile to the prosecution with impunity. He admitted his signature in Ext.P1, but surprisingly chose to eat his words in Ext.P1 and stated that he had not seen the incident and he does not know how the deceased had suffered the injuries found on her person. A reading of the oral evidence of PW1 can leave no Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 5 trace of doubt in the mind of a prudent person that PW1 is not speaking the truth. He has now found it convenient to completely betray Ext.P1 and advance a version totally inconsistent with Ext.P1. To say the least, the evidence of PW1 does not inspire confidence at all. The totality of circumstances convincingly show that PW1 had narrated the true version before the police in Ext.P1 shortly after the occurrence. But long later when he was examined on oath, such sense of commitment to truth did not inform him. Be that as it may, we need only mention that the version of PW1 on oath before court does not inspire us at all. We feel that in all probability PW1 had narrated the true, honest and genuine version in Ext.P1 before the police. On account of various compulsions, he is now retracting from his version in Ext.P1, it appears to be absolutely certain. 9. The prosecution was thus left with the oral evidence of PW2 to explain to the Court the precise manner in which the deceased suffered the injuries. The oral evidence of PW3, PW4, Ext.P3 and the perceptions of the Investigating Officer recorded in Ext.P3 scene mahazar must clearly show that the deceased suffered the injuries at the spot on the northern road margin. That spot was on the south of the house of PW1 and on the north Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 6 of the house of PW2. Not a semblance of doubt is left in the mind of court on that aspect. 10. How did the deceased suffer the injuries? This is the only question that remains. On this aspect we have the direct ocular version of PW2. PW2, we note, is admittedly residing on the southern side of the road. Her house is situated 8 metres away from the scene of the crime by the side of that road. She is one of the most probable and natural witnesses who could have witnessed the occurrence. She is a 36 year old woman. She is employed as a domestic help and the evidence of PW3 shows that she was present at the scene of the crime when she reached the scene of the crime on hearing the cries. Thus the totality of circumstances compellingly point to the acceptability of the version of PW2 before Court. 11. We have already noted that the case of the prosecution is in tandem with the initial version, which was available before the police in Ext.P1 F.I statement. PW2 has explained in detail the manner in which the incident had taken place. She is known to the deceased and her husband, the appellant herein. The deceased and the appellant were residing separately on account of certain disagreements/strain in their Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 7 relationship. We have the evidence of PW6, the brother of the deceased. He also confirms that the spouses were residing separately on account of some strain in their relationship. The evidence available about motive does also eminently support the ocular account given by PW2. On broad probabilities, inherently and intrinsically, we find absolutely no circumstances that can justify or warrant an approach with suspicion and distrust against the oral evidence of PW2. Her evidence rhymes well with human probabilities and the common course of events. Her evidence is further supported convincingly by the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased which are revealed from the oral evidence of PW12 and Ext.P9 wound certificate and Ext.P10 case sheet proved by him. Medical corroboration for the oral evidence of PW2 is further available from the oral evidence of PW13 and Ext.P11 postmortem certificate proved by him. A perusal of the scene mahazar Ext.P3 and Ext.P12 sketch of the scene prepared by PW14 as also the recovery of M.O4 blood stained leaves etc. from the scene of the crime support the oral evidence of PW2. We have anxiously gone through her cross examination. It is not at all revealed that there is any inconsistency or incongruity between her version on oath and Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 8 her version before the police in the course of investigation. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that there are no circumstances against the acceptability of the evidence of PW2 and there is a ring of truth around the evidence of PW2. We may also note in this context that the version of PW2 rhymes well with the F.I.R recorded by the police, ie. Ext.P13, though consequent to the hostility of PW1, the contents of that F.I statement is not proved before court. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it must have been a case where the assailant was not seen by any witness. The counsel argues that infliction of injuries must have been by an unknown person. No witness may have seen it and even if anyone had seen it, such witness may not have been in a position to identify the assailant. In support of this theory advanced by him, the learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on Ext.P9 wound certificate proved by PW12. Neither the prosecution, nor the accused had attempted to bring that entry in Ext.P9 to the notice of the court formally adducing evidence on that aspect. The learned counsel alertly points out that in Ext.P9 the allegation is that an unknown assailant had inflicted the injury on the deceased. The deceased was taken to Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 9 PW12 at 6.30 p.m on 06.05.2002. Assault by unknown person is the history recorded by PW12. This can only be reckoned as a prior statement of some person. Obviously the person who gave the statement was not the deceased. As Ext.P9 shows that she was unconscious at the relevant time, we have evidence only of PWs 1 and 2 as eye witnesses. PW1 has no case that it was he who gave that version before the doctor. According to PW1 he had gone to the doctor. But he has no case that it was he who gave that statement. PW12 doctor is not even asked by either side as to who had given that version before the doctor. Materially that statement does not generate any reasonable doubt in our mind as we have a convincing assurance from hostile PW1 that he had lodged Ext.P1 on the same night before the police. The version in Ext.P1 shows convincingly that it was not an unknown person who had assaulted the deceased, but the appellant, her own husband, who had indulged in such indiscretion. In these circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is that the deceased being unconscious, the doctor must have ascertained the history from some person who had not witnessed the occurrence and who was not able to name the offender. At any rate, that statement (which has not been proved Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 10 satisfactorily also) cannot, even if proved, generate any reasonable doubt in our mind in the light of the very natural, probable and trustworthy evidence tendered by PW2. In coming to this conclusion, we alertly note that the police had been informed by 8 p.m by admitted Ext.P1 signed by PW1 that it was the appellant who was responsible for the injuries found on the body of his wife. 13. The theory that no one may have witnessed the occurrence does not at all appeal to us. It is for this reason that we initially tried to find out and locate the precise spot of the incident. Not a semblance of doubt is left in our mind that the incident has taken place at the spot located in Ext.P3 scene mahazar and marked in Ext.P12 sketch. 14. We do, in these circumstances, come to the conclusion that the court below committed no error in choosing to place reliance on the oral evidence of PW2. 15. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that in the wake of the shameless hostility of PW1 who retracted from Ext.P1, the prosecution is unable to offer ocular corroboration for the testimony of PW2. But the learned Public Prosecutor points out that convincing assurance for the version of PW2 about the Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 11 responsibility of the appellant for infliction of the injury on the deceased is available from the evidence of PW16, the Investigating Officer, and the recovery of blood stained M.Os 1 and 2 after interrogation of the appellant. We have the evidence of PW16 to show that the accused was arrested on 08.05.2002 at 5 p.m. He was interrogated. He allegedly made a confession statement. In such confession statement, he furnished information about the concealment of M.O1 weapon by him. Ext.P17 is the relevant extract. The relevant extract, we note, has not been prepared very carefully by the Investigating Officer. We say this because the relevant extract only shows “if you take me, I will take out the chopper and give you”. In Ext.P6 Seizure mahazar also, only this portion is extracted. But however, when PW16 was examined in Court, he had given the relevant information in better detail on oath. In evidence, he stated that the accused had told him “I have kept the chopper on the eastern wall of my house. If you take me there, I will take out the chopper and give you”. PW16 had given direct evidence of this information given by the appellant and also the recovery of M.O1 under Ext.P6 seizure mahazar prepared by him. PW10 is a witness examined as an attestor to Ext.P6. He also turned Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 12 hostile to the prosecution. He was cross examined by the Prosecutor and Ext.P7 case diary contradiction was marked. Notwithstanding the hostility of PW10, we note that the version of PW16 about the recovery of M.O1 on the basis of the confession statement of the appellant under Ext.P6 seizure mahazar is convincingly corroborated by the contents of the contemporaneous Ext.P6 seizure mahazar. PW10 admits his signature in Ext.P6, it is significant. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that it is absolutely safe to place reliance on the oral evidence of PW16 about the recovery of M.O1 under Ext.P6 on the basis of the confession statement of the appellant. 16. We have satisfactory evidence to show from the oral evidence of PWs 12 and 13 that the injuries found on the deceased could have been inflicted with a weapon like M.O1. We further have evidence from Ext.P25 report of the Chemical Examiner that M.O1 contains human blood. 17. The evidence of PW16 further shows that M.O2 shirt of the accused was seized by him under Ext.P8 seizure mahazar in the presence of PW11, one of the attestors. M.O2 shirt was found to be blood stained and Ext.P25 Chemical Examiner's Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 13 report further confirms that there was human blood in M.O2. The recovery of M.Os 1 and 2 after the arrest and interrogation of the appellant, which were found to be blood stained also, goes a long way to afford assurance to the Court for the oral evidence of PW2. 18. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that the court below was absolutely justified in placing reliance on the oral evidence of PW2. We concur with that conclusion of the court below. The appellant, we find, is not entitled to any benefit of doubt on that aspect. 19. Coming to the nature of the offence established against the appellant, we have satisfactory evidence to show that the injuries inflicted by the accused had led to the death of the deceased. The offence under Section 299 I.P.C is thus clearly established. We have the oral evidence of medical experts to show that the injury No.3 was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Those injuries including the fatal injury, the evidence convincingly reveals, were intentionally inflicted. There is nothing to assume that the injuries that had resulted did not result from intentional inflictions. Offence under Section 299 I.P.C therefore gets Crl.Appeal No.1133 of 2006 14 exalted into the offence defined under Section 300 I.P.C under clause 3. There are no circumstances to bring the instant case within anyone of the exceptions under Section 300 I.P.C to enable the accused to contend that the offence under Section 300 I.P.C has slided back to the offence under Section 299 I.P.C. The verdict of guilty and conviction under Section 302 I.P.C is thus found to be absolutely justified. 20. The sentence imposed is the minimum that can be imposed under Section 302 I.P.C. The same also does not warrant interference. 21. In the result: a) This Criminal Appeal is dismissed; b) The impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed are upheld. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-