IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1200 of 2005 (C) ----------------------------------------- SC.231/2001 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK NO.I , PALAKKAD CP.16/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT: ------------------- MURUKAN, S/O.MARUTHAN, C. 8369, C.P. TVM.12. BY ADV. SANGEETHA LAKSHMANA RESPONDENT: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA THROUGH A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.NOBLE MATHEW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON 27/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A.No.1200 OF 2005 - C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Basheer, J: Appellant was tried before the Additional Sessions Judge’s Court (Fast Track-I), Palakkad for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The court below found him guilty and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The said order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this appeal. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the appellant was that he had committed murder of one Narayanan, S/o Nayadi by cutting at his neck with M.O.1 chopper at Anappuramkadu within the limits of town South Police, Palakkad at about 1 p.m. on April 6, 2001 because of some previous animosity. PW1 who allegedly accompanied the deceased at the time of the incident saw the appellant inflicting the injury on the deceased. PW1 gave Ext.P1, First Information Statement, before PW16, Circle Inspector. Ext.P8 FIR was registered thereafter. Investigation was conducted by PW16 and he laid charge sheet before the court. 3. Prosecution examined PW1 to PW16 and marked Ext.P1 to P11 and M.O.1 to M.O.7 on its side. There was no oral or documentary evidence on the side of the defence. 4. The prosecution relied mainly on the oral testimony of PWs Crl.A.No.1200 OF 2005 - C :: 2 :: 1,2,4,5 and 6. PW1 deposed before the court that on April 6, 2001 he had gone to town along with the deceased, who was none other than his co- brother (PW1 is the brother-in-law of the sister of the mother of the deceased) in the morning. On their way back from the town at about 9 AM, both of them reached in front of V. belt company at Anappuramkadu. PW1 saw the accused coming towards them with a chopper in his hand. The accused cut at the neck of the deceased asking him why he had threatened him earlier. Narayanan collapsed. After assaulting the deceased, the accused turned against PW1. According to PW1, he ran away from the scene. In cross examination, this witness stated that the accused had chased him for some distance. But he jumped into a nearby pond and escaped. He reached his wife’s residence after sometime. Shortly thereafter a small boy came there at about 2 p.m. and informed him that Narayanan had passed away. He was further informed that police had enquired about him and therefore he went to the scene of occurrence. 5. PW2 was working as a Security Guard in V Belt company at the relevant point of time. He stated that he saw the incident. But later, he clarified that he only saw the deceased lying dead on the road. He saw the accused passing by the dead body with a chopper in his hand. This was about 5 minutes after he saw the dead body. According to this witness, he had gone to the scene of occurrence on hearing the cry of the wife of Crl.A.No.1200 OF 2005 - C :: 3 :: deceased Narayanan. 6. PW3 was a witness to Ext.P2 inquest report. PW4 was a resident of the localities. He knew the deceased and the accused. He deposed that he had gone to the scene of occurrence after hearing a loud cry. He saw deceased lying dead on the road with an wound on his neck. His wife was near the dead body. Shortly thereafter, the accused came from the eastern side with a chopper in his hand and went towards west. PW5 also saw the deceased lying on the road. According to this witness, he had gone to the scene hearing a loud cry from the wife and the mother of the deceased. He saw the accused coming towards the west from the eastern side with a chopper in his hand. 7. PW6, the wife of the deceased identified M.O.1 chopper. She also identified M.O.2 series dress worn by the deceased at the time of his death, apart from M.O.3 torch which belonged to the deceased. This witness deposed that at about 1 p.m. while she was at home she heard a loud cry from the eastern side and she went towards that direction. She saw her husband lying on the road with an injury on his neck. It was bleeding. By the time she reached there he was dead. She also saw the accused coming from east and walking towards the west with M.O.1 chopper in his hand. 8. PW7 was a witness to Ext.P3 scene mahazar. This witness admitted his signature in Ext.P3 scene mahazar. But according to this Crl.A.No.1200 OF 2005 - C :: 4 :: witness, he had put his signature at the police station. PW8 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued Ext.P4 postmortem certificate. PW8 had noted the following injuries (Ante Mortem): Incised wound 13 x 4.5 x 6.5 cm, obliquely placed on left side of neck, lower front end 6 cm above sternal notch and 1.5 cm to the left of midline. The upper back end was placed 6 cm above root of neck and 5 cm to the left of midline back of neck. Both ends were sharp cut and the lower front end had tailing for 0.5cm. The wound cut the subcutaneous tissues, muscles, vessels and nerves on left side of neck including the carotid artery and jugular veins. The fifth cervical vertebra was obliquely cut upto its two third thickness from left to right, transecting the spinal cord. The edges of the wound were contused. The wound was directed downwards, to right and to front. 9. The doctor opined that the deceased died due to the cut injury on the neck. PW9, Village Officer, prepared Ext.P5 site plan. PW10 was yet another witness who signed in Ext.P3 scene mahazar. This witness also deposed that he had put his signature in Ext.P3 at the police station. PW11 was an attester to Ext.P6 mahazar under which M.O.4 shirt worn by the accused at the time of the incident was allegedly seized. PW12, Head Constable, was an attester to Ext.P7 mahazar under which M.O.1 chopper was seized by PW16 the investigating officer at about 6.15 p.m. at his office on the day of the incident. PW13, Photographer, stated that he had taken certain photographs as directed by the investigating officer. PW14, Police Constable, registered Ext.P8, First Information Report when Ext.P1 First Information Statement was received by him from PW16. PW15, Head Crl.A.No.1200 OF 2005 - C :: 5 :: Constable, stated that he had registered Ext.P8 First Information Report on the basis of the complaint lodged by the accused against the deceased on March 29, 2001. 10. PW16 conducted the investigation. He deposed that the accused had appeared before him at about 1.45 p.m. on the day of the incident with M.O.1 chopper in his hand. After putting the accused under surveillance, he had gone to the alleged scene of occurrence and verified whether the incident was true. He questioned PW1 at the scene of occurrence and recorded Ext.P1 statement. He held inquest on the body of the deceased shortly thereafter. This witness also spoke about the other steps taken by him for recovery of mahazar objects, etc. He came back to the police station by about 6 p.m. and arrested the accused. M.O.1 chopper was seized in the presence of witnesses. He took steps to send the mahazar objects to the chemical examiner and obtained Ext.P11 certificate which revealed that blood of the same group was detected on M.O.1 chopper, M.O.2 series - shirt worn by the accused. 11. It is contended by Ms.Sangeetha, learned counsel for the appellant that the court below had committed serious illegality in relying on the uncorroborated version of PW1, the so called ocular witness. She also highlights certain infirmities in the oral testimony of PW1. She points out that the prosecution version that the accused had surrendered before Crl.A.No.1200 OF 2005 - C :: 6 :: the police with M.O.1 weapon has been cooked up for the purpose of the case. 12. PW1 had categorically stated that he was with the deceased since 9 a.m. on that day till the unfortunate incident took place at about 1 p.m. Both of them had gone to the town. It was on way back to their place of residence that the accused assaulted the deceased with M.O.1 chopper. A perusal of the deposition of PW1 will unambiguously show that this witness had narrated the incident in no uncertain terms. It is true that there are some minor embellishments in his evidence which have crept in apparently when he tried to narrate what happened after the incident. He would say that he ran and jumped into the nearby pond (which is in fact seen marked in Ext.P5 scene plan) when the accused chased him with the chopper after assaulting the deceased. PW1 ran to safety and reached his wife's house which is half a kilometer away from the scene. One major defect pointed out in the evidence of PW1 is that in the course of cross examination, this witness had stated that he gave Ext.P1 First Information Statement one week after the incident. But PW1 had deposed in the course of his examination that he had come back to the scene shortly after the incident when he was informed that the police was making enquiries about him. 13. PW16 deposed before the court that he had reached the scene of Crl.A.No.1200 OF 2005 - C :: 7 :: occurrence within half an hour after the accused had surrendered before the police with M.O.1 chopper. The evidence of PW16 will clearly show that PW1 had come to the scene of occurrence and Ext.P1 statement was recorded by PW16 at the scene. 14. Having carefully perused the evidence of PW1, we do not find any serious infirmity in his evidence at all. PW2, 5 and 6 had spoken in unison that they had seen the deceased lying on the road with a bleeding injury on his neck. All these witnesses stated that they saw the accused with M.O.1 chopper in his hand coming from east and going towards west. They stated that the accused passed by the dead body. It may be remembered that the accused had chased PW1 after inflicting the injury on him on his neck. PW1 stated that the accused chased him for a short distance. When he jumped into the pond, the accused turned back. Obviously, PW2, 4, 5 and 6 had seen the accused walking past the dead body on his return from his chasing expedition. This perfectly tallied with the evidence of PW1. 15. Having carefully perused the oral testimonies of these witnesses, we do not find any reason to disbelieve them. PW6, the wife of the deceased stated that when she reached the scene of occurrence, she saw her husband with a profusely bleeding injury on his neck. She identified M.O.1 in the hands of the accused as he passed by the dead body a few Crl.A.No.1200 OF 2005 - C :: 8 :: minutes later. In short, the evidence of PW1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 will clinchingly show that it was the appellant and appellant alone, who had committed murder of the deceased with M.O.1 chopper. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not sufficient enough to hold the appellant guilty. 16. As mentioned by us earlier, M.O.1 chopper was recovered shortly after the incident. The report of the chemical examiner also revealed that the blood found on the weapon, the dress of the accused and that of the deceased was the same (AB group). Thus, having considered the entire materials available on record, we are satisfied that the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the accused. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellant. Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE) jes Crl.A.No.1200 OF 2005 - C :: 9 :: A.K.BASHEER & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A.No.1200 OF 2005 - C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Dated 27th July, 2009