IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA, 1930 CRL.A.No. 415 of 2005(C) ------------------------ SC.585/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (FAST TRACK COURT I), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CP.109/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II,NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED: -------------- SHOUKATHALI @ MASTHAN, S/O.PICHAKANNU, C.NO.9169, CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.SOWMIAVATHY(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, BY A PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI NOBLE MATHEW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON 15/01/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.415 of 2005 -------------------------------------- Dated this the day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Thomas P.Joseph, J. Judgment of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court- I), Thiruvananthapuram in S.C.No.585 of 2003 convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the Code’) and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence is under challenge in this appeal. 2. Heard. Perused the records. 3. Point for consideration is whether conviction of the appellant is legal and proper? 4. Case is that on 3.9.1998 at or by about 8.30 p.m. on the Vizhinjam Harbour road at Vattavila near the tea shop of CW11, appellant, with intent to cause the death of Suvarnakumar @ Manikantan (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') inflicted injuries on him with MO1, knife and caused his death. According to the prosecution, on the day of incident at about 7 p.m. while the deceased and PW6 were sitting on the parapet of the culvert near the stationery/pan shop of PW14 at Vattavila junction, appellant and CW4 came there and the appellant flashed torch light on the face of the deceased which was Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 2 objected and questioned by the latter. Appellant used obscene words at the mother of the deceased. Thereon, deceased and PW6 beat the appellant and CW4 with hands and sent them away. On account of that enmity, while the deceased was proceeding to his house and reached near the shop of CW11 at about 8.30 p.m., appellant inflicted stab injuries on the deceased. First information regarding the alleged incident was given by PW1, bother-in-law of the deceased to CW31 on 3.9.1998 at about 11.15 p.m.. CW31 registered case for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Code. Initial investigation was conducted by CW32. Further investigation was conducted by PW20. PW21 laid the final report. It is contended by the appellant that his conviction is not legal and proper and that learned Additional Sessions Judge went wrong in accepting the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 5. PW1, the first informant is not a witness to the incident. While he was at his house at Ookkode on 3.9.1998 at about 9.30 p.m. one Pradeepkumar told him that somebody stabbed the deceased. He came to the house of the deceased and learned about the death of the deceased. He reached Vizhinjam Police Station at about 11.15 p.m. the same day and gave statement (Ext.P1). PWs 3, 6 and 14 are examined to prove the incident near the shop of PW14 on 3.6.1998 at about 7 p.m. PW14 stated that on 3.9.1998 at or by about 7 -7.30 Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 3 p.m., deceased had come to his stationary/pan shop at Vattavila junction. PW6 (Asharaf) came there and called Ali who was smoking a cigarette. PW6 caught Ali by his hand. Ali warded it off. The bottle in his shop fell down and was broken. PW14 demanded compensation. Comrade Krishnan who came there, got Rs.125/- from Ali and PW6 and settled that matter. Comrade Krishnan sent them away. Deceased was sitting on the parapet of the culvert near the shop. PW6 went there and sat near the deceased. After sometime, PW14 heard a commotion. He came out and saw the appellant flashing torch light on the face of the deceased and the latter giving a blow to the appellant. Deceased and PW6 sent the appellant away. Thereafter he did not see the deceased. At about 8 - 8.30 p.m. he heard that the deceased was stabbed near his house. PW3 is a resident near Vizhinjam Harbour road and had been to Vattavila junction on 3.9.1998 at about 7 p.m. to purchase medicine for his wife. PW3 referred to the incident in the shop of PW14 and after Comrade Krishnan settling the issue, PW6 going to the parapet of the culvert and sitting near the deceased. At about 7.30 p.m. appellant and CW4 came there and flashed torch light on the face of the deceased. That was questioned by the deceased. Appellant used obscene words at the mother of the deceased. Deceased beat the appellant and CW4 with hand. Appellant and CW4 ran downwards. PW3 also deposed Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 4 to the incident near the shop of CW11 which we will advert to, later. PW6 also gave evidence regarding the incident of flashing torch light near the shop of PW14 as deposed by PWs 3 and 14. PW6 stated that sometime after the appellant and CW4 ran downwards, deceased went to his house. PW6 proceeded to his own house and after some time, learned that the deceased was stabbed. 6. PWs 2, 3 and 5 are examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged incident at 8.30 p.m on Vizhinjam Harbour road near the shop of CW11. PW5 is the mother of the deceased. She claimed that as the deceased was getting late to come home for supper, she was waiting for him at the courtyard of her house. At about 8.30 p.m. she saw the deceased and a person engaged in a tussle on the road near her house and that person stabbing the deceased with a knife. Deceased was brought in front of her house by PW3 and others and then taken to the hospital. Later she was informed about the death of her son. She identified MO1 as the knife with which the assailant stabbed the deceased. At the time of examination she went near the dock of the accused and identified the appellant as the assailant. She also identified MO2 series, the pants and shirt appellant was wearing at the time of incident and MO3 series as the clothes the deceased the was wearing. PW2 is a resident of Vattavila. Though Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 5 PW2 also referred to the incident in front of the shop of PW14, he admitted that he had only hearsay information about that. He saw the deceased and PW6 sitting on the parapet of the culvert near the shop of PW14. After sometime the deceased went towards his house. PW2 went to the shop of Bhaskara Panicker, following the deceased, to purchase tea dust and sugar. Near the shop of CW11, PW2 saw the appellant coming against the deceased. Appellant took a knife, identified by the witnesses in court as MO1, and stabbed the deceased . When the deceased caught the appellant, the latter again stabbed him and ran towards the township. Deceased followed the appellant a little and collapsed. Himself and PW3 lifted the deceased and brought him to the courtyard of his house. Hearing the alarm of PW5, elder brother of the deceased came out from the house. In the autorickshaw of the elder brother of the deceased, the latter was taken to the hospital. At Azhakulam junction the deceased was shifted to the jeep of flying squad and brought to the hospital. At the hospital, the doctor after examining the deceased declared him dead. PW2 also identified MO2 series and MO3 series are the clothes the deceased and the appellant were wearing at the time of incident. 7. We have already referred to the evidence of PW3 regarding the incident in front of the shop of PW14. He claimed to have seen the deceased Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 6 proceeding towards his house. PW3 had been to purchase medicine from the medical shop and was smoking a cigarette near the Madrassa. Near the house of the deceased, appellant took a knife from the pocket of his pants and stabbed the deceased thrice and then ran away. PW3 also stated about himself and PW2 taking the deceased to the courtyard of his house and taking to the hospital and identified MO1, MO2 series and MO3 series, PWs 2, 3 and 5 claimed to have witnessed the incident in the light of the burning tube lights (2) in front of the shop of CW11 and the bulb on the nearby electric post. According to PW2, there was also a burning bulb on the electric post near the Muslim Colony. 8. PW16, Head Constable who was leading flying squad No.7 stated that on the day of incident at about 8.40 p.m., the deceased with bleeding injuries was brought in an autorickshaw to Azhakulam wherefrom, PW16 and party took him in their jeep to the Medical College Hospital where the medical officer after examining the deceased declared the latter dead. PW4, lecturer in surgery at Medical college Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram claimed to have examined the deceased at that hospital on 3.9.1998 at 9.20 p.m. and issued Ext.P4, certificate. According to PW4, deceased was brought dead to the casualty by flying squad No.7. PW8 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 4.9.1998 and issued Ext.P7. It is revealed from the evidence that Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 7 deceased sustained three incised wounds involving the neck and abrasion on the back of left forearm. PW8 opined that injury No.3 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death and that the incised wounds could be caused by stabbing with a weapon like MO1. CW32 conducted inquest of the body of the deceased on 4.9.1998 and seized MO3 series, the clothes found on the dead body. PW18 is the attestor in Ext.P13, the inquest report. 9. Ext.P11 is the mahazar for scene of occurrence prepared by CW32 on 4.9.1998. PW12 is the attestor in Ext.P11. Ext.P11 states that there were blood stains at and near the place of occurrence and on the courtyard of the house of PW5. Ext.P9 is the sketch plan prepared by PW9, Village Officer . Going by Exts.P9 and P11, stabbing incident occurred towards the middle of Vizhinjam Harbour road about five metres away from the shop of CW11. House of deceased is situated 23.6 metres away from the scene of occurrence. There is a mosque situated about 50 metres away and an electric post with bulb, five metres away from the scene of occurrence. PW10, Assistant Engineer of Vizhinjam Electrical Sub Station issued Ext.P12, certificate to the effect that there was no power cut from Kovalam 11 K.V. feeder line covering Vizhinjam township colony area (covering the place of occurrence) on 3.9.1998. PW15 claimed that CW11 was doing business in the shop building belonging to Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 8 him and that there are two tube lights in front of that shop. That shop will function till about 11 p.m. The tube lights in that shop were burning at the time of incident. PW15 saw the deceased lying on the floor with bleeding injuries. 10. According to the prosecution, CW32 arrested the appellant on 10.9.1998 at about 5.40 p.m. and on questioning, appellant gave information regarding concealment of MO1 (knife) and MO2 series (clothes) and based on that information, CW32 recovered MO1 and MO2 series as per Ext.P14 on 11.9.1998. PWs 13 and 19 are attestors in Ext.P14. PW13 did not support the prosecution. PW19 supported the prosecution and stated that he saw the appellant producing MO1 kept on the beam and MO2 series kept on the clothline in the house of the appellant. CW32 was not available for examination. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has stated that it was because CW32 was on duty in Kosava from 28.12.2003 onwards. PW20, the Deputy Superintendent attached to the Crime Branch, Narcotic and Economic Offences Wing took up investigation from CW32 on 9.10.1998. He referred to CW31 recording Ext.P1 and registering the case and CW32 conducting the preliminary investigation. Further investigation was conducted by PW21 who laid the final report. 11. When questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 9 Procedure, appellant denied the allegations and evidence against him and claimed that he is innocent. Appellant examined DW1, the Civil Surgeon (Psychiatry), Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.D1 is a certificate issued by DW1. His evidence is that appellant was admitted in the Mental Health Centre from the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram on 23.7.2003. Appellant was suffering from schizophrenia. He was discharged on 11.11.2003 as his condition improved and he was free of symptoms. He was again admitted in that hospital on 19.6.2004 and discharged on 11.8.2004 as his condition improved and he was free from symptoms. According to DW1, schizophrenia is a serious mental illness affecting thought and behaviour and is a chronic disabling illness. In cross-examination he stated that Dr.Priya, Psychiatrist was the first medical officer who had seen the appellant on his admission at Mental Health Centre and that Dr.Priya diagnosised the illness of the appellant as 'schizophrenia. Even in the case of schizophrenia there will be lucid intervals. DW1 was of opinion that appellant was not suffering from any such illness during the year 1998. If a person committed a grave crime, paranoid schizophrenia can occur in him due to sleeplessness, mental depression, strain, etc. 12. Though in a case which rest on direct evidence motive losses Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 10 importance, there is the evidence of PWs 3, 6 and 14 regarding the incident that transpired near the shop of PW14 on the day of incident at 7 p.m. involving the appellant and the deceased. Regarding the stabbing incident, PWs 2, 3 and 5 have given evidence. Contention raised against the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5 is that they are not witnesses to the incident. According to the appellant, suspicion surrounded the investigation, an Action Council was formed, investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch and later, he was falsely implicated. It is contended that Ext.P15, report prepared by CW32 arraying the appellant as the assailant though dated 4.9.1998 reached the court only on 9.9.1998. Ext.P15 was prepared only on 9.9.1998 and no reliance can be placed on it. Further contention is that if CW32 had recorded the statement of PWs 2, 3 and 5 on 4.9.1998, necessarily the name of the assailant would have been mentioned in Ext.P13, the inquest report. According to the appellant, absence of name of assailant in Ext.P13 is a definite indication that CW32 had not recorded the statement of PWs 2, 3 and 5 on 4.9.1998. It is also contended that Exts.P1, P1(a) and P13 reached the court only on 7.9.1998 and the delay is not explained. 13. Exts.P1 and P1(FIS and FIR) though dated 3.9.1998 and Ext.P13 (inquest report) though dated 4.9.1998, reached the court only on 7.9.1998. Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 11 Ext.P15 though dated 4.9.1998 reached the court only on 9.9.1998. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that 3.9.1998 to 6.9.1998 (both days inclusive) were holidays in connection with Onam and being Sunday but ofcourse 7.9.1998 and 8.9.1998 were working days. No doubt CW32 should have ensured whether the intervening days were holidays or not, that those documents reached the court at the earliest. But there is no reason or circumstance to think that those documents are fabricated. If Exts.P1, P1(a) and P13 were fabricated, the name of the assailant could have been mentioned there. So far as the contention that name of the assailant is not mentioned even in Ext.P13 (inquest report) is concerned, PW2 stated that he was questioned by the Police on 4.9.1998. PW3 claimed that if he remembers correctly, he was questioned by the Police on 11.9.1998. PW5 was not asked when she was questioned. Ext.P13 shows that CW32 had not questioned PWs 2, 3, 5, 6 or 14 at the time of inquest. None of the witnesses for the motive or the incident at 8.30 p.m. were questioned at the time of inquest and it was also not necessary to question such witnesses as the purpose of conducting inquest is not to find out who the assailant is, but to ascertain the apparent cause of death. Therefore the absence of name of the assailant in Ext.P13 is of no consequence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that though there was some Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 12 delay in Exts.P1, P1(a), P13 and P15 reaching the court, that is not in any way fatal. On a consideration of the evidence, We are inclined to agree with the view expressed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We have considered the evidence of PWs 2, 6 and 14 regarding the motive and the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5 regarding the incident. We did not find any material contradiction or omission in their evidence sufficient to discard the same. 14. There are circumstances which corroborate the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5 regarding the incident. We have referred to the seizure of MO1 and MO2 series by CW32 as per Ext.P14 on 11.9.1998. It is purported to be a discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act (for short, 'the Act') on the information allegedly given by the appellant. Though on account of his duty at Kosava CW32 who effected seizure could not be examined and though, PW13, one of the attestors did not support the prosecution, Ext.P14 is proved by PW19, another attestor in that mahazar. PW19 was working as Assistant Executive Engineer of Vizhinjam Harbour and the seizure as per Ext.P14 was effected in the house of the appellant near his office. PW19 has identified MO1 and MO2 series as the material objects referred to in Ext.P14. We find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW19. Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 13 15. Next question is whether that seizure can be brought within the purview of Section 27 of the Act. In State of Kerala v. Ammini and others (1987 (1) KLT 928) a Division Bench of this Court held that the Investigating Officer has to speak to the words spoken by the accused which led to the discovery. It is sufficient if the relevant portion of the statement of the accused is separately marked as an exhibit and the Investigating Officer deposes that the accused told him as per that exhibit. In this case, though CW32 was not available for examination, PW20 who deposed to the investigation conducted by CW32 could have deposed to the information which the appellant allegedly gave to CW32 and which led to the seizure. That was not done. We also find that the relevant portion of the information contained in Ext.P14 is not separately marked as an exhibit. Therefore from the mere proof of Ext.P14, the information allegedly given by the appellant and which led to the seizure of MO1 and MO2 series cannot be said to be proved. Hence the seizure as per Ext.P14 cannot come within the mischief of Section 27 of the Act. But the conduct of the appellant taking out MO1 from the beam of his house and pointing out MO2 series on the clothline is relevant and admissible under Section 8 of the Act. Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 14 16. MO3 series, clothes which the deceased was wearing at the relevant time were seized by CW32 at the time of inquest as per Ext.P13. MO1 to MO3 series were sent for chemical examination. PW11, Chemical Examiner has proved Ext.P10, certificate of chemical examination. It is stated in Ext.P10 that MO1 and MO3 series were stained with human blood. The pant in MO2 series (identified by PWs 2, 3 and 5 as the one which the appellant was wearing at the time of incident) is also proved to be stained with human blood. The blood stain on MO2 series and the pan in MO3 series was not sufficient to identify the group. The blood stain on MO1 was identified to be of 'O' group. In Ext.P7 (postmortem certificate), PW8 has stated that the blood group of the deceased was identified in the blood bank as 'O Rh positive'. Thus, it is shown that the blood stain on MO1 and the blood of deceased belonged to the same group. Appellant has no explanation for the presence of human blood on MO1 and his pant. The above facts corroborated the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 5 that MO1 is the knife with which the injuries were inflicted on the deceased and that appellant was wearing MO2 series at the relevant time. Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 15 17. We have gone though the evidence and contention raised on behalf of the appellant. On considering the entire evidence and the contention raised on behalf of the appellant, we are satisfied that the court below rightly found that the appellant inflicted the stab injuries on the deceased with MO1 on the relevant day, time and place. We find no reason to interfere with that finding. 18. Next question is whether the appellant had the necessary animus to cause the death of the deceased. PW8 who conducted the autopsy has opined that injury No.3 was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death of the deceased. We notice from Ext.P7 that serious injuries were inflicted on vital part of the body. The weapon used is MO1, a knife which is a dangerous weapon. Appellant examined DW1, obviously to prove that he did not have the required mental condition to understand the nature of the act at the relevant time. Though evidence given by DW1 would show that appellant was admitted in the Mental Health Centre from the Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram on 23.7.2003, his illness was diagnosised as schizophrenia, he was discharged on 11.11.2003 and again admitted on 19.6.2004 and discharged on 11.8.2004, DW1 was specific that appellant was not suffering from any such illness during the year 1998 (the incident occurred on 3.9.1998). Even as per the version of DW1, a schizophrenic can have lucid intervals during the period of his illness. Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 16 He also opined that a person who committed a grave crime, due to sleeplessness, mental depression and strain can develop such illness. When a plea of mental insanity is raised by the appellant, he had to prove or atleast probabilise that plea. There is no case or evidence of any history of mental aberration for the appellant any time prior to 23.7.2003. The circumstances proved in the case regarding the incident on 3.9.1998 also do not in any way indicate that appellant, even if it fell short of legal insanity as understood in Section 84 of the Code, was deprived of the capacity to understand the nature and consequence of his act during the relevant time. In that situation, by merely showing that for schizophrenia appellant was admitted in the Mental Health Centre almost five years after the incident, he cannot successfully avail the protection of Section 84 of the Code, nor can he claim that he did not have the mens rea to inflict fatal injuries on the deceased. Facts, evidence and circumstances lead to the irresistible conclusion that appellant intended to cause the death of the deceased. Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 17 19. In the circumstances stated above, we find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Code. Sentence awarded is as provided under Section 302 of the Code and required no interference. Resultantly, this appeal fails. It is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, Judge. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.Appeal No.415/2005 18 K.Balakrishnan Nair & Thomas P.Joseph, JJ. Crl.Appeal No.415 of 2005 JUDGMENT January, 2009.