IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1697 of 2005() ------------------------ SC.3/2002 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT FAST TRACK NO.II, (ADHOC), THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- SUJI, S/O. SUDHAKARAN, KOTTAKKATTU HOUSE, ELTHURUTH, METHALA. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. NOBLE MATHEW. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON 07/10/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. Appeal No. 1697 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of October, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J, The appellant was found guilty of the offence of homicide. He was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. 2. The incident in this case occurred on 1.10.2000 at about 5.15 p.m.. P.W.1 was standing near the Subramanyan temple at Undekkadavu. He saw the accused coming along the road from north to south and he had a knife with him. Murali, the deceased had come out of the Rakshaka Sangham Office housed in the shopping complex nearby. As soon as the accused saw the deceased, the deceased was stabbed repeatedly by the accused. P.W.1 rushed to the aid of the victim. Even though the deceased caught hold of the knife used by the accused, he was unable to hold on to the same. Murali fell Crl.A. 1697/2005. 2 down on the road. P.W.1 and others are said to have taken him to the varenda of a stationary shop nearby. They then fetched an autorickshaw and removed him to the Modern Hospital at Kodungallur. On the way, it is alleged that, when the autorickshaw slowed down to avoid a pot hole on the road, the accused again stabbed the deceased. Even though he was rushed to the hospital, Murali breathed his last soon. The motive, according to the prosecution, is political rivalry. Getting intimation about the death, P.W.16, the Head Constable, went to the Modern Hospital at Kodungallur and recorded Ext.P1 first information statement furnished by P.W.1. He returned to the police station and on the basis of Ext.P1, Crime No.393 of 2000 of Kodungallur Police Station was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code as per Ext.P1(a) FIR. Investigation was taken over by P.W.17. He conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and prepared Ext.P4 report. He then went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.P5 scene mahazar. According to him, Crl.A. 1697/2005. 3 the accused surrendered before him on the very same day itself and based on the confession statement M.O.1 knife was recovered as per Ext.P9 seizure mahazar. Finding that offence under Section 324 IPC is also made out, he filed a report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur. The clothes worn by the accused at the relevant time brought by the father of the accused was seized as per Ext.P13 mahazar. The clothes worn by the deceased at the relevant time was seized as per Ext.P10 . The articles seized during investigation were sent for chemical examination and he received Ext.P15 report. He had the plan prepared by the Village Officer. He recorded the statements of witnesses and completed investigation and laid charge before court. 3. JFCM, Kodungallur took cognizance of the offence. On appearance of the accused before the said court, all legal formalities were complied with. The learned Magistrate found that the offence is one exclusively triable by a court of Sessions Crl.A. 1697/2005. 4 and accordingly committed the case to Sessions Court, Thrussur. The said court made over the case to Additional Sessions Court, Fast Tract-II (Ad Hoc), Thrissur for trial and disposal. 4. The latter court, on receipt of records, issued summons to the accused and he entered appearance. After hearing both sides, charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and it was read over to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution therefore had P.Ws. 1 to 18 examined Exts.P1 to P17 marked. M.Os. 1 to 7 were identified and marked. After the closure 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. He stated that he has been falsely implicated due to political reasons. Finding that the accused cannot be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. He had examined D.W.1 and marked Crl.A. 1697/2005. 5 Exts.D1 to D6, which were the relevant portions of the CD. On an appreciation 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 sentences are assailed in this appeal. 5. The court below found the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 convincing enough. The court found that there was further corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5. Further the court below also placed reliance on the recovery of M.Os. 1 to 3 at the instance of the accused based on his confession statement. Thereafter the court blow has come to the conclusion that the offences had been established. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the court below has erred in analysing the evidence on record and has based its conclusion on surmises and conjectures. Drawing attention of the evidence of P.W.1, it was pointed out that Crl.A. 1697/2005. 6 his case is that he was injured due to the act of the accused while going in the autorickshaw. Learned counsel referred to the evidence of D.W.1, who had occasion to treat P.W.1 and Ext.D6 is the relevant wound certificate. That certificate says that there was no injury suffered by P.W.1 as claimed by him and it was also pointed out that he had gone for treatment after two or three days of the incident. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the evidence of this witness ought to have been rejected. 7. P.W.1 has stated that he had seen the incident while he was sitting beneath the banyan tree near the temple. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relying on Ext.P11 series of photographs pointed out that not only there is no banyan tree in the place, but there is no possibility of P.W.1 seeing the incident while sitting beneath the banyan tree and that belies the version of P.W.1. It was then contended that there are serious inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence of witnesses and the court below ought not to have discarded them. At any rate, according to Crl.A. 1697/2005. 7 learned counsel, the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, pointed out that the court below has taken care to analyze the materials on record and has come to the right conclusion that the offence has been established. All the infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are trivial in nature and does not affect the core of the prosecution case. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that inconsistencies and contradictions are bound to occur in the evidence of witnesses. They are deposing after a long time of the incident and they cannot be expected to retain photographic memory. The court has to see whether there are material contradictions or inconsistencies in their evidence concerning material points or whether there was deliberate attempt to develop a false case which would make their evidence doubtful. In the case on hand, there was no reason as to why P.W.1 and other witnesses should depose against the accused. They are natural witnesses. Crl.A. 1697/2005. 8 The court below has analysed their evidence very carefully. Along with this is the inculpatory circumstance of effecting recovery of M.O.1 knife, which was used for the assault based on the confession statement said to have been given by the accused. It was pointed out that there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the court below. 8. P.W.1 is the author of Ext.P1 first information statement. He claims to have seen the incident. He was sitting on the Althara (low platform around banyan tree) near the temple. He saw the accused coming along north towards south. At that time the deceased, namely, Murali was coming out of the Raksha Sangham office. While Murali was going along the road, the accused stabbed him. P.W.1 and others rushed to the aid of the victim. The victim has also tried to escape. He was repeatedly stabbed by the accused. Murali caught hold of the knife, which was being used by the accused. But he could not hold on to the same. The accused wielded the knife and threatened others from Crl.A. 1697/2005. 9 going near Murali. However, P.W.1 would say that they were able to carry Murali to the varenda of the stationary shop owned by one Unnikrishnan. The accused left the place. One Ramesan got an autorickshaw. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 took the victim to the Modern Hospital at Kodungallur. While they were going along the autorickshaw, it so happened that inorder to avoid a pot hole on the road, the autorickshaw had to slow down. P.W.1 would say that at that time the accused again tried to stab the victim and in that process he was also injured. He would say that by about 7 – 7.30 on the day of the incident Murali died. 9. P.W.2 is another occurrence witness. According to him, he happened to see the incident while he was sitting in the varenda of the shopping complex nearby. One Ramsan was with him. He found the deceased, namely Murali, coming out of the Raksha Sangam office and going towards southern side. He claims that he saw the accused coming towards Murali and stabbing him. Murali cried aloud and tried to escape. But he was caught hold of Crl.A. 1697/2005. 10 by the accused and repeatedly stabbed. Even though Murali tried to wrest the knife from the accused, he was unsuccessful and in that process Murali suffered further injuries. He too claims that he had rushed to the aid of Murali and the accused had taken to his heels. He then says about having removed Murali to the hospital and also about the incident took place while they were going in the autorickshaw as spoken to by P.W.1. 10. P.W.3 would say that on the relevant day he being the Secretary of the Raksha Sangham was attending to the office he heard a cry from outside. When he came out, he found that the accused had caught hold of Murali by his collar and he was being repeatedly stabbing him. When Murali tried to escape, he was restrained and again stabbed by the accused. When Murali caught hold of the knife used by the accused, he was kicked by the accused. This witness also says that he along with P.Ws. 1, 2, and 4 had taken the victim to the hospital. Crl.A. 1697/2005. 11 11. P.W.4 only says that he happened to see the accused going near the autorickshaw in which Murali was being taken to the hospital. 12. P.W.5 is an autorickshaw driver in whose autorickshaw Murali was removed to the hospital. He says about the presence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 in the autorickshaw. While they were going to the hospital, he too says that he had to slow down the autorickshaw near a pot hole on the road. At that time, he says that the accused again tried to stab the deceased. In the process, he caused injuries to P.Ws. 1 and 4. 13. P.W.6 speaks about the incident on the previous day. 14. It admits of no doubt that the death of Murali was due to the inflicted injuries. Any doubt in this regard is dispelled by the evidence of P.W.11 and Ext.P8 postmortem certificate. He had also stated that the injuries noticed by him in Ext. P8 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1. Crl.A. 1697/2005. 12 15. The question is whether the court below was justified in holding that it was the accused who had caused the injuries on the deceased. 16. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 clearly show that the act was committed by the accused. Of course, the infirmities pointed out regarding the evidence of P.W.1 is that even though he claimed that he was injured due to the act committed by the accused, that is belied by the evidence of D.W.1. Even assuming it is true, that does not mean that his entire evidence has to be discarded. One must recall that the evidence of other witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2, 3, 4, and 5 also support the stand of P.W.1 that while Murali was taken in the autorickshaw to the Hospital at Kodungallur, the accused again tried to stab him. In fact P.W.5 would say that in the process, P.W.1 was in fact injured so also P.W.4. Even if no injury as such had been caused to P.W.1, one cannot discard his evidence since it gains considerable support from other sources. Crl.A. 1697/2005. 13 17. The argument based on the photograph is only to be rejected. Ext.P12, the sketch prepared by the Village Officer and Ext.P5, the scene mahazar will clearly show the existence of the Althara in the temple premises. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim of P.W.1 is that while he was sitting on the Althara he happened to see the incident. It cannot be correct because going by the sketch he could not have seen the incident from there. 18. We are afraid that the evidence has been misread by the learned counsel for the appellant. The witness has only stated that he happened to see Murali coming out of the Raksha Sangham office and thereafter the incident had occurred. He had not stated that he had seen the incident while sitting on the Althara. He has clearly stated that he had seen Murali going towards the southern side when the accused came from his behind and stabbed him. The fact that Murali was repeatedly stabbed can be found to be true from Exts.P7, P4 and P8. As already noticed, the evidence is to the Crl.A. 1697/2005. 14 effect that the injuries noticed in these documents could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1. 19. True, there are certain embellishments and contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. But those are bound to occur. If the witnesses give a Parrot like version of the incident, then it has to be doubted. The power of reception, retention and reproduction varies from person to person. The incident itself was a ghastly one. It is not necessary that each of the witnesses should notice all the aspects of the incident. 20. One does not begin with a presumption that witness is to be disbelieved. On the other hand it is otherwise. Unless it is shown that there are reasons to disbelieve a witness, the rejection of his evidence will not be justified. In the case on hand there are three occurrence witnesses, who had occasion to see the stabbing by the accused and they had given a consistent and uniform version regarding the incident. They had no reason to falsely implicate the accused. There was no suggestion made to Crl.A. 1697/2005. 15 them that they had any axe to grind against the accused or that they had illmotive to falsely implicate the accused. No reason has been brought to our notice for the witnesses to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent man. Such false implication is ordinarily impossible where the murder took place in broad day light and that too by the side of a busy road. 21. Even assuming that P.Ws. 1 to 3 had some interest in the matter, P.Ws. 4 and 5 are independent witnesses. P.W.5, the autorickshaw driver, speaks about the act committed by the accused while the victim was being removed to the hospital. On a close scrutiny of the evidence adduced in this case, it can be found that the prosecution has been able to give convincing and cogent version regarding the incident. The evidence is uniform and consistent. 22. Merely because the complaint, namely, Ext.P3 filed by P.W.6 does not refer to the victim does not mean that the prosecution case has to be thrown out. P.W.6 has stated that at the Crl.A. 1697/2005. 16 relevant time he was concerned with his affairs. True the prosecution wanted to prove that the incident which had occurred on the previous day. Even assuming that the prosecution did not succeed in its attempt does not mean that the other convincing item of evidence will have to be rejected. 23. The evidence regarding the recovery of M.Os. 1 to 3 is furnished by P.W.12. He is working in a timber mart. While he was standing in his work place, he saw a police jeep coming along. He went to the place and he found the accused along with the police. He claims that he had seen the accused handing over M.O.1 to the police and the police prepared Ext.P9 mahzar. The court below has chosen to believe the evidence regarding recovery also. There are no grounds to take a different view. 24. It is then pointed out that there is a difference regarding the number of wounds shown in the postmortem certificate and the inquest report and that creates doubt regarding the prosecution version. One must remember that the inquest Crl.A. 1697/2005. 17 report is prepared by a police officer, while postmortem report is prepared by a Medical professional. Merely because there are some variations regarding the number of injuries, it will not be possible to reject the prosecution case. 25. Therefore on a close scrutiny of the evidence, it can be found that the court below was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that the injuries which caused the death of Murali were infact inflicted by the accused. No other view is possible nor is warranted. There is sufficient convincing evidence in this case to hold so. 26. The result is that this appeal is without merit and it is liable to be dismissed. We do so confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the court below. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb.