IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2011 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRL.A.No. 2243 of 2007() ------------------------ SC.229/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, MANJERI CP.4/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PONNANI .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------- ABU @ ABOOBACKER, C.NO.5087, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV.T.P. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & V. CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The appellant assails the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on him by the learned Sessions Judge under Secs.452 and 302 IPC. The appellant has been found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec.302 IPC. Other sentences are also imposed. 2. According to the prosecution, the appellant on 15/6/05 at about 4.30 a.m. had trespassed into the house of deceased Aysha after making preparation for causing hurt to the said Aysha and her daughter Basheera. The appellant allegedly entertained animosity against Aysha and her daughter Basheera for the reason that Aysha had not agreed to give gold ornaments to the appellant to enable him to pawn the same and raise money for his marriage which was scheduled to take place on 16/6/05. After trespassing into the house, the appellant is alleged to have stabbed Aysha and her daughter causing serious injuries to them. Aysha and her daughter succumbed to the injuries suffered within 8 days (the daughter Basheera) and 15 days (the mother Aysha). Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 -: 2 :- 3. The crime was registered on the basis of Ext.P1 First Information Statement lodged by P.W.1 a next door neighbour who had come rushing to the scene of the crime along with his aunt, P.W.3. Investigation was completed and final report was filed by P.W.17. The case was duly committed to the Court of Session. The appellant denied the offences alleged against him. Thereupon, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and proved Exts.P1 to P19. M.Os.1 to 19 were also marked. 4. The appellant in the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and when examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. took up a defence of total denial In the course of cross- examination it was suggested that deceased mother Aysha must have caused the death of her unmarried daughter Basheera and must have attempted to stab herself for the reason that the appellant had decided to get married to another woman without marrying Basheera who was allegedly having some mental inadequacy. No defence evidence - oral and documentary, was adduced by the appellant. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, on an anxious evaluation of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges levelled against the appellant. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 -: 3 :- proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. 6. Before the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. T.P. Sajeev and the learned Public Prosecutor advanced their arguments. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. There is no eye witness to the occurrence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the circumstances have not been satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances do not lead to a safe inference of guilt against the appellant. The learned counsel further contends that in any view of the matter, death cannot be said to have resulted from the injuries suffered by both deceased persons. Peritonitis which caused the death admittedly must have resulted not from the injuries suffered; but from inept handling of the injuries by the medical experts who treated the deceased persons, it is contended. 7. An appellate judgment is and must be read in continuation of the judgment of the trial court. In that view of the matter, we do not refer to the oral and documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution. Suffice it to say that we have been taken in detail through the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 19 and Exts.P1 to P19. We have also been taken through the charge Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 -: 4 :- framed by the court against the appellant and his examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. 8. About the law relating to the appreciation of evidence in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, it is trite that the prosecution must prove all the circumstances satisfactorily and firmly. The proved circumstances must constitute strong links in a strong chain which must point unerringly and clinchingly to the guilt of the accused, effectively ruling out any possible alternative theory of innocence of the accused. 9. The prosecution relied on the following circumstances: (1) Evidence of motive. (2) Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 that they saw the accused running away from the scene of the crime. (3) Dying declaration made to P.Ws.1 and 3 by deceased Aysha. (4) Dying declaration made by deceased Aysha to P.W.13, Sub Inspector (Ext.P12). (5) Dying declaration made by deceased to P.W.14, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Ext.P14). Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 -: 5 :- (6) Recovery of M.O.5 weapon by the Investigating Officer, P.W.18, under Ext.P4 seizure mahazar on the basis of the information furnished by the accused while in custody under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that these circumstances have not been proved. Evidence of motive is not spoken to by any witness from his personal knowledge. We have evidence of motive coming out from deceased Aysha in the form of dying declarations made by her. We shall deal with that later when we deal with the dying declaration. 11. P.Ws.1 and 3 are next door neighbours. An idea about the location of the house where P.Ws.1 and 3 reside vis-a-vis the house of the deceased can easily be gathered from the details available in Ext.P5 scene mahazar and Ext.P11 scene plan. It is evident that P.Ws.1 and 3 reside in a house close to the house of the deceased. According to P.Ws.1 and 3, they had got up early in the morning to offer their religious prayers. Both are Muslims by religion. They heard a cry from the house of the deceased. Both them of them rushed to the house of the deceased. There they allegedly saw the accused running out of the house of the deceased through the northern kitchen door. P.Ws.1 and 3 Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 -: 6 :- allegedly had a fleeting glance of the accused who is well known to P.Ws.1 and 3. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that this evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 cannot be safely accepted. No motive worth the name has been suggested against P.Ws.1 and 3. We find no reason for P.Ws.1 and 3 to speak falsehood against the appellant. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that P.Ws.1 and 3 have any motive or reason to speak falsely against the appellant. The evidence indicates that the deceased had also got up in the morning and lights were available in the house of the deceased. Lights were available in the house of P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.1 had allegedly taken a torch along with him when he went out of his house. P.W.1 has given First Information Statement before the police. Ext.P1 is the First Information Statement. The present version of P.Ws.1 and 3 is eminently supported by the contents of Ext.P1. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 show that P.Ws.2, the brother of deceased Aysha, was informed and he came to the scene. He ensured that the deceased mother and daughter were both removed to the hospital immediately. No First Information Statement is seen lodged before the police at the hospital and it is, in these circumstances, that the police wanted P.W.1 to proceed to the police station. He went and the First Information Statement Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 -: 7 :- was recorded at 12.30 p.m. on 16/6/05. That had reached the learned Magistrate at 6.20 p.m. on 16/6/05. The present version of P.Ws.1 and 3 gets satisfactory support from the contents of Ext.P1. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that Ext.P1 is hopelessly belated and no reliance can be placed on Ext.P1 to draw inspiration from the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. P.Ws.1 and 3 may not have obtained sufficient time to correctly identify the one who ran away from the house of the deceased, argues counsel. We have anxiously considered all these contentions. We find absolutely no reason to assume that the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 cannot be accepted or that their evidence deserves appreciation with any doubt or suspicion. They are the most natural witnesses and their evidence is eminently reasonable and worthy of acceptance. 13. The prosecution thereupon relies on a number of dying declarations which deceased Aysha had allegedly made to various persons. First of all, it is contended that deceased Aysha had narrated the cause of the injuries on her and her deceased daughter to P.Ws.1 and 3 who reached the scene immediately. That version of P.Ws.1 and 3 is supported by the contents of Ext.P1. P.Ws.1 and 3, as stated earlier, are not Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 -: 8 :- shown to have any motive against the appellant. We find absolutely no reason for P.Ws.1 and 3 to invent a false story about the infliction of injuries on both the deceased persons by the appellant and put such a version falsely into the mouth of deceased Aysha. We do not find any reason for deceased Aysha in her then state of mind to narrate any false version before P.Ws.1 and 3 to falsely implicate the accused. We do not, in these circumstances, find any reason not to accept and act upon the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 about the dying declaration made to them by deceased Aysha. 14. The prosecution has a case that Ext.P12 dying declaration was made by deceased Aysha to P.W.13, a police official. The statement by the deceased comes clearly under Sec.32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. The statement is not signed; but the statement is recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. The want of signature, taking of which is legally proscribed under Sec.162 Cr.P.C., cannot, in these circumstances, be of any relevance. Sec.162(2) Cr.P.C. clearly shows that the bar under Sec.162(1) imposing limitations on the use of a statement to the police shall not apply when the statement is found to be admissible under Sec.32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act. In these circumstances we find no legal bar against the admissibility of Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 -: 9 :- Ext.P12. The evidence of P.Ws.13 proves the dying declaration. It is eminently supported by Ext.P12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that deceased Aysha was undergoing treatment in the ICU. Evidence indicates that she was given oxygen at the relevant time. Intervenous administration of fluids was also taking place. In these circumstances the learned counsel for the appellant argues that without the evidence of the doctor in charge of the ICU, a safe inference about the adequacy of the mental condition of the deceased to give such a statement cannot be lightly assumed. We find force in the submission. Though we find no reason to reject the oral evidence of P.W.13 and Ext.P12 in the absence of medical evidence about the competence of the deceased to give such a statement at the relevant time and considering the fact that she was an inpatient in the ICU undergoing major treatment for the serious injuries suffered by her we do not think it necessary to place specific reliance on Ext.P12 and the oral evidence of P.W.13 about the cause for the injuries suffered by her. We are satisfied that it is not necessary to place reliance on Ext.P12. Since there is other evidence of dying declaration, we do not think it necessary to delve deeper into that aspect. Suffice it to say that we do not propose to rely on the oral evidence of P.W.13 and Ext.P12 about Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 -: 10 :- the dying declaration made by the deceased to P.W.13. This is so not because we distrust P.W.13 or Ext.P12; but because it is not necessary in this case to consider that in greater detail. 15. We then have the dying declaration made by the deceased to P.W.14, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, who had recorded the statement as requisitioned by the Investigating Officer. P.W.19 is the doctor of the hospital who was in charge of the patient i.e., deceased Aysha. The statement was recorded on 26/6/05. The learned Magistrate as well as the Medical Officer were completely satisfied about the competence of deceased Aysha to give such a statement at the relevant time. We find absolutely no reason to approach the evidence of P.W.14 about the dying declaration made by the deceased to him. We find no reason not to accept and act upon Ext.P14 dying declaration so proved. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that specific intrinsic material is not available to suggest that the deceased was referring to the appellant herein. We find no merit in this contention. Mere fact that he was referred to as the neighbour whereas the scene mahazar and the scene plan do not reveal the location of the house of the appellant is too meagre a reason not accept and act upon Ext.P14. Of course, we find admission by the witnesses Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 -: 11 :- that he was not residing in the neighbourhood. This does not detract against the value and worth of Ext.P14 dying declaration against the appellant. 16. The prosecution relies on the recovery of M.O.5 weapon by P.W.18 under Ext.P4 seizure mahazar on the basis of the information furnished by the appellant in the statement made by him after his arrest. P.W.6 is an attestor to Ext.P4 seizure mahazar. We have the evidence of the doctors, P.Ws.10 and 11 that a weapon like M.O.5 can cause the injuries found on both the deceased persons. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that M.O.5 is not shown to be blood stained. In these circumstances, crucial reliance should not be placed on the evidence of recovery, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. We find no merit in this contention. Though specific evidence is not available, we note that the recovery was effected on 27/6/05 and it is peak monsoon season in Kerala at that time. The mere fact that the knife left in the open till the date of recovery did not have blood stains on it as per the description in Ext.P4 seizure mahazar or the fact that the Investigating Officer had not sent M.O.5 to the Chemical Examiner for ascertainment of presence of human blood on M.O.5 does not detract against the worth and value of the evidence of recovery. We find the Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 -: 12 :- evidence of P.W.18 to be quite acceptable. His evidence read along with the evidence of P.W.6 and the corroboration afforded by the contemporaneous Ext.P4 seizure mahazar commend to us that the court below was perfectly justified in placing reliance on the evidence of recovery. 17. We now come back the evidence of motive. As stated earlier evidence of motive is available only from the dying declaration allegedly made by the deceased. The dying declarations made by the deceased suggest that the deceased was badly in need of money in connection with his marriage which was scheduled to take place on 16/6/05 he had requested deceased Aysha to handover to him ornaments to enable him to raise a loan by pledging the same. It was promised that the ornaments shall be returned after the marriage when he gets ornaments of his bride. The deceased refused to do the same and it was because of this animosity in sheer desperation the appellant allegedly indulged in the contumacious conduct. Except the dying declaration given by the deceased, no other or better evidence is available on this aspect. Suffice it to say that we find no reason not to accept that part of the dying declaration which is convincingly proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 as well as P.W.14 and Ext.P14. Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 -: 13 :- 18. The totality of circumstances relied on by the prosecution can lead a prudent mind to only one safe conclusion - that is the guilt of the appellant. No reasonable, alternative, hypothesis even appears to be possible on the proved circumstances. The court below was, in these circumstances, perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the injuries found on the deceased persons were suffered by the deceased at the hands of the appellant with a weapon like M.O.5. 19. We now come to the nature of the offence revealed. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the circumstance that death had eventually taken place on account of peritonitis. The counsel argues that inept handling by the medical experts who treated the deceased was really responsible for the death of the deceased. We find no merit in this contention. The evidence of P.Ws.11 doctor clearly reveals that the injuries found on the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Under Explanation-2 to Sec.299 IPC the fact that better medical treatment may have saved the life of the deceased is no valid explanation or defence to a charge under Sec.299 or 300 IPC. The nature of the injuries inflicted, the nature of the weapon with which the injuries were inflicted, the manner and the contexts in which the injuries were inflicted do Crl. Appeal No. 2243 of 2007 -: 14 :- all eminently suggest that the intention of the accused was to cause the death of the deceased. At any rate, the injuries which were intentionally inflicted are found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Hence the offence, at any rate, would be the offence of murder defined under Sec.300 IPC by the play of Clause Thirdly of Sec.300 IPC. Conviction under Sec.302 IPC is, in these circumstances, absolutely justified. We find no merit in the contention that death was not the result of injuries suffered; but on account of intervening reasons unrelated to the injuries. 20. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that this appeal only deserves to be dismissed. This appeal fails and is dismissed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- V. CHITAMBARESH (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge