IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2011 / 13TH POUSHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 1510 of 2010(C) -------------------------------- SC.17/2009 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM .................................... APPELLANT(S): ------------------- S.S. SEKHARAN, C.NO.5127, CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. C.K.JAYAKUMAR [STATE BRIEF] RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. M.R. VENUGOPAL THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sou. K. HEMA, J ---------------------- Crl.Appeal.No. 1510 OF 2010 ----------------------------------- Dated 3rd January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Appellant challenges the conviction and sentence passed against him under section 307 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Set off is allowed. 2. According to prosecution, appellant, who is the husband of PW3 was on enemical terms with her, since she used to visit her children in the former husband. She started living separately from appellant and hence he was enemical towards her. On 24.09.2008 at 3.15 pm while she was working in the property of PW1, appellant went to the spot and inflicted stab injuries on her with MO1 knife. This was witnessed by PW4 who is a co-worker. Both of them were engaged in construction work in the property of PW1. On hearing the cries, PW1 and his father rushed to the spot and Crl.A. No.1510/2010 2 injured was removed to the hospital. Accused was detained there by the workers under instruction from PW2. He was handed over to the police. PW1 gave first information statement. 3. To prove prosecution case, PW1 to PW4 were examined. Ext.P1 to P15 and MO1 to MO4 were marked. On analysis of the evidence in detail trial court found that prosecution prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is undefended and hence Adv. Mr.C.K. Jayakumar was appointed as State Brief. 4. Heard both sides. According to appellant , the evidence of PW1 cannot be believed since she abandoned her former husband and children and was living with appellant. MO1 which is the alleged weapon cannot be used for the work of cobbler. A false case is foisted against appellant by PW2 on the date of occurrence. He was drunk and he was staying close to the house of PW1. While he heard the cry of PW1, he rushed to the spot and he saw his wife being injured. PW2 was standing with a knife in his Crl.A. No.1510/2010 3 hand. Appellant was implicated in the offence at the instance of PW2, it is contended. 5. To prove the occurrence, mainly the evidence of PW1 and 4 is available. PW3 is the injured and PW4 is the eye witness. Both of them are coolie workers and they were working in the property of PW1 in connection with some renovation of the house on the date of occurrence at about 3.15 pm, while PW3 and 4 were working at the place of occurrence appellant came from behind and stabbed on the back of PW3 with MO1. They also deposed that PW4 cried out when PW1 and others rushed to the spot. 6. On getting the first stab PW3 fell down, and she was stabbed in quick succession and was severely injured. According to PW3, she was living with appellant, but he was ill treating her, since she used to visit her children born in the former marriage, which was not to the liking of appellant. Since she was living separately from appellant, he was having enmity toward her and he had attacked her with MO1 on the date of occurrence. Crl.A. No.1510/2010 4 6. The evidence of PW3 and 4 corroborated each other in all material particulars. Their evidence is also supported by medical evidence. The wound certificate reveals that PW3 had as many as ten stab injuries and incised injuries. The internal organs were also affected. PW3 sustained as many as 14 injuries which include external as well as internal injuries. The condition of the patient was critical and doctor gave evidence that injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course, cause death and this can be caused by MO1 knife. It is also in evidence that she was subjected to surgery. 7. PW1 and PW2 are son and father. They also gave evidence that PW3 and PW4 were engaged in work in their property while accused had stabbed PW3 with MO1 and PW4 cried out and when they went to the place of occurrence. PW1 also stated that he had seen the appellant aiming stabs against PW3 and that PW2, who is his father grabbed the knife from accused. PW2 also gave evidence corroborating the evidence of PW1. They also stated that the workers Crl.A. No.1510/2010 5 were asked to detain appellant and he was detained there. 8. There is absolutely nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 to PW4 which is corroborated by other evidence like medical evidence, recovery of MO1 etc. According to accused, PW4 is a close friend of PW3 and her evidence cannot be accepted. The evidence of PW4 shows that she got acquaintance with PW3 only since three months prior to the incident and they were working together. Of course she also stated that PW3 also used to stay in her house. But these facts are too insufficient to discard the evidence of PW4. Nothing is brought out from evidence to disbelieve her. The evidence of PW3 is also intact and it is corroborated by other evidence in this case. The mere fact that she abandoned her former husband and children is too insufficient to hold that no incident as alleged happened. 9. The trial court correctly accepted the evidence to hold that appellant inflicted injuries with MO1 on PW3 on several parts of body and those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. Thereby, trial court found Crl.A. No.1510/2010 6 that accused had committed the act with such intention and knowledge that it would cause death and hence he committed offence under section 307 IPC. Appellant was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-. I do not find any reason to interfere with either the conviction or sentence which is only proportionate to gravity of offence. Conviction and sentence can only to be confirmed and I do so. This petition is dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. Sou. //True copy// P.A. To Judge.