IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRL.A.No. 681 of 2007() ----------------------- SC.69/2006 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)III, MANJERI CP.28/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- SAINUDHEEN, CONVICT NO.4276, CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SRI.K.K.SUNIL KUMAR (IDUKKI) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ROY THOMAS THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.11.2011, THE COURT ON 1.12.2011 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. ------------------------------- Crl. Appeal No.681 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T Chitambaresh, J. The appellant is the sole accused in Crime No.559 of 2004 on the file of the Tirur Police Station. He was charge-sheeted for the offence alleged under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. The accused was made liable to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another two years. A sum of Rs.40,000/- out of the total fine amount was also directed to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased. The accused challenges the conviction entered and the sentence imposed by the court below in this appeal. 2. The prosecution alleged that the accused inflicted stab injuries on the deceased by name ‘Acharu’ at about 8.30 p.m. on 2.11.2004. The incident is said to have happened on the verandah of a shop room wherein few others were also present. The accused is a butcher by profession and entertained a grouse against the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot and his dead body was later shifted to the hospital. 3. PW.1 gave Ext.P1 First Information Statement on the basis Crl.Appeal.No.681/2007 2 of which Ext.P1(a) First Information Report was registered. PW.1 is the nephew of the deceased and was let known about the incident by PW.5. PW.2 is a neighbour of the deceased and was an eye-witness to the incident. He identified M.O.1 knife used by the accused to inflict the stab injuries. PW.3 is the attestor to Ext.P2 scene mahazar who also identified M.O.1 knife. PW.4 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination of the body of the deceased and issued Ext.P3 certificate. PW.5 is an eye- witness to the incident who was sitting along with the deceased on the verandah of the shop. PW.6 is the Secretary of the Panchayat who issued Ext.P4 ownership certificate of the shop where the incident occurred. PW.7 is the attestor to Ext.P5 seizure mahazar where under M.Os. 2 and 3 clothes worn by the accused were seized. He also witnessed the arrest of the appellant as is evident by Ext.P6 memo. PW.8 is the son-in-law of the deceased who is an attestor to the inquest report prepared at the mortuary. PW.9 is the police officer who registered Ext.P1 (a) First Information Report and reached the spot soon after. PW.10 is an attestor to Ext.P7 inquest report who also identified M.O.s. 4 and 5 clothes. PW.11 is the owner of the shop who was also an eye-witness to the incident and identified M.O.1 knife. Crl.Appeal.No.681/2007 3 PWs.12 and 13 are respectively the Village Officers who prepared and authenticated Ext.P8 site sketch. PW.14 is the investigating officer who submitted the charge sheet after completing the investigation. The accused denied the charges leveled against him. He denied all questions attempted against him when he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. The evidence of PWs.2, 5 and 11 who are eye-witnesses to the incident is clinching. Their evidence is uniform that the appellant and the deceased were sitting on the verandah of the shop along with others. The appellant was enraged over the deceased speaking badly about his mother on the previous day. The accused caught-hold of the collar of the shirt of the deceased who too stood up and attempted to resist. The accused thereafter inflicted four stab injuries on the deceased which were fatal. The eye-witnesses testified that there was light from an electric bulb on the veranda of the shop that night. There was also no difficulty in identifying the accused who did the ghastly crime. The alternate theory that the deceased was found lying in a pool of blood on the side of the road is hence totally unacceptable. It is in evidence that a Government hospital nearby lacks expertise to treat those who are critically ill. This Crl.Appeal.No.681/2007 4 explains the reason as to why the deceased was removed to the Medical College Hospital in an ambulance. The contention of the accused that the deceased was deliberately not admitted to the hospital nearby is puerile. The credibility of Pws.2, 5 and 11 has not been attempted to be shattered to any extent. 5. The appellate judgment is only a continuation of the judgment of the trial court and is hence shorn of unnecessary details. No infirmity has been brought to our notice about the appreciation of evidence by the trial court. The ocular evidence clearly indicate that the accused inflicted the stab injuries on an unarmed victim. The same was done with the intention of causing bodily injury to the deceased and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The incident squarely attracts clause thirdly of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The finding of the trial court that the accused is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be infirm. No mitigating circumstances have been pointed out to alter the sentence imposed on the accused. The appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed under the circumstances. Crl.Appeal.No.681/2007 5 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The Registry shall communicate the judgment to the appellant who is undergoing imprisonment. R.BASANT, Judge. V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge. nj. V.CHITAMBARESH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.A.No.681 of 2007 JUDGMENT Dated:- 1st December, 2011 --------------------------------------