IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 CRL.A.No. 2380 of 2006 --------------------------- SC.255/2004 of SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------- MOHAMMED HANEEFA, S/O.HUSSAN @ VAPPU, AGED 34 YEARS, KURUTHIKUZHIYIL VEEDU, MARAYAMANGALAM, NELLAYA PANCHAYATH, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Gopinathan, J The Sessions Judge, Palakkad who is also a Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in S.C.255/04 on his file convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 302, 447, 307 and 436 IPC and also under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/- for offence under Section 302 IPC. Similar sentence was also awarded for offence Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -2- under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 307 IPC. For offence under Section 436 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and for offence under Section 447 IPC, he was sentenced to imprisonment for one month. Separate default sentence was also awarded for non-payment of fine. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, the convict has now come up in appeal. 2. PW26, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shornur in Crime No.33/01 of the Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -3- Cherpulassery Police Station filed the charge sheet against the appellant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam alleging the above offences. The learned Magistrate took cognizance as C.P.51/01. By order dated 01/01/04, having found that the offence is triable by the Special Judge, Palakkad, the case was committed to the trial court, who after hearing both sides, framed charge for the above said offences. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that at 3.30 p.m. on 12/02/01, the appellant who belongs to Muslim Community being motivated against late Kali and family members of whom PW2 and PW3 are the daughter-in-law and grand daughter committed criminal trespass to the courtyard of Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -4- the house bearing Door No.IV/114 of Nellaya Grama Panchayath wherein deceased Kali along with her husband, sons, daughter-in-law and others were residing. The appellant was armed with a broken bottle and the handle of a spade which were marked as MO2 and MO4. While the appellant entered the courtyard, Kali was de- husking tamarind fruits. No sooner than the appellant entered courtyard Kali was assaulted with MO2 and MO4 causing fatal injuries to which she had an instantaneous death. PW2 who attempted to obstruct the assault was also beaten at her head by MO4. She having sustained grievous injuries was got scared. Her daughter who was examined as PW3 was also got scared. Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -5- Nobody rushed for their help. It is reported that the menfolk in family had gone out eking their daily bread. After the first assault, the appellant went out and returned with a plastic can containing some kerosene and poured over the haystack kept by the side of the house and put it into flames. As a result, the haystack as well as the Pandal in front of the house was put to ashes. The appellant asked PWs.2 and 3 to enter the house and attempted to put the house also into flames. However, it was not done. At that time when Kali and PW2 were assaulted it was stated that the victims who are belonging to Panan community which is a scheduled caste should be finished off. PW2, though sustained severe injuries Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -6- had not gone to the hospital. It appears that even after the incident none of the neighbours also had come to their rescue. Though none had been to rescue the victim or to give any medical aid, PW9, a nephew of the deceased who was working as a Manager in the evening branch of a Service Co- operative Bank at Elamkulam was informed by one Madhu that the husband of Kali was brutally assaulted and had been to the Community Health Centre at Cherpulassery. PW9 rushed to the hospital and found that the husband of Kali, another daughter and son-in-law were at the hospital. But they were not at all injured. On his way from the hospital to the spot somebody informed that Kali was assaulted to death and she Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -7- is lying in a pool of blood in front of the house. PW1, a neighbour also got the information. He also rushed to the spot of occurrence and found Kali lying in a pool of blood in front of the house. None of the family members were seen. He came to know that PW2 was also assaulted and took shelter in the house of relatives. Since the husband of Kali was not found out, despite the earnest efforts, PW1 rushed to the Cherpulassery Police Station wherein PW25 was the Assistant Sub Inspector and lodged Ext.P1 First Information Statement. PW25 after recording Ext.P1 First Information Statement given by PW1 registered a case as Crime No.33/01 for offence under Sections 447 and 436 read with Section 34 IPC by Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -8- Ext.P1(a) First Information Report. 4. The investigation was taken over by PW26, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shornur. He proceeded to the spot on the next day and at 9.00 a.m. prepared Ext.P8 inquest report wherein PW2 is an attester. He took the photograph of the dead body through PW21 photographer. The body was then sent for Postmortem Examination. Thereafter, he prepared Ext.P9 Scene Mahazar wherein PW13 is an attester. He further proceeded with the investigation. The appellant was arrested and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottappalam. From there, PW26 got custody of the appellant for the purpose of Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -9- interrogation. On the basis of the information given during the course of interrogation, as pointed out by the appellant, MO4 was seized from among a bamboo thicket on the strength of Ext.P11 Recovery Mahazar. Ext.P11(a) is the statement of the appellant recorded by PW26. He had also seized the Dothi alleged to have been worn by the appellant at the time of occurrence on the strength of Ext.P12 Mahazar wherein PW16 is an attester. PW26 forwarded the material objects seized for chemical examination. While so, he was succeeded by PW27. PW27 completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet as stated earlier. 5. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 27 were Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -10- examined. Exts.P1 to P31 and MOs.1 to 27 were marked. It is seen by the judgment that no document as Ext.P26 was marked. After the evidence for the prosecution, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the incriminating evidence and advanced a defence that somebody assaulted Kali at 7.30 p.m. on that date and he was falsely implicated at the instance of PW9 who was on loggerheads in connection with borrowal of gold ornaments and pledging the same for the requirement of PW9. Though the appellant was called upon to enter his defence, no defence evidence was adduced. The learned Sessions Judge on appraisal of the evidence, as mentioned Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -11- earlier, found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced thereunder. Now this appeal. 6. The factum of death of Kali is in fact not disputed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. His case, as mentioned earlier is that somebody else has committed the crime and the appellant was falsely implicated at the instance of PW9. 7. The evidence of PW19, the then Assistant Professor and Deputy Police Surgeon attached to the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur would show that at 3.00 p.m on the next day he conducted autopsy on the body of Kali who was aged 50 years and noted the following anti-mortem injuries:- Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -12- 1. Lacerated wound 7 x 1.5 cm x bone deep vertically placed on the left side of back of head 7.5 cm back to left ear. The scalp tissue was found contused over an area 19 x 12 cm on the back and left side of head. There was a depressed comminuted fracture 11 x 4.8 cm on the left temporal bone. There was a fissured fracture 19.2 cm long extending from the posterior aspect of the comminuted fracture. There was suberachanoid haemorrhage on the entire cerebral and cerebellar hemisphere. There was laceration 4 x 2.1 x 1.8 cm on the brain stem. 2. Lacerated would 4 x 0.8 cm on the outer aspect of pinna of left ear. 3. Lacerated wound 2 x 1.1 cm on the left side of face just in front of tragus of left ear. 4. Lacerated wound 4 x 2 cm on the back of head vertically placed with its lower and 1.5 cm to the right of midline. The wound was bone deep. 5. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 cm on the right side of back of head 3 cm outer Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -13- to the injury No.4. 6. Abrasion 1.5 x 1 cm on the back of contour of left shoulder. 7. Abraded contusion 3 x 1.5 cm on the front of nose. 8. Lacerated wound 5.5 x 1.7 cm on the palmer aspect of right middle finger. The proximal phalanx was found fractured underneath. 9. Lacerated wound 2.5 x 1 cm on the middle of right index finger. The middle phalanx was found fractured underneath. 10. Lacerated wound 3 x 1.2 cm on the web space of right hand. 11. Multiple abrasions over an area 8 x 2 cm on the back of right forearm. 8. He would further opine that the deceased died due to the blunt injury sustained to head and that injuries 1 to 5, 8 and 9 could be possible with a weapon like MO4 and injury No.10 could be Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -14- caused by a weapon like MO2 and that injury No.1 is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The evidence of PW19 is corroborated by Ext.P16 Postmortem Certificate. The defence has not much assailed the evidence of PW19 or Ext.P16, probably because they do concede that Kali had a homicidal death. Ext.P8 inquest report prepared by PW26 wherein PW12 is an attester would give a picturesque description detailing the dead body lying in a pool of blood. Ext.P18 photos taken by PW21 would corroborate with Ext.P8 that Kali had a horrendous death and was lying in a pool of blood with severe injuries on her head. Going by the above evidence we find that the learned Sessions Judge had correctly Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -15- appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a conclusion that Kali had a homicidal death. That finding is absolutely in tune with the evidence on record and requires no interference. 9. PW2 had deposed that at about 4.30 p.m, the appellant entered the courtyard armed with MOs.2 and 4 and her mother-in-law was assaulted with MOs.2 and 4. When she fell down she was again beaten asking had she not died and that he would finish of the entire Panan community and then turned against PW2 and asked who is her mother and stating that she would also be finished off. She was beaten at both her forearms as well as at the head. As a result she fell down and was crying aloud. PW3, her daughter also rushed to Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -16- the spot and cried. By the time, the accused went out of the courtyard with MO4 and returned after five minutes along with a blue plastic can with kerosene and poured kerosene over the haystack and put the haystack into flames. Consequently, the Pandal in front of the house also got fire and was burned to ashes. PW2 and PW3 were asked to enter the house stating that they also would be burned off along with the house. She would further depose that by about 10.30 or 10.45 p.m. her father-in-law who had gone out and others came and she was taken to the hospital at Cherpulassery and admitted there. MO1 was identified by her as the Maxi which she was wearing at the time of occurrence. She had Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -17- further deposed that the appellant had been nurturing grudge stating that the members of the family of PW2 were engaged in witchcraft and as a result the appellant had to suffer untoward incident and it is for that reason Kali was assaulted to death and PW2 was beaten in attempt to commit murder. She had also identified the cloth and the imitation ornaments worn by Kali at the time of the incident. PW3, the daughter of PW2, had given evidence corroborating with the evidence of PW2 in all material particulars. 10. PW17 would depose that he was working as an Assistant Surgeon at Community Health Centre, Cherpulassery, on 12/02/01 and at about 11.45 p.m. on that day PW2 was brought with injuries alleged to have been inflicted by the appellant by beating with the handle of a spade. Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -18- PW17 noted the following injuries:- 1. Contusion of scalp on the left side of 6 x 3 cm. size. 2. Lacerated injury scalp vertex of size 5 x 3 x 3 cms. 3. Contusion both wrists similar in nature 5 x 3 cms each. 4. Contusion forearm left 6 x 3 cms. 5. Fracture first metacarpal bone left thumb. 6. Fracture fifth metacarpal bone right side. 7. Fracture first phalanx of first left finger. 11. PW17 had further deposed that injuries Nos.1 to 4 were simple in nature whereas injuries Nos.5 to 7 were of grievous nature and since PW2 had multiple injury, she was referred to Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -19- Orthopedic Surgeon who took x-ray and had further continued treatment; and was discharged on 03/03/01. Ext.P14 is the certificate issued by him. He had further deposed that the injuries noted on the body of PW2 could be caused with a weapon like MO4. 12. PW18 would depose that he was working as Assistant Surgeon at Community Health Centre, Cherpulassery on 12/02/01 and that PW2 was referred to him by PW17. He examined PW2 and also had x-ray examination. He had confirmed the grievous hurt noted in Ext.P14. He had further deposed that Ext.P15 is the certificate issued by him and that PW2 was discharged on 04/03/01 and that injuries could be caused with weapon like Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -20- MO4. 13. Thus, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 corroborated by the evidence of PW17 and PW18 supported by Exts.P14 and P15 would show that PW2 had sustained grievous hurt which could be caused with a weapon like MO4. 14. The above being the evidence on record regarding the assault on Kali and PW2, the question then remains is whether the assault was made by the appellant or at the time and place alleged by the prosecution or at any time subsequent to the alleged incident by someone else. Regarding the spot of occurrence Exts.P8 and P9 corroborate with the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. To PWs.2 and 3 there is no much challenge Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -21- in cross regarding the spot of occurrence and no argument was also advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. Regarding the time of occurrence, PWs.2 and 3 had deposed that it was at 4.30 p.m. In Ext.P1 First Information Statement as well as in Ext.P1 (a) First Information Report, the time of occurrence is noted as 4.30 p.m. In the charge sheet also, the time of occurrence is noted as 4.30 p.m. But it is seen by the impugned judgment that the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly noted the time of occurrence as 3.30 p.m. It appears that it is an inadvertent error which would not affect the core of the prosecution case. 15. Though PWs.17, 18 and 19 were subject Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -22- to searching cross examination, no question was suggested to those witnesses that the anti- mortem injuries sustained by Kali and injuries sustained by PW2 were sustained either at 7.30 p.m. as alleged by the appellant or at any time subsequent to the time mentioned by PWs.2 and 3. In the above circumstances, we find little merit in the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the assault might have been at 7.30 p.m. on the same day. 16. The appellant had a strong contention which was repeatedly urged before us by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that someone else might have assaulted Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -23- the deceased and PW2. Other than the suggestion, there is no iota of evidence to come to such conclusion. There is not even a suggestion to PWs.2 and 3 who had deposed about the occurrence that any person other than the appellant had got any axe to grind against PW2 or her mother so as to brutally assault them in the manner stated in this case. No attempt was even made by the appellant before the trial court that there is even a hearsay information in the locality that the assault was made by any person other than the appellant. 17. To PW9, it was suggested that PW9 and the appellant were very close friends and while so, PW9 asked for some loan which was refused by Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -24- the appellant stating that he had no money to lend. According to the appellant, at the repeated request, he had given some gold ornaments belonging to his wife which was pledged by PW9 and when asked back the gold ornaments, the enmity started and because of that enmity, the appellant was falsely implicated. Though it was suggested to PW9, no material was disclosed to show that PW9 has got any motive against the appellant to implicate him with an offence like this. Adding to the above, it is not disputed that the deceased as well as PW2 and their family members were belonging to the Panan community which is of the lower strata in the society. There is nothing revealed out in evidence to show that Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -25- they were any way influential so as to cook up the case by influencing PWs.25, 26 and 27. There is also no suggestion to PWs.25, 26 and 27 that the appellant was falsely implicated or that the Investigating Officer had any axe to grind against the appellant so as to implicate the appellant after sparing the real culprit under the influence of PWs.2 or 9. 18. It is also pertinent to note that before PW17 at 11.45 p.m. PW2 had stated that she was assaulted by the appellant with a weapon like MO4. We fail to find that PW2 had got any breathing time to cook up a case after sparing the real culprit and to implicate the appellant with the offence alleged. In the normal course, none of Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -26- their relatives of the deceased would implicate a wrong person with an offence of murder after sparing the real culprit. 19. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor took us through the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 repeatedly. We had a very anxious and critical analysis of the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. In fact, we find little material to come to a conclusion that either PW2 or PW3 had falsely implicated the appellant. It is also pertinent to note that PW3 was aged only 11 years at the time of the occurrence and she was 16 years at the time when she was examined. Though she was a child witness at the time of the occurrence, she had Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -27- given reasonable answers to the questions put in cross examination as well as in the chief examination. Though she was, as we mentioned earlier, subjected to searching cross examination little material was disclosed to come to a conclusion that the appellant was falsely implicated. Though it was suggested to PW3 that PW9 was on bitter terms with the appellant, PW3 denied the same. There is no suggestion that PW2 or PW3 were tutored either by PW9 or by any person to falsely implicate the appellant. In the above circumstances, we find that the learned Sessions Judge had correctly given reliance to the testimony of PWs.2 and 3. There is nothing on record to conclude that PWs.2 and 3 were falsely Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -28- implicating the appellant. 20. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant repeatedly submitted that the First Information Statement was suppressed by the prosecution and Ext.P1 is not at all a First Information Statement. There is no material disclosed by PWs.2 and 3 who had been the only occurrence witnesses to come to a conclusion that any person other than PWs.2 and 3 had witnessed the occurrence or any of them had given any statement before the police before Ext.P1. There is also no suggestion to PW25 who recorded Ext.P1 First Information Statement that before Ext.P1 he had information about the occurrence. Adding to the above, the evidence of PW1 and Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -29- Ext.P1 would show that the appellant was implicated by PW1 in Ext.P1 on hearsay information. So the implication of the appellant in Ext.P1 is of not much relevance. The implication of the appellant in Ext.P1 would give way for the evidence of occurrence witnesses. If the evidence of occurrence differs, Ext.P1 is to be rejected. Otherwise, if Ext.P1 corroborates with the occurrence witnesses, it is to be given due weight. The learned senior counsel for the appellant after reading from here and there argued that from the evidence of PWs.2 and 25 it could be seen that PW25 had gone to the spot of occurrence before recording Ext.P1. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, it is to read as a whole and not to Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -30- read from here and there. On going through the evidence of PWs.2, 3 and PW25 together, we are unable to accept the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant. There is nothing to show that PW25 had got any information about the occurrence before Ext.P1. 21. The learned senior counsel had also argued that though Kali was assaulted to death, the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and 9 would show that none of them care to go to Kali and ascertain whether Kali was having breath or to shift her to the hospital. According to the learned counsel, the conduct of Pws.1 to 3 and 9 is unbelievable as it is against ordinary course of human conduct. The Crl. Appeal No.2380 of 2006 -31- conduct of persons when confronted with casualty would vary from person to person. We cannot ignore the fact that the menfolk of the house had gone for eking out their daily bread and nobody in fact had rushed to the rescue of the victims who were belonging to the lower