IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 CRL.A.No. 1585 of 2006() ------------------------ SC.80/2000 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM CP.19/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... APPELLANT: ACCUSED: ---------------------- REMESAN @ AMMACHAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PUTHUVAL VEEDU, BRAHAMANGALAM KARA, CHEMBU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV.T.P. RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE IN CRIME NO.408/1999 OF VAIKOM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI.P.N. SUKUMARAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON 07/06/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Joseph Francis, J. This appeal is filed by the accused in S.C.No. 80 of 2000 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam. That was a case charge sheeted by the Circle inspector of Police, Vaikom against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is briefly as follows. The accused on 23.9.99 between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., on account of his previous enmity with deceased Rajesh and his brother Rajeev and with an intention to murder him, pretended friendship with Rajesh and took him to his house in the guise of making settlement talk in respect of the dispute between them from the toddy shop. After reaching his house bearing No.VIII/9 of Chempu Panchayat in Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 2 Brahmamangalam kara, the accused caught hold of the neck of the deceased and took him to the room on the western side of the house and then stabbed him with a knife with the knowledge that his act will cause his death and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day and thereby he had committed the offence punishable u/s. 302 I.P.C. 3. PW1, Prasad, gave Ext.P1 F.I. statement before the police, on the basis of which, a case was registered as Crime No. 408 of 1999 of Vaikom Police Station under Section 302 I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet was laid before the J.F.C.M., Vaikom, from where it was committed to the Sessions Court, Kottayam. Subsequently the case was made over to the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam for trial and disposal. 4. In the Additional Sessions Court, on the side of the prosecution, Pws. 1 to 19 were examined, Exts.P1 to P25 were marked and Mos. 1 to 29 were identified. Ext.D1 was marked on the side of Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 3 the defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence, found that the accused committed the murder of deceased Rajesh and the accused was found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for five years. Against that conviction and sentence the accused filed this appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Additional Sessions Court ought not to have given undue weight to the evidence of PW2, the sole eye witness, who was inimical towards the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that actually PW2 did not see the occurrence and by believing the testimony of PW2 a safe conviction of the appellant is unsustainable. The learned counsel Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 4 for the appellant further submitted that there was no Section 27 recovery of MO2 knife and the possibility of planting the knife cannot be ruled out and there is no clear and acceptable evidence to prove the enmity of the appellant against the deceased. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Police Authorities have conducted a search on the first day itself and no weapon was recovered and, therefore, the recovery cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that there is no motive proved by the prosecution. It is submitted that the enmity is proved between the deceased and Shri. Santhosh, the brother of the accused/appellant. It is further argued that the version that the accused took the deceased to his own house in the guise of a settlement talk is unbelievable. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the prosecution has suppressed the injuries on the appellant. The learned counsel further submitted that the injuries on the body of the Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 5 deceased as well as the accused would indicate the probability of prolonged scuffle, which was suppressed by the prosecution to shut down the real manner of incident and that the appellant might have inflicted the injuries on the deceased by way of self defence. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the court below. 8. PW1, Prasad, who gave Ext.P1 F.I. statement before the police, is not an eye witness to the occurrence. He deposed that on 23.9.1999 at about 7 p.m. when he reached Kallukothankadavu he was told by PW11 - Sajeev, that the accused had taken PW2 Balachandran and deceased Rajesh towards his house for the purpose of settling some dispute. PW1 left the place stating that he will enquire about the same. He went to the house of the deceased and found him not there. He made enquiries and then went to the house of the accused along with Rajeev, the brother of the deceased and Poothara Rajesh and his father Maniappan. He saw M.O.1 series chappels belonging to the Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 6 deceased outside the house and so he thought that the deceased would be there and with that impression he opened the front door and found nobody there. Then he saw some bloodstains on the bolt of door on the western room which was found closed and he opened the door and found the deceased lying on the cot with stab injuries and he was found dead. So he immediately went to Vaikom Police Station and gave Ext.P1 statement. He had also expressed his suspicion that this would have been done by the accused. 9. PW2 - Balachandran, is the only eye witness supporting the prosecution evidence, who is a tailor by profession. The other eye witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile. PW2 stated that on the date of incident at about 2 p.m. the deceased had come to his working place and asked him to come with him to take toddy and so both of them went to the toddy shop at Kallukothankadavu, where PW11 was the Manager. When they went there, they saw the accused Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 7 there. According to PW2, deceased Rajesh went near him and he went to some other room. Since Rajesh did not return even after some time, he went to that room and saw the deceased and accused were discussing about something. Thereafter, he again came back and sat in the old place. After some time also since the deceased did not come, he again went there and saw they were talking together and thereafter at about 4.30 p.m. both of them left the shop and came outside the toddy shop and stood there for more than half an hour. 10. Thereafter, as requested by the accused, he accompanied the deceased to the house of the accused for the purpose of discussing about the misunderstanding that had happened on account of the incident in which Santhosh (PW3) was attacked by Rajeev, the brother of the deceased, and others. This evidence of PW2 was corroborated by the evidence of PW11, the Manager of toddy shop. Thereafter, PW2, the accused and the deceased Rajesh went to the house of Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 8 accused. When they reached the property, though PW2 and accused got into the house, the deceased did not enter the property. Then the accused went near him and took him to the house and both of them sat in the verandah of the house. According to PW2, PW3 Santhosh was also there. After Rajesh, the deceased and accused talked about the Santhosh episode, they shook hand and thereafter when the deceased was about to leave the house, the accused caught hold of his shirt collar with the neck and lifted him by saying: and thereafter took a knife from his waist and stabbed the deceased. 11. On seeing this, PW2 intervened and asked him not to do anything and Santhosh also intervened. But the accused had brandished the knife against them. So they got frightened. Thereafter the accused took the deceased to the western room of the house and pushed the deceased on the cot and pressed on his neck with his hand and then stabbed him indiscriminately. On seeing this, he was shocked Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 9 and he could not raise his voice. But he saw PW4 - Anirudhan, PW5 Prajeesh and PW9 Sabu on the footpath in front of the house of the accused. So immediately he ran towards PW5 and requested him to help Rajesh. By the time, the accused came out of the house with the knife and threatened them and asked them to go away from that place. So PW2 ran away from the place and went to his sister's house to get some amount from her and then went to his house. 12. PW3, Santhosh, is the brother of the accused and PW7, Narayani is the mother of the accused, who were cited by the prosecution as other eye witnesses. But they turned hostile. PW5 Prajeesh is a goldsmith. PW5 had deposed that on the date of incident, he had gone to the house of PW4 along with PW9 Sabu and since PW4 had gone to the bathroom and came back, they heard some cry from the house of the accused. So PW4 had gone to that place followed by PW5 and PW9. At that time PW5 had seen Santhosh Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 10 standing in the verandha of the house and Balachandran running from that house shouting followed by the accused with a knife in his hand and threatened them. When PW4 told him not do anything, he left the place. PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution. So he was declared hostile. 13. It is true that Pws. 2 and 5 had not disclosed about this fact to anyone till they were questioned by the police. It may be mentioned here that PW2 was not a person of that locality and he was from Alappuzha. So he had also deposed that he was shocked on seeing the incident and he could not raise his voice and he had also stated that when he attempted to intervene he was threatened by the accused by showing the knife at him. It is quite natural that he might have got frightened on account of the act of the accused, and he wanted to go away from that place. If he had disclosed this fact to anyone he also will be done away by the accused. That might have prompted him not to disclose this fact to anyone of that locality. Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 11 14. Further, he was under the impression that he had told this matter to PW5 and PW5 will be taking steps regarding the same. That possibility cannot be ruled out. PW5 also deposed that he was threatened by the accused by showing the knife and he was under shock. It is true that they had gone to the house of one Mohan and thereafter they came to know about the death of the deceased from there. He had also stated that they came to the house of Sabu and stayed there during night without going to their house. That also strengthens the case of the prosecution that they were afraid of the conduct of the accused and that might have prompted them not to disclose as to what they have seen to anyone till they were questioned by the police. 15. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of PW16 Suresh, the recovery witness. He had categorically stated that after some days of the incident, the Police came there with the accused and Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 12 the accused had taken MO2 knife from the bushy area beneath the plantain trees situated on the north of the stream from the property of the accused and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer. He had signed Ext.P20 seizure mahazar prepared for that purpose. PW19, the Investigating Officer, also stated that after arrest the accused had given Ext.P20(a) statement regarding the place, where he had concealed the knife and on the basis of that statement, and as taken and produced by the accused, he had seized M.O.2 knife as per Ext.P20 seizure mahazar. There was nothing brought out to discredit the evidence of PW16, the recovery witness regarding the recovery. 16. PW2, the eye witness, identified MO2 knife as the weapon used by the accused to stab the deceased. PW5 also identified MO2 as the knife shown by the accused for the purpose of threatening them. Ext.P18, Chemical analysis report shows that MO2 contained human blood. PW6, Dr. Girish, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Medical Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 13 College, Kottayam conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and issued Ext.P6 postmortem certificate where he had noted the following findings. “Body of a moderately nourished adult male of height 174 cm and weight 60 Kg. Eyes closed. Conjunctiva and nails pale. Blood at mouth and nostrils. Blood stains on face, front of trunk and limbs at places. Left lower limb partly abducted at hip and flexed at knee. Other body orifices normal. Postmortem ant-bite marks on face, neck and trunk at places. Cornea hazy. Rigor mortis retained in lower limbs only. Postmortem staining on the back and was not fixed. No sign of decomposition. INJURIES (Ante - Mortem) 1) Incised wound 2 x 1 x 1.5 cm. oblique, on right side of back of head, 3 c.m. behind the ear. Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 14 2) Incised wound 1 x 0.5 x 1cm, oblique, on the front of middle of neck, 2 cm above top of sternum. 3) Incised penetrating wound 2.8 x 1 cm oblique, on right side of front of chest, lower inner blunt end being 7 cm. outer to midline and 3 cm, below collar bone. Right chest cavity was penetrated by cutting 2nd intercostal space and incised middle lobe of right lung on its front surface. The wound was directed backwards for a depth of 6.5 cm. Other end of wound was sharp. 4) Incised Penetrating wound 2.8 x 1 cm oblique on right side of front of chest lower inner blunt end being 6 cm outer to midline and 2 cm below injury No.2. The other end of wound was sharp. Right chest cavity was penetrated by cutting 2nd intercostal space and incised front surface of middle lobe of right lung. The wound was directed backwards for a depth of 6 cm. Right chest cavity contained 450 ml. of fluid blood. Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 15 5) Incised wound 2.5 x 1 x 1 cm. horizontal on right front fold of axilla. 6) Incised penetrating wound 2.8 x 1 cm vertical on left side of front of chest, upper blunt end being 4 cm. outer to midline and 6 cm. below collar bone. Other end was sharply cut. Left chest cavity was penetrated by cutting 3rd intercostal space, pierced pericardium and transfixed the right ventricle of heart. The wound was directed backwards for a depth of 6 cm. Left chest cavity contained 400 ml. of blood. 7) Incised penetrating wound 2.8 x 1 cm. horizontal on left side of front of abdomen, inner blunt end being 1 cm. below lower end of sternum and other end was sharply cut. The abdominal cavity was penetrated and incised left lobe of liver. The wound was directed backwards for a depth of 6 cm. 8) Incised penetrating wound 3.5 x 1 cm. horizontal, on right side of front abdomen, inner blunt Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 16 end being 2 cm. below lower end of sternum and other end was sharply cut. The abdominal cavity was penetrated and incised right lobe of liver. The wound was directed backwards for a depth of 5.5 cm. 9) Incised penetrating wound 2.8 x 0.8 cm. vertical on right side of front of abdomen, upper blunt end being 5 cm. outer to midline and 1 cm, below costal margin. Other end sharply cut. Abdominal cavity was penetrated and incised right lobe of liver. The wound was directed backwards for a depth of 5 cm. 10) Incised wound 2 x 1 x 1 cm. horizontal on front of right side of abdomen 10 cm. outer to midline and 10 cm. below costal margin. 11) Incised penetrating wound 3.5 x 1 x 5 cm. oblique on right side of front of abdomen, upper inner blunt end being 3 cm outer to midline and 3 cm. below costal margin. Other end sharply cut. Abdominal Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 17 cavity was penetrated and coils of intestine were protruding out. 12) Incised penetrating wound 3 x 1 x 4 cm. horizontal on right side of front of abdomen, inner blunt end in the midline and 13 cm. below sternum and other end was sharply cut. The abdominal cavity was penetrated and coils of intestine were protruding out. 13) Incised penetrating wound 2.5 x 1 x 4 cm. vertical on front of abdomen, upper blunt end in the midline and 8 cm. above pubic bone and other end was sharply cut. The abdominal cavity was penetrated and coils of intestine were protruding out. 14) Incised penetrating wound 2.5 x 1 x 4 cm. horizontal, on left side of front of abdomen, inner blunt end being at umbilicus and other end sharply cut. The abdominal cavity was penetrated and coils of intestine were protruding out. Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 18 15) Incised wound 1.5 x 1 x 1 cm. on front of middle of abdomen, 1 cm. below injury No.14. 16) Incised wound 1.5 x 1 x 1 cm. on the front of right thigh, 7 cm below fold of thigh in its middle. 17) Incised wound 2 x 1 x 1 cm on the front of right thigh, 3 cm. below injury No. 16. 18) Incised wound 1 x 1 x 0.5 cm. on the front of right thigh, 3 cm below injury No.17. 19) Incised wound 3 x 1 x 1 cm horizontal, on left side of front of abdomen, 10 cm outer to midline and 5 cm below costal margin. 20) Abrasion 2 x 1 cm on the back of middle of neck at its root. 21) Incised wound 3 x 1 x 0.5 cm. horizontal on right side of back of chest, 10 cm. outer to midline and Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 19 3 cm. below top of shoulder. 22) Incised wound 3 x 1 x 2 cm. horizontal on right side of back of chest, 12 cm outer to midline and 13 cm. below top of shoulder. 23) Incised wound 2.5 x 1 x 2 cm on right side of back of trunk 10 cm below injury No.22. 24) Incised wound 3 x 1.5 x 0.5 cm. horizontal on right of back of trunk 3 cm. outer to midline and 5 cm. above sacrum. Air passages contained bloodstained fluid. Lungs were pale. Stomach contained unidentified food particles without any unusual smell. Mucosa normal. Urinary bladder was empty. All other organs were pale, otherwise normal. Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 20 Viscera and blood preserved for the purpose of chemical analysis as per request of Circle Inspector of Police, Vaikom. Cotton gauze soaked with blood of deceased, dried and nail clippings handed over to PC 4731 after autopsy as per request of Circle Inspector of Police, Vaikom. Opinion as to cause of death: Death was due to penetrating injuries sustained to the chest and abdomen.” 17. He had given his opinion as to the cause of death in Ext.P6 that the deceased died on account of the penetrating injuries to the chest and abdomen. When he was examined in court he has also stated that injury Nos. 3, 4, 6 to 9, 11, to 14 are the fatal injuries, except injury No.20, noted in Ext.P6 post-mortem certificate could have been Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 21 caused by using weapon like M.O.2 knife. He had also deposed that injury No. 20 could have been caused by pressing the neck against the cot by the assailant. He had also deposed that he had sent the blood and viscera for chemical analysis and obtained Ext.P7 chemical analysis report, which shows that the blood contained 58 mgm of ethyl alcohol per 100 ml of blood and that is not sufficient to cause intoxication. 18. PW12, Dr. Unnithan, who was working as Orthopaedic Surgeon at the Community Center, Vaikom, deposed that on 8.10.1999 at 10.10. a.m. he examined the accused, who was brought by the police and issued Ext.P11 wound certificate noting the following injuries: “Elliptical injury 1.5 x 1 cm obliquely placed over the lateral aspect of left forearm about 10 cm below the elbow with granulated floor. Extensor muscle of left thumb not acting” Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 22 PW12 opined that the injury could be caused by a weapon like MO2 and the injury was muscle deep. 19. The evidence on record shows that the accused had attacked the unarmed deceased with dangerous weapon like MO2, which he was carrying with him and started stabbing the deceased indiscriminately. The mere fact that the accused sustained some injuries, which was not grievous, did not give rise to reasonable inference or even probability that the deceased violently attacked the deceased. 20. The accused has no case that PW2 had any previous enmity towards him and no reason is stated by the accused for falsely implicating him. Since the testimony of PW2 is corroborated by the testimony of PW5 and duly corroborated by the medical evidence, we are of the view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge is perfectly justified in finding that the accused caused the death of the deceased by stabbing him with MO2 knife. Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 23 21. The next question to be considered is as to what is the offence committed by the accused. When a person is causing injury on a vital part of the body of another person, the intention to kill that person can certainly be attributed to him. Causing serious injury on the vital part of the body of that person with dangerous weapon must necessarily lead to the inference that the act intended was to kill that person. The evidence on record shows that the accused did cause fatal injuries found on the person of the deceased by using MO2 intentionally and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and death was actually caused, thereby the accused has committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Therefore, we find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. Since the Additional Sessions Judge has imposed the minimum sentence of imprisonment for life and reasonable amount as fine under Crl.A.No. 1585 of 2006 24 Section 302 I.P.C., we do not find any reason to interfere with the sentence also. 22. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed as it is without any merit. The conviction and sentence of the appellant/accused under Section 302 I.P.C. is confirmed. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge