IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 CRL.A.No. 709 of 2006() ----------------------- SC.135/2000 of III ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR FAST TRACK NO.1, THRISSUR CP.2/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- MUHAMMED, S/O VALAPPIL SULAIMAN, C.NO.8694, CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR. BY SRI.MUHAMMED (PARTY IN PRISON) SMT.R.PADMAKUMARI (STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE C.I.OF POLICE, CHAVAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI NOBLE MATHEW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- Crl.Appeal No.709 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. In this appeal, the appellant/accused assails the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 302 IPC. He faces a sentence of imprisonment for life. There is also a direction to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. 2. The accused was earlier found guilty, convicted and sentenced. But by judgment dated 28-9-2005 in Crl.Appeal No. 1055/2003, another Bench of this Court had set aside the said judgment on the ground that there was non-compliance with the procedural stipulations under Section 232 Cr.P.C. It is accordingly that the impugned revised judgment has been passed after curing the said defect /inadequacy in procedure. 3. The prosecution alleged that on 25.8.1998 at about 3.55 p.m. on the public road between Chavakkad and Enammavu, the accused stabbed the deceased Sivaji four times with MO1 knife inflicting serious injuries including injury No.1, which led to the death of the deceased shortly thereafter. Crl.A.No.709/06 -2- 4. Investigation commenced with the registration of Exhibit P1(a) FIR on the basis of Exhibit P1 First Information Statement lodged by PW1, an alleged eye witness. Investigation completed with PW13, the Investigating Officer filing final report against the accused. 5. To drive home its charge against the accused, the prosecution relies on the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 13, Exhibits P1 to P10 and MOs 1 to 5. 6. PWs 1 to 3 are eye witnesses, who claimed that they had witnessed the actual occurrence. PWs 4 and 5 are persons who allegedly reached the scene of the occurrence and found the deceased with injuries and the accused with weapon/MO1 at the scene. PW6 is the wife of the accused. It is alleged that she was earlier the wife of the deceased. The accused was allegedly angry with the deceased for having taken away his wife. This allegedly operated as the motive. 7. PW7 is the Doctor who examined the deceased at 4.20 p.m. on the same evening and issued Exhibit P3 wound certificate. The accused allegedly had suffered an injury in the course of the incident and PW7 had examined the accused at 10.15 p.m. on the same day and issued Exhibit P4 wound Crl.A.No.709/06 -3- certificate describing the injury on his right palm. PW11 Doctor had conducted the postmortem examination and issued Exhibit P7. It is the case of the prosecution that all the injuries found on the deceased described in Exhibit P7 could be inflicted with a weapon like MO1. It is their further case that the injury on the person of the accused described in Exhibit P4 could be suffered by him when he, as an assailant inflicts injury on another with MO1. 8. PW8 is an attestor to Exhibit P5 scene mahazar and PW9 is the Village Officer who prepared Exhibit P6 scene plan on the basis of the details in Exhibit P5. PW10 is a police official who reached the scene on coming to know of the incident when information was conveyed over the telephone to the Police Station. He had taken the injured/deceased to the Taluk Hospital initially. Later, the deceased was sent to the Medical College Hospital, for expert management. 9. PW12 is the police official who recorded Exhibit P1 First Information Statement lodged by PW1 at 4.15 p.m. on the date of the incident and registered Exhibit P1(a) FIR at that time. Exhibit P1(a) FIR had reached the court at 11 a.m. on 26.8.1998. Exhibit P8 is the inquest report under which MOs 2 to 4 blood Crl.A.No.709/06 -4- stained clothes of the deceased were seized. Exhibit P9 is the Chemical Examiner's report which shows that the weapon MO1 was human blood stained. PW13 is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation and submitted the final report. He had allegedly came across the accused near the scene of occurrence with MO1 knife. He was initially kept under surveillance and was later arrested. MO1 knife which was available with him was seized under Exhibit P2 seizure mahazar. Exhibit P8 inquest report was prepared by him. Exhibit P5 scene mahazar was also prepared by him. At the scene, blood was available and MO5 cotton soaked in such blood was seized under Exhibit P5 scene mahazar. Exhibit P9 is the Chemical Examiner's report to confirm that MO1 had blood stains on it and the said human blood was of 'A' group. Human blood detected in MO5 blood stained cotton was also of 'A' group, it is reported in Exhibit P9. Exhibit P10 is the list of properties sent by the Investigating Officer. 10. The accused in the course of cross examination and when examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. attempted to advance a defence that he had not inflicted the injuries on the deceased. He filed a statement. According to him, he was Crl.A.No.709/06 -5- available at the scene along with his child aged four years. He had seen the deceased and one Ravi, the former husband of PW6 quarrelling with each other. He had attempted to intervene and separate them. The deceased must have suffered injuries at the hands of the said Ravi. The said Ravi is a very influential person. Using his influence with the police, he has falsely implicated the accused. The accused is absolutely innocent and is not responsible for the injuries found on the person of the deceased. The injuries on his hand described in Exhibit P4 was also attempted to be explained as the injury suffered when he tried to intervene to separate the said Ravi and the deceased. According to him, PW6 was not his wife, but she was the wife of the deceased and earlier that of the said Ravi. The accused did not adduce any defence. 11. The learned Sessions Judge on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs found it absolutely safe to place reliance on the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 5 about the incident proper and the evidence of PW6 about the motive. The court further found that the version of PW13 about the arrest of the accused and recovery of MO1 from his possession under Exhibit P2 can safely be accepted. Accordingly, the court below Crl.A.No.709/06 -6- proceeded to pass the impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence. 12. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant Smt.Padmakumari (State Brief) and the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Noble Mathew have advanced their arguments. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence on the following grounds. (i) The court below erred in choosing to accept and act upon the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 6. (ii) At any rate, the court below should have come to the conclusion that the version of the accused to explain the injuries found on his person was more probable and competes in improbabilities with the version of the prosecution and consequently the benefit of doubt must have been conceded to the appellant. (iii) The sentence imposed is excessive. 13. That the deceased died on account of the injuries described in Exhibit P3 wound certificate and Exhibit P7 postmortem certificate is proved beyond doubt and there is no Crl.A.No.709/06 -7- serious dispute on that aspect. Injury No.1 described in Exhibits P3 and P7 is stated by PW7 and PW11 Doctors to be a fatal injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW7 Doctor has opined that the injury on the right palm of the accused as noted in Exhibit P4 wound certificate can be caused, if the sharp portion of MO1 comes into contact while attempting to inflict injury on another with that weapon. We find not a semblance of doubt on the correctness of the finding of the court below that the deceased died of injuries described in Exhibits P3 and P7 and that those injuries could have been inflicted with a weapon like MO1. 14. About the motive, we have some evidence. In a case where direct ocular testimony is available, motive pales into insignificance. But proof of motive certainly helps to offer assurance to the court for the oral evidence tendered by ocular witnesses about the incident in question. It is in this context that we look at the evidence of PW6. The evidence of PW6 shows that she, a migrant from Pondicherry was earlier living with the deceased as his wife and has subsequently switched loyalties and was residing with the accused. It is her evidence that there was animosity and motive on this score between the deceased and Crl.A.No.709/06 -8- the accused. We have gone through the cross-examination of PW6 in detail. Though it is suggested that yet another earlier husband, Ravi also had reasons to be inimical towards the deceased, nothing has been brought out to doubt or suspect the version of PW6 about the alleged strain in the relationship between the accused and the deceased. Motive is also thus established satisfactorily. 15. We have direct ocular evidence from PWs 1 to 3 about the manner in which the deceased happened to suffer these injuries. PW1 claims to be a person who was available near the spot of occurrence and had witnessed the incident. His version is convincingly corroborated by his prompt version in Exhibit P1 FI statement. We have a fairly exhaustive narration of the manner in which the incident took place in Exhibit P1 and that rhymes perfectly with the present case of the prosecution. The incident took place at about 3.55 p.m. on 25.8.1998 and Exhibit P1 FI statement is recorded by PW12 from PW1 at 4.15 pm on the same day. Exhibit P1(a) FIR, as stated earlier, reached court promptly at 11 a.m. on 26.8.1998. Thus the version of PW1 gets intrinsic support from the prompt FI statement Exhibit P1. Crl.A.No.709/06 -9- 16. PW2 is the owner of the shop in front of whose shop the incident took place. A reading of Exhibit P5 scene mahazar as also a perusal of Exhibit P6 scene plan reveal that the shop of PW2 is located right next to the place where the incident had taken place. PW2 is thus found to be a very natural witness. PW3, yet another eye witness also has his place of business near the scene of occurrence. He claims to be running a provision store. From the details in Exhibits P5 and P6, it does not appear to be possible to precisely locate the shop of PW3. But the fact remains that PW3 had stated that he had witnessed the occurrence. 17. We have gone through the cross examination of PWs 1 to 3 – all eye witnesses, very carefully. We find absolutely no reason to doubt or to suspect the version of PWs 1 to 3. 18. We now come to the evidence of PWs 4 and 5. They do not claim to have witnessed the occurrence. Immediately after the occurrence, they had reached the scene of occurrence. They had seen the deceased with injuries lying on the road and the accused with blood stained MO1 and an injury on himself standing near the scene of occurrence. Thus the evidence of PWs 4 and 5 affords convincing corroboration for the oral Crl.A.No.709/06 -10- evidence of PWs 1 to 3 about the incident proper. The seizure of MO1 from the possession of the accused under Exhibit P2 by PW13 also lends support for the version of PWs 1 to 5. 19. At this juncture, we have to evaluate the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 5 in the light of the version of the accused that it was not he, but one Ravi who inflicted the injuries on the deceased. The accused relies upon the alleged circumstance that his child, aged about four years, was also available with him at the time of the incident. This the counsel contends, improbabilises the version of PWs 1 to 5. According to him, he had only intervened in the quarrel between Ravi and the deceased. The said Ravi also had strong motive to entertain a grouse against the deceased. This in short is the contention. 20. We have re-evaluated the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 in the light of this version advanced by the accused. We have no semblance of material to conclude that the said Ravi was present at the scene of occurrence and the incident proper was between the said Ravi and the deceased. The same remains in the realm of an unsubstantiated suggestion thrown at the witnesses during cross examination and advanced through 313 examination in the statement filed by the accused. Our attention has not been Crl.A.No.709/06 -11- drawn to any reasons as to why PWs.1 to 5 must strain to save the said Ravi from culpability and point the accusing finger at the appellant/accused. It is true that PW6 had stated that the name of Ravi is tattooed in her body and that she was earlier living with him as his wife. That mere circumstance, in the wake of the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 cannot at all persuade us to even entertain a valid remote doubt that the incident took place between Ravi and the deceased and the deceased suffered injuries at the hands of the said Ravi and the appellant/accused is being implicated by PWs.1 to 5 unnecessarily or on the basis of mere suspicion. We take the view that the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5 does not deserve to be approached with any amount of doubt, suspicion or distrust on the basis of this version advanced by the appellant/accused. The version of the prosecution about the incident is probabilised convincingly by the injury suffered by the accused himself on his right palm. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the said injury could have been suffered by the accused at the hands of the said Ravi who is attempted to be pictured as the real culprit by the accused now. Crl.A.No.709/06 -12- 21. We do in these circumstances find it absolutely safe to concur with the conclusion of the court below that the injuries on the deceased were suffered by him at the hands of the accused with MO.1 as indicated from the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5. The said finding of fact does not warrant interference at all. 22. Injury No.1 described in Ext.P7 was the fatal injury. That injury, it is proved, was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Under Clause No.3 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, culpable homicide amounting to murder must be held to have been committed . The injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. That was an intentional injury inflicted. There is nothing to assume that the intention was to inflict any injury other than the injuries which actually resulted or that the injuries which actually resulted were not intended. The case does not obviously fall under any of the five exceptions under Section 300 I.P.C. In these circumstances, we concur with the court below that the offence proved against the accused is murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 23. We find no merit in the challenge against the sentence imposed. The lesser of the two alternative sentences Crl.A.No.709/06 -13- permissible under Section 302 I.P.C. alone has been imposed. The sentence to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months does not, according to us, warrant any interference. The challenge against the sentence is thus found to be without any merit. 24. In the result: a) this appeal is dismissed. b) the impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence are upheld. 25. The Registry shall communicate this judgment to the appellant/convict forthwith. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn