IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2009 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 CRL.A.No. 264 of 2006(C) ------------------------ SC.17/2003 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), THALASSERY CP.77/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): --------------------- POTTAKKAL BENOY, CONVICT NO.2058, CENTRAL JAIL, KANNUR. BY ADV. SMT.ASHA CHERIAN(STATE BRIEF) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. NOBLE MATHEW. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON 17/12/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. Appeal No. 264 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT Bhavadasan, J, The appellant, who was found guilty of the offence of fratricide was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. He was found guilty of other offences also. 2. The prosecution unfolds the story thus: The incident occurred on 26.4.2002 at about 11.30 p.m. The deceased and the accused are brothers. P.W.1 is closely related to them. P.W.1 is a mason by profession. On the date of the incident, he returned after work at about 6.30 in the evening. He found the accused in his house. P.W.1 asked the accused that in case he was going to Josegiri, he may buy a bundle of beedi for him. After bath, P.W.1 went to the house of his brother-in-law. Since he could not meet the accused even after waiting for some time, he returned home. On his Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 2 way, he heard loud talks from the house of the deceased. He went inside. He found the accused and the deceased talking about their family matters. When he saw the accused, he asked him whether he had bought the beedi. The accused handed over the beedi to him. P.W.1 returned to his house. The accused also went to his house. According to P.W.1 a short while thereafter there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased regarding the family affairs and they were separated by P.W.1 and his brother. P.W.1 would say that at that time the accused bit him. Hearing the noise, others gathered at the place. They pacified the accused and sent him home. Along with him his sisters also left the place. Seeing this incident, the mother of the deceased and the accused fell sick. A short while thereafter the accused and his sister Shiji, who is examined as D.W.1 came to the house of David to give medicine to their mother. There was a talk between the accused and the deceased and the accused went to the kitchen of the house of the Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 3 deceased. Then D.W.1 told the deceased that the accused was annoyed because he had quarreled with him. She also recommended that he should speak to the accused. P.W.1 claims that he went along with Shiji to the house of the victim. There they found the victim talking to the accused and trying to pacify him. When he tried to embrace the accused, all of a sudden the accused took out a knife from his loin and repeatedly stabbed the victim. Crying aloud, the victim fell on the floor of the kitchen. Hearing the cries of the victim, others rushed to the spot and he was removed to the hospital in a jeep. They reached the Medical College Hospital at Pariyaram at about 2 a.m on the next day. The Doctor examined David and pronounced him dead. P.W.1 laid Ext.P1 first information statement before Peringome Police Station. P.W.11 the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the police station, based on Ext.P1 first information furnished by P.W.1, registered Crime No.138 of 2002 of the said police station under Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 4 Ext.P1(a) FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 449 , 302 and 324 IPC. He informed his superior officers. Since the Circle Inspector concerned was on leave, the Deputy Superintendent of Police asked P.W.11 to conduct the investigation. He conducted inquest over the body of the victim and prepared Ext.P5 report. He recovered M.Os. 1 to 3 found on the body of the victim. He had the photographs of the body taken. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.P6 scene mahazar. He recovered M.Os. 5, 6 and 9 from the place of occurrence. Rest of the investigation was conducted by P.W.12. He arrested the accused on 28.4.2002. Ex.P2 is the arrest memo and Ext.P3 is the inspection memo. He would say that he recovered M.O.4 knife as per Ext.P4 mahazar based on Ext.P14 confession statement given by the accused. According to him, at the behest of the accused the clothes worn by the accused at the relevant time were seized by him. He recorded the statements of witnesses, completed the Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 5 investigation and laid charge before court. 3. JFCM, Payyannur, before whom final report was filed, took cognizance of the offences. On appearance of the accused before the said court, all legal formalities were complied with. The learned Magistrate found that the offences are exclusively triable by a court of Sessions and accordingly committed the case to Sessions Court, Thalassery The said court made over the case to Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Thalassery for trial and disposal. 5. The latter court, on receipt of records, issued summons to the accused. The accused entered appearance. After hearing both sides, charge was framed for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 and 449 IPC. To the charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution therefore had P.Ws. 1 to 13 examined Exts.P1 to P18 marked. M.Os. 1 to 10 were identified and marked. After the close of the prosecution Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 6 evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him and maintained that he is innocent. He pointed out that he had two unmarried sisters and his parents are dependent on him. He had stated that he had not done any act which should constitute an offence. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. The accused had examined D.W.1, who is none other than his sister. On a consideration of the materials before it, the court below found that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the case against him and found him guilty and conviction and sentence already mentioned followed. The said conviction and sentence are assailed in this appeal. 6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the court below was justified in finding that the accused was guilty of the offences alleged against him. Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 7 7. The prosecution case in brief is that on the date of the incident there was exchange of words between the accused and the victim and later in the night when the victim tried to pacify the accused, who is none other than his brother, the accused stabbed him. To prove the incident the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3. 8. P.W.1 is closely related to the accused and the victim. As already noticed, he is a mason by profession and he speaks about the incident, which occurred on 26.4.2002. A good portion of his evidence has already been referred to. He speaks about the exchange of words between the victim and the accused relating to their family affairs. He has also spoken about the altercation which ensued between them and also that he and his brother had intervened and separated them. He then speaks about what had happened thereafter later in the night. P.W.1 would also Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 8 say that the injured was taken to the hospital by him and others in the jeep driven by P.W.3. 9. P.Ws. 2 and 4 are two neighbours, who came to the spot hearing the commotion. They are residing nearby. P.W.2 would say that hearing the loud noise from the house of David, he reached the house and found David lying on the floor of the kitchen with stab injuries. At that time, his parents, his brother-in- law and his sisters, namely, Shiji, Lissie and Valsa, were standing there. David had become unconscious. When he enquired as to what had happened, he would say that D.W.1 and P.W.1 told him that the accused had stabbed David. P.W.1 immediately left to fetch a vehicle to take David to the hospital. P.W.2 would say that he along with others carried David to the jeep and took him to the hospital. By about 2 – 2.30 a.m. they reached Pariyaram Medical College. The Doctor examined David and pronounced him dead. According to P.W.2 there was a family dispute between the Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 9 deceased and the accused and that was the reason for the incident. He would also depose that when P.W.1 had tried to separate the warring brothers, P.W.1 suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. 10. P.W.4 also says that he had occasion to go to the hospital along with P.Ws. 1 and 2. He would say that on reaching the hospital the doctor examined David and pronounced him dead. This witness also says that he witnessed the inquest over the body of David and signed as a witness. 11. There is no dispute regarding the fact that David died due to the injuries suffered by him. Any doubt in this regard stand dispelled by the evidence of P.W.11, who prepared the inquest report and P.W.9, who conducted the postmortem examination, which shows that David had suffered as many as 13 injuries. Six of them are incised wounds. Ext.P11 shows that death was due to the stab injury sustained on the chest. P.W.9, Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 10 who conducted postmortem examination has opined that injury No.1 is a fatal injury and is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the person concerned. He had also opined that the incised wounds could be caused by the use of a weapon like M.O.4. 12. From the evidence, it is clear that the victim had suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. However, the accused had chosen to examine D.W.1, who is none other than the sister of the accused, who is also the sister of the deceased. The testimony of D.W.1 unfolds a story which even the accused did not have. According to D.W.1 the culprit was P.W.1. In her evidence, she says that on the date of the incident the accused had stayed in the house of the deceased. The wife and children of the deceased were not at home. On the date of the incident the accused was heavily drunk and was unable to keep himself steady. She further stated that she asked the accused to stay back in the house of the Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 11 victim. D.W.1 was working as a nurse in a Nursing Home at Mangalapurm. On the date of the incident she claims that she was at home. She would say that on the date of the incident after taking supper and finishing other matters, when they were about to go to sleep they heard a loud noise from the house of David. They reached the place. She claims that they saw David and C.W.8 quarreling with each other and so also the accused and P.W.1. She says that P.W.1 was heard saying that he will not permit an electric line to be drawn through his property for giving electric supply to the house of David. She would say that P.W.1 pushed aside the accused and he fell down. According to her, then P.W.1 stabbed on the chest of the accused and began to beat him. She claims that she and others prevented P.W.1 from inflicting further injuries. They returned home. By that time, seeing the incident, their mother fell sick and she was taken home. A short while thereafter when they were on their way to ascertain the state of affairs of their Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 12 mother, they heard a loud noise from the side of the kitchen of the house of David. When they reached the place they found David lying on the floor in a pool of blood. She says that she saw a large wound on the stomach of the victim and that was tied and interestingly she says that when they reached the house they saw P.W.1 leaving saying that David had suffered a slight injury. She claims that she along with C.Ws.9, 11 and 15 had removed David to the hospital. The duty doctor examined him and pronounced him dead. 13. One can only say that the testimony of D.W.1 could be viewed only as a desperate attempt to save her brother. She puts the blame on P.W.1. The court below refused to accept her version and found that it is far from truth. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that P.W.1 had no reason to be present at the place of incident and his unaccounted presence shows that he was the Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 13 culprit. Considerable reliance was placed on the evidence of D.W.1 in support of that contention. 15. One can only say that the exercise of the learned counsel for the appellant is only a futility. P.W.1 is obviously related to the accused and the victim and he has accounted for his presence in the place of the incident. He had also stated that when he had gone to the kitchen of the house of David, D.W.1 was along with him. It is significant to notice that when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused had no case like the one put forward by D.W.1. There was no suggestion to any of the witnesses to the effect that it was P.W.1 who had inflicted the injury on the victim. There was no cross-examination of P.W.1 in that direction at all. There was no suggestion even to the investigating officer that the evidence has been manipulated so as to falsely implicate the accused. Therefore the version put forward Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 14 by D.W.1 can only to be treated as an after thought to save her brother. 16. The evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4 clearly show that it was P.W.1 and others who had taken David to the hospital. Even though D.W.1 says that she had gone along with her brother, there is nothing to show that what she claims is true. The story put forward by D.W.1 regarding the drawing of electric line is only a cock and bull story. Her version stands belied by the fact that it was P.W.1, who had taken initiative to fetch the vehicle and removed the victim to the hospital. If as a matter of fact, he was the culprit, obviously he would have made sure that he was not present at the place of the incident when others arrived. There is nothing in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4, which would show that P.W.1 had any role in the incident except in removing the deceased to the hospital. Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 15 17. Even going by the evidence of D.W.1, the other members of the family were present at the time of incident soon after David had suffered the injury. None of them had come forward with a case that it was P.W.1, who had inflicted the injury. What is significant is that the accused himself had no such case that it was P.W.1, who had inflicted the injuries on his brother. There is nothing to indicate that it was P.W.1, who had inflicted the injuries to David. One must notice that P.W.1 was cited by the prosecution as one of their witnesses. At any rate, it is impossible to accept the version of D.W.1. 18. Ext.P12 certificate shows that P.W.1 was examined by the doctor, P.W.10, when he went for treatment for the bite received at the hands of the accused. There is nothing to show that this item of evidence is a concocted one. 19. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that material witnesses have been given Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 16 up by the prosecution deliberately to conceal the real incident. The court below has considered this aspect in paragraph 23 of the judgment and found that the contention has no basis. There is no reason to take a different view. Even otherwise, it is not necessary for the prosecution to examine all the witnesses. If the evidence of the witnesses examined is enough to unfold the prosecution story, that would be sufficient. One had also to remember that most of the witnesses are close relatives of the accused and the deceased. It is too difficult to believe that the case would have been manipulated to such an extent so as to falsely implicate the accused. 20. One cannot omit to note that it was P.W.1, who laid Ext.P1 first information statement. 21. The court below has considered all the materials in great detail and had come to the conclusion that non-examination of some of the witnesses has not affected the prosecution case at Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 17 all. The court below has also noticed that though that act of the prosecution could be criticized, there is nothing to show that it had affected the veracity of the prosecution version of the incident. It does not have the effect of creating a dent in the prosecution version of the incident. Considering all these aspects, it is not possible to come to the conclusion that the court below is not right in coming to the conclusion that the injuries found on the body of the victim were inflicted by the accused in this case. 22. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that by no stretch of imagination the offence under Section 449 IPC alleged against the accused could be attracted. Even going by the prosecution evidence, it is clear that the accused had no intention to inflict any injury to the deceased. Accepting the prosecution case, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that it was a sudden act committed by the accused without any premeditation and therefore the conviction Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 18 and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC is illegal. 23. One shall not forget the fact that when the accused returned to the house of the victim, he was carrying a weapon with him. But as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is nothing to show that he had any intention at that time to inflict an injury to his brother David. As going by the sequence of events, it would appear that the accused got suddenly agitated and at that moment he inflicted the injuries on the deceased. True, there are six incised wounds inflicted on him. But there is nothing to indicate that he had come to the house of David with the intention to inflict injuries on David. It seems that the finding of the court below that the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC was made out cannot be supported. In the result, while confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the court below with regard to Sections 302 Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 19 and 324 IPC, the conviction and sentence passed by the court below for the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC is set aside and it is held that the accused is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge P. Bhavadasan, Judge sb. Cr.Appeal.264/2006. 20 K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl. Appeal No. 264 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 17.12.2009.