The High Court dismissed the appeal against a life sentence for murder. The court held that evidence regarding the nature of burns and eyewitness testimonies rebutted the defense of accident or suicide, sustaining the conviction.
Criminal Appeal dismissed; conviction and life sentence upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN
TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931
CRL.A.No. 1806 of 2005()
-----------------------SC.606/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), PATHANAMTHITTA CP.63/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RANNI
APPELLANT:
--------------
SOMAN @ KUNJUMON, S/O.NARAYANAN, CONVICT NO.9224, CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM-695 012.
BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEV.T.P.
RESPONDENT
---------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.NOBLE MATHEW
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
Crl.A.No.1806 OF 2005
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant was the accused in Sessions Case No.606/2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc) Fast Track Court-I, Pathanamthitta. He stood charge sheeted by the Dy.S.P. of Police, Thiruvalla for having murdered his wife by pouring kerosene on her at about 9.30. p.m. on 9.3.1999 and setting fire to her.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:
The appellant is a loading worker . He used to drink and quarrell with his wife frequently. On the date of incident, he demanded Rs.250/- from his wife. She has availed a loan of Rs.1000/- for doing maintenance work to the hut in which they were residing. On coming to know of this, the appellant demanded Rs.250/-. When she declined to pay the same, he took MO1 Can containing kerosene kept in the kitchen, poured
Crl.A.No.1806/2005
2
the kerosene on her, lighted a match and set fire to her. Their house was at a higher level when compared with the house of PW1, the brother of the deceased Valsamma. Smt.Valsamma rushed to the house of PW1 engulfed by fire and fell down. PW1 and his wife poured water on her and quenched the fire. Her clothes were removed. A jeep was called and she was taken to the General Hospital at Pathanamthitta by PW1 and others. The doctor at the General Hospital, after examining the patient, directed to take her to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. In a taxi, she has taken to the Medical College Hospital, where she was admitted on 10.9.2009. Immediately, after the incident, she told PW1, her brother, and PW2, who is her neighbour that it was the appellant, who poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. At the hospital, PW7, Head Constable, met her and recorded Ext.P5 F.I.Statement. The said officer got intimation regarding the incident through wireless from Gandhi Nagar Police Station. He found the injured in a conscious state and gave a statement implicating the appellant as the person responsible for the burns sustained by her. Since all her fingers were burned, thumb impression or impression of any other
Crl.A.No.1806/2005
3
finger could not be taken. PW7 has made an endorsement to that effect in Ext.P5 F.I.Statement. With the assistance of the bystander, who was the sister of the injured, he prepared a body note also. Based on the said F.I.Statement, PW10, Circle Inspector of Police, registered a crime under Section 498A and 307 of the I.P.C. While undergoing treatment, the injured breathed her last at the midnight between 13.3.1999 and 14.3.1999. PW10 prepared the inquest report and sent the body for postmortem examination. Doctor Augustine conducted the autopsy and issued Ext.P7 postmortem certificate. PW10 filed a report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ranni, incorporating the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and deleting Section 307 of the I.P.C. He visited the scene and prepared Ext.P1 Scene Mahzar. He seized MO1 Can and MO2 series consisting of partially burned leaves of mango tree, burned matches, remnants of burned clothes, portions of a burned skirt, portions of a burned nighty and burned grass from the place, where Valsamma fell down. He continued the investigation till PW11, Deputy Superintendent of Police, took over the investigation on 31.5.1999. In the meantime, PW8,
Crl.A.No.1806/2005
4
Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, arrested the accused on 14.5.1999. PW11 questioned the witnesses and completed substantial portion of the investigation. PW12, successor Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruvalla, took over the investigation on 16.9.1999. He completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranni, who on finding that the offence alleged were exclusively triable by a court of sessions, committed the case to Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, which in turn was made over to Fast Track Court-I, Pathanamthitta.
Crl.A.No.1806/2005
5
the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. A fine of Rs.1,00,000/- was also imposed and in default, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. Feeling aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this Criminal Appeal.
Crl.A.No.1806/2005
6
But, the deceased while giving Ext.P5 statement informed PW7, the Head Constable, who recorded the statement, that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set fire to her. The motive for the same was her refusal to pay Rs.250/- to him. PW1, who is the brother, who saw her coming down from her house as a fireball and falling down near her residence, also deposed before the Court that she told him that it was the appellant, who set fire to her after pouring kerosene. PW2, who is a lady residing in the neighbourhood and who came to the scene, immediately after the incident, has also deposed before the court that she was told by Valsamma that it was the appellant, who set fire to her after pouring kerosene. PW3, who is a witness to Ext.P7 scene mahzar, has also spoken about the version of the deceased concerning the incident.
Crl.A.No.1806/2005
7
But, while he was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. the appellant said that because of the failure of her brother, PW1, to pay the due consideration for the property sold by her she committed suicide. The trial court declined to believe the above version of the defence and found the appellant guilty.
Crl.A.No.1806/2005
8
of self immolation. But, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 corroborated by Ext.P5 statement rule out the possibility of a case of attempted suicide. They unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. So, we find no reason to take a different view from the view taken by the trial court that it was the appellant, who caused the death of his wife.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and it is dismissed.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE)
ps
Crl.A.No.1806/2005
9
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
=========================== Crl.A.NO.1806/2005
===========================
JUDGMENT
DATED 13TH OCTOBER, 2009 ==============================
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding that the appellant murdered his wife by pouring kerosene and setting fire to her is sustainable as opposed to suicide or accident.
Whether the suggestion that the victim committed suicide was supported by the evidence of injuries and eyewitness accounts.
Soman @ Kunjumon
State of Kerala
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
P. BHAVADASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
