This appeal challenged a life sentence for murder. The High Court evaluated the reliability of the sole eyewitness, the recovery of the weapon, and the lack of proven motive. The Court affirmed the trial court's conviction.
The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were 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
THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931
CRL.A.No. 1977 of 2005()
-----------------------SC.430/2002 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, PALAKKAD
APPELLANT(S): ACCUSED:
CHENNIYAPPAN, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O. ARUNACHALA KOUNDER, PULIYANKANDI, CHEMMANAMPATHI, MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR.
BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SMT.P.MAYA
RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.NOBLE MATHEW
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.10.2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------------------------Cr.A. No.1977 OF 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------Dated 15th October 2009
Judgment
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant was the accused in Sessions Case No.430/02 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Palakkad. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows :
CRA 1977/05
2
crimes, made his escape.
CRA 1977/05
3
Court, as the offence disclosed was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the Fast Track Court No.II, Palakkad for trial.
CRA 1977/05
4
that there were six witnesses to the occurrence i.e., PW1 to PW5 and PW12. All of them, except PW1, have turned hostile. Having regard to the deposition of PW1, it is quite unsafe to rely on his version and sustain the conviction. The learned counsel also pointed out that in his deposition before the court, PW1 has stated that there was no compound wall, dividing his property on the eastern side and the compound of the Ganapathy temple on the western side. But in the cross examination, he would admit that there was a compound wall, dividing their property. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, his evidence would show that he was standing on the northern side of his residential building in the roadside. So, going by Ext.P22 scene plan, it is not probable that he could have witnessed the alleged attack on Pazhaniswami, who was standing on the eastern side of the temple, i.e., on the western side of the property of PW1. Further, according to the prosecution, Pazhaniswami ran towards the south-west direction and fell down in a pathway. If that be so, what happened at the place, where the deceased fell down, could not have been watched by PW1. Even assuming the said witness has rushed to the place, where Pazhaniswami fell down, then, it is inherently improbable that he could have seen
CRA 1977/05
5
Chellammal, coming from the Society, through the road on the northern side and the alleged attack made on her by the appellant. So, having regard to the lie of the land and the buildings available, as disclosed by the scene mahazar and the site plan, the version of PW1 cannot be believed, it is submitted.
CRA 1977/05
6
the murders of the aforementioned persons. So, the appellant is entitled to get acquittal, it is submitted.
out that going by the scene mahazar and the other evidence on record, the Ganapathy Temple is at a lower level, when compared to the road on its northern side. If that be so, the road is at a higher level. Therefore, PW1 , who was standing on the northern side of the eastern courtyard of the temple, in the public road, could have definitely witnessed the attack made by the appellant on Pazhaniswami and from standing at the place, where Pazhaniswami fell, PW1 could have seen the attack made by the appellant on his mother. Further, on hearing the cries of Chellammal, PW1 and another rushed to the scene also. So, even if there is some minor contradictions or inconsistencies, the version of PW1 has the ring of truth. Having regard to the lie of the land, there is nothing improbable in his claim that he has watched both the incidents. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is no reason for the PW1 or the Police to falsely implicate the appellant and spare the real culprit. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the trial court has rightly rejected the defence version and relying on the
7
CRA 1977/05
deposition of PW1 and the recovery of MO1, rightly convicted the appellant.
CRA 1977/05
8
fell down, is quite natural and there is no reason for us to disbelieve it. Regarding the second incident, the case of PW1 is that he heard a cry of Chellammal that she is being killed. Immediately, he, along with another, rushed to the spot and saw the incident. The version of the witness is that he saw the appellant mounting his scooter, riding westwards through the public road on the northern side of the temple, accosting the victim, his mother and attacking her. The materials on record would show that the road at that place is slightly at a higher level and so, there is nothing incredible in the version of PW1. Further, we find no reason for PW1 to falsely implicate the appellant. We equally find no reason for the Police to falsely implicate him. This is a village, where everyone knows whatever happens and it is inherently improbable that the police will foist a false case on an innocent person. In the absence of compelling materials to show that there was foul play from the part of the Police, we are inclined to believe that the official acts were done in this case properly and correctly. The unfounded suggestions of an accused, made to the witnesses, are not sufficient to sustain the case of the defence. In this case, contemporaneous records, including the F.I. statement lodged before the Station House Officer and the
CRA 1977/05
9
registering of the crime, rule out the possibility of manipulation of the F.I.R. or false implication of a person, who is not involved in the crime. In this case, the chopper recovered at the instance of the accused under S.27 of the Evidence Act, has been identified by PW1 as the chopper, which was used by the appellant. The medical evidence also supports the case of the Prosecution. PW20, the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination and gave P18 and P19 certificates relating to Pazhaniswami and Chellammal, has categorically stated that the injuries found on the deceased could be caused as suggested, i.e., they could be caused using MO1 chopper. The recovery of a material object from an open space, does not mean that the said recovery should be ignored. Whether it is reliable or not, will depend upon the facts of each case. In this case, we find no reason to disbelieve the version of the Prosecution that MO1 chopper was recovered, solely on the basis of the information furnished by the appellant. We notice that it was recovered from a place about 2 kms. away from the place of occurrence, hidden under a heap of peanut waste.
CRA 1977/05
10
crime, there will be a motive. But in many cases, the Prosecution may not be able to prove it because it is buried deep in the chest of the perpetrator of the crime. Even in a case, where the offence is sought to be proved based on circumstantial evidence, the Apex Court has also held that the absence of sufficient proof of motive will not be fatal. In a case where the commission of the crime is proved through direct evidence of the witnesses, who have seen it, the absence of proof of motive is totally irrelevant.
In the result, we uphold the view taken by the trial court and we find none of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is sustainable in law. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE
sta
CRA 1977/05 11
CRA 1977/05 12
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder and life sentence should be set aside due to unreliable testimony, lack of motive, and disputed eyewitness identification.
Whether the absence of sufficient evidence regarding the motive for the crime is fatal to sustain a conviction based on direct eyewitness evidence.
Whether the recovery of the weapon from an open space undermines the prosecution's case against the appellant.
ChenNIYAPPAN
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
