Allowed

Thomas @ Moodadi Thomman v. Circle Inspector of Police

Kerala HC10 Jan 2011CRL.A/1059/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the court set aside a murder conviction (S.302 IPC) for culpable homicide not amounting to murder (S.304 IPC). Recognizing doubts about the incident's genesis and applying the benefit of doubt to the accused regarding grave and sudden provocation under Exception 1, Section 300 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under S.302 IPC set aside; appellant convicted under S.304 IPC (Part I) and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine.

Thomas @ Moodadi Thomman Vs Circle Inspector of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932

¶3

CRL.A.No. 1059 of 2007()

¶4

---------------------------------SC.728/2004 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CP.53/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT - I, IDUKKI ....................

¶5

APPELLANT(S): /ACCUSED ------------------------------------------

¶6

THOMAS @ MOODADI THOMMAN, EDAMANACHIRAYIL (THERAYIL) HOUSE, VENMANI KARA, KANJIKKUZHI VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): STATE ------------------------------------

¶9

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIKUZHI, STATE REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

tss

¶13

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.

¶14

Crl.A.No.1059 of 2007 (B)

¶15

Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2011.

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

Balakrishnan, J.

¶18

The appellant was convicted by Addl.Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha for offence punishable under S.302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

¶19

Brief facts necessary for the case can be stated thus:

¶20

The incident took place on 12.2.2004 at about 7 p.m. About three or four months prior to the date of the occurrence there was a property transaction in which the property belonging to the deceased Joby was agreed to be exchanged with the property belonging to one Anayadi Ravi. Besides an amount of Rs.50,000/- was also to be paid by Ravi to the

¶21

Crl.A.1059/2007 2

¶22

appellant, to equalise the value. The accused later realized that Ravi cheated him as there was dispute regarding the boundary of the property belonging to Ravi which was to be exchanged in favour of the accused. The accused wanted to back out from the contract for which he sought the assistance of deceased Joby. He did not oblige. The son and brother-in-law of the accused were sent to meet deceased Joby to tell him that Joby had to contact the accused. The deceased Joby did not agree to meet the accused. That incident took place at about 12 noon on 12.2.04. In the evening the deceased was seen at a place called Venmony City. Then accused asked Joby why he did not meet the accused. Without responding to the same, Joby left the place. In the evening at about 7 p.m. the deceased Joby and one Raju, Reji etc. gathered at a place near the pump house which is near a forest junda. The accused reached there. From there the accused

¶23

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶24

¶25

stabbed the deceased on his chest causing a fatal injury. Sibi and another person went to fetch a jeep from Venmony City where they saw the elder brother of the deceased. He was informed of the incident. He also reached the place of incident in the jeep from where the Joby was taken in the jeep but en route to the hospital, Joby breathed his last. He was taken to the hospital. The doctor pronounced Joby dead. The elder brother of the deceased thereafter went to the police station and lodged the First Information Statement, based on which, the F.I.R. was registered. After conducting inquest on the next day, the dead body was taken to the hospital for post-mortem examination. The Circle Inspector took over investigation. In the course of investigation accused was arrested by P.W.16, the S.I. of Police, Kanjikuzhi and was produced before the J.F.C.M.-I, Idukki on 15.2.04. He was later released on bail. The investigation was continued by

¶26

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶27

¶28

another Circle Inspector and thereafter charge-sheet was

¶29

laid against the accused, alleging commission of offence under S.302 I.P.C.

¶30

The accused denied the charge. To prove the charge P.W.1 to P.W.19 were examined and Exts. P1 to P27 were marked. The material objects M.O.1 to M.O.11 were identified and marked. Exts.D1 to D2 are the portions of the statements marked by the defence as contradictions.

¶31

Learned Sessions Judge placed implicit reliance on the evidence of P.W.5 who gave evidence in support of the prosecution. The evidence given by P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 6 was also relied upon to corroborate the testimony of P.W.5. The statement given by the deceased to P.W.1 and P.W.3 as to the stab injury sustained by him which was the cause of death was also relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge to accept the prosecution case. The evidence relating to the motive aspect put forward by the prosecution was also

¶32

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶33

¶34

accepted by the trial Judge. Thus the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced as stated above.

¶35

The appellant contends that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive suggested by them and so the court should not have accepted that part of the evidence to conclude that the prosecution case stood established. The evidence given by P.W.5 should not have been accepted by the learned Sessions Judge since he also did not actually see the accused stabbing the deceased, but even according to him he only saw the accused pulling out the knife from the chest of the deceased. The prosecution has not offered any explanation for the nonexamination of one Subash, though he was cited by the prosecution as C.W.14. The fact that the incident, according to the prosecution, took place at 7 p.m. and so it was not possible for the witnesses to see the incident

¶36

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶37

¶38

properly was also not considered by the learned Sessions Judge. It is further contended that the court below should

¶39

have found that the theory of giving a dying declaration to P.W.1 and others is quite artificial introduced by the investigating agency to lend support to its case.

¶40

We have heard Sri.Unnikrishnan Alapatt, the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Public Prosecutor. The following points arise for consideration.

¶41

Whether the accused stabbed deceased Joby with M.O.2 knife with the intention of causing his death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to cause the death of Joby.

¶42

Whether the injury inflicted on the deceased Joby was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and whether the accused intended to inflict such an injury.

¶43

Crl.A.1059/2007 7

¶44

Whether the verdict of guilt under S.302 is unsustainable on any of the grounds urged by the appellant.

¶45

Points 1 to 3:

¶46

P.W.14 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem on the body of deceased Joby between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. on 13.2.2004. The incident took place on 12.2.2004 at about 7 p.m. Ext.P.15 is the post-mortem certificate which shows the following ante mortem injuries:

¶47

Incised penetrating wound 3.2 x 1.5 c.m. obliquely placed on the right side of the front of chest. Its lower inner end showed splitting of tissues, which was 16 c.m. below the inner end of collar bone. The other end was sharply cut. The right chest wall was penetrated by cutting the cartilagenous part of 6^th rib and the wound entered the right chest cavity. The inner border of middle lobe of right lung was pierced through and by cutting the pericardium the wound was seen terminated on the front wall of right ventricle of heart at a site just below the triventicular junction. The wound was directed backwards and upwards for a total minimum depth of 5 c.m. Pericardial cavity contained 300 ml. of blood and chest cavity contained 1.2 litre of blood with clots. The right

Crl.A.1059/2007

lung was collapsed.

Linear abrasion 8 c.m. long oblique on the right side of front of chest 6 c.m. outer to mid-line and 13.5 c.m. below the collar bone.

¶52

Two contusions, each measuring 1 x 0.6 x 0.5 c.m. and 1x 0.5 x 0.8 c.m. placed one below the other 1 c.m. apart on the left side of front of chest, the former one being 8.5 c.m. below arm pit.

¶53

Superficial incised wound 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m., long oblique on the left palm between the index finger and thumb.

¶54

Superficial incised wound 2 x 0.5 c.m. long oblique on the middle of left palm 5 c.m. below wrist.”

¶55

M.O.2, which was alleged to be the knife with which the fatal injury was stated to have been caused was shown to the doctor. He testified before court that injury No.1 could be caused by M.O.2. It was further testified by him that death was due to the penetrating injury (Injury No.1) involving heart and lung. It is thus proved that the fatal injury must have been caused by stabbing with M.O.2 or with a knife like M.O.2. Hence it is proved that Joby had a homicidal death.

¶56

¶57

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶58

Ext.P1 is the First Information Statement given by P.W.1 who is the brother of the deceased Joby. The evidence given by him would show that he was at Venmony city at about 7 p.m. on the day of incident i.e. on 12.2.2004. It was sworn by him that P.W.5 who reached Venmony city told him that Joby was stabbed by the accused Thomman and so P.W.5 had been to the city to fetch a jeep so as to take the injured from the place of incident to the hospital. On hearing this P.W.1 also went to the place of incident in the jeep. There he saw his brother Joby lying in a prone position. It was further testified by him that deceased was conscious at that time and when enquired the deceased told that he was stabbed by Moodadi Thomman (the accused therein). Thereafter, P.W.5 and others took Joby in the jeep so as to proceed to the hospital. On the way P.W.1and P.W.5 got down from the jeep in order to raise funds for the purpose of treatment of injured Joby.

¶59

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶60

¶61

There is evidence to show that when the deceased was brought to the hospital, on examination he was found dead by the doctor. The learned counsel for the accused would submit that considering the nature of the injury the deceased must have breathed his last immediately on sustaining the wound which was penetrating into the lung cavity which actually caused rupture of the lung. But the theory that Joby must have had instantaneous death was not fully accepted by the Doctor (P.W.14) who conducted postmortem examination. The knife point did not reach the other end of the lob. Joby was a young man aged about 23 years. P.W.14 says that death may be delayed also. There is no reason to disbelieve P.W.1 and P.W.3 who saw Joby fully conscious when they reached there from Venmony City which is only about 300-350 mtrs. away from the place of incident .

¶62

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶63

¶64

It is in evidence that P.W.1 immediately went to the police station and lodged the First Information Statement which was marked as Ext.P1. There is evidence to show that the police station is about 8 K.Mtrs. away from the place of incident. It is also in evidence that the hospital is about 27 K.Mtrs. away from the place of incident. So taking note of the distance from the place of incident to the hospital and thereafter to the police station, it can be discerned that there was practically no delay in giving the First Information Statement which was recorded at 9 p.m. on the same day. Though a suggestion was put to the defence that Ext.P1 was subsequently created and antetimed to suit the prosecution case that does not gain momentum in view of the fact that the F.I.R. was seen by the Magistrate immediately on the next day morning at 10.30 a.m. It is also pertinent to note that in the relevant column mention was specifically made regarding the

¶65

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶66

¶67

General Diary entry made at 9 p.m. That was not challenged. Therefore the contention that Ext.P1 must have been ante-timed cannot be sustained.

¶68

Much reliance has been placed by the prosecution on the contents of Ext.P1, since, according to the prosecution, P.W.1 has given evidence completely in tune with the statement contained in Ext.P1. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, Ext.P1 can be used to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 who is the author of Ext.P1. It is also submitted by the learned Prosecutor that in Ext.P1 it was specifically stated by P.W.1 that when he reached the place of incident on getting information as mentioned earlier and when he asked, the deceased told him that he was stabbed by Thomman, the accused herein. Therefore, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, Ext.No.1, the statement given first in point of time would lend assurance to the case of the prosecution that the

¶69

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶70

¶71

deceased was conscious at the time when he was being taken to the hospital. So much so, the contention advanced by the defence that such a statement was falsely incorporated or introduced by the police to strengthen its case has to be discountenanced.

¶72

P.W.5 is the main witness in this case. It was stated by him that at about 5.30 p.m. he and deceased Joby went to a place called Venmony Alackal city and from there they went to the place of incident and were sitting near the pump house near the forest junda. Ext.P14 is the scene mahazar prepared by P.W.18, the Circle Inspector at about 4.30 p.m. on 13.2.04. It was noted that the place of incident is to the south of the pump house belonging to the Kerala Water Authority and is lying immediate to the east of the forest junda. There is in fact no dispute regarding the actual place of incident. That apart, P.W.18 could see blood stained mud and grass at the place of incident. The

¶73

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶74

¶75

chapels, blood stained mud etc, were seized by P.W.18 as per Ext.P14. It was further recorded that M.O.2 knife was found in a heap of sand. It was situated about 2.97 Mtrs. away from the place of incident. There is evidence to the effect that P.W.5 after grabbing the knife from the accused gave it to P.W.6 who threw it to that place.

¶76

It was stated by P.W.5 that while he and the deceased were engaged in conversation, P.W.2, Raju also reached there and while all of them were engaged in conversation, the accused reached there. On seeing the accused coming to that place, as the accused was likely to demand for country liquor, it was removed from that place. When the accused reached there, he asked deceased Joby to give him liquor. He declined. Thereafter the accused was stated to have taken P.W.5 to a distance and asked to get him alcohol and then also P.W.5 expressed his inability as he was not having money for that purpose. While so P.W.2

¶77

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶78

¶79

was stated to have gone inside the forest under the pretext of answering the call of nature. It was further stated by P.W.5 that again he and the accused and others were engaged in conversation. While so, P.W.6 called deceased Joby telling him that he wanted to say something in secret and thereafter P.W.6 walked ahead to a certain distance thinking that the deceased was following him. At that time the accused and the deceased alone were at the place of incident. Suddenly, P.W.5 heard Joby screaming.................................. He rushed to that place

¶80

and then the accused was seen catching hold of the collar of the shirt of the deceased and pulling out the knife from the chest of the deceased and when the accused again attempted to inflict a second stab on the deceased, P.W.5 intervened and caught hold of the hand of the accused and thus he grabbed M.O.2 from the hand of the accused. The knife was given to P.W.6 who threw it aside.

¶81

¶82

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶83

The evidence given by P.W.5 gets corroboration in some material particulars from the evidence of P.W.2 Raju also. It was stated by him that at the relevant time and place when the accused was seen coming towards the place where he and others were engaged in conversation, they tried to hide or take away the liquor bottles and he went towards the forest stating that he was going to answer the call of nature. After a short-while he heard Sibi, (P.W.5) shouting …………………… ................................. Hearing this he immediately reached the place of incident. P.W.1 told that the accused stabbed the deceased. There is no dispute regarding the fact that deceased Joby was called as …………....also. Thereafter P.W.5 and P.W.2 went to fetch a vehicle.

¶84

The learned Prosecutor would submit that the evidence as aforesaid given by P.W.2 would support the case of the prosecution that it was the accused who inflicted

¶85

Crl.A.1059/2007 17

¶86

the stab injury on the deceased. The further fact discernible is that it was only after Sibi (P.W.5) reached there he could remove the accused and deter him from inflicting a second stab. There was no case for the defence when P.W.2 was examined that there was any scuffle or exchange of blows between the accused and the deceased. There was no case for the defence when P.W.2 and P.W.5 were examined that there was any wordy altercation between the accused and the deceased.

¶87

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that P.W.2 was in fact, cross-examined by the learned Prosecutor after seeking permission of the Court and so the evidence given by P.W.2 cannot be much relied upon. It is true that since P.W.2 did not depose with regard to the case that after getting hold of the knife it was thrown to the heap of sand, he was permitted to be cross-examined by the learned Prosecutor but on that ground

¶88

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶89

¶90

it cannot be said that the evidence given by P.W.2 has to be totally eschewed from consideration. That part of the evidence given by P.W.2 which reconciles with the prosecution case can certainly be relied upon by the prosecution. It is not a case where the evidence given by one infirm witness is used to corroborate another infirm witness. P.W.5 has given a graphic account of the incident. As such the evidence given by P.W.2 to that extent can certainly be relied upon by the prosecution.

¶91

The prosecution has also relied upon the evidence given by P.W.3, who is another brother of deceased Joby. He got the information regarding the incident while he was at Venmony City, when P.W.2 went there to fetch a vehicle. He also immediately proceeded to the place of incident. When he reached there the deceased was lying in a prone position and was actually conscious at that time which corroborates the evidence given by P.W.1. It was

¶92

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶93

¶94

stated by P.W.3 that when he enquired, Joby told him that he was stabbed by Thomman, the accused. Therefore that also would scuttle the plea raised by the defence that it was most unlikely that the deceased who had sustained fatal injury on his lungs could remain conscious so as to give a statement to P.W.1 and P.W.3 as to who inflicted the fatal injury on him. At the risk of the repetition, it has to be pointed out that this statement regarding the declaration given by the deceased as to the cause of fatal injury sustained by him was mentioned even in the First Information Statement given by P.W.1 within the shortest possible time. So much so, this piece of evidence given by P.W.3 reinforces the case of the prosecution.

¶95

This words uttered by the deceased Joby “.............................................” according to the prosecution

¶96

is relevant and admissible under S.6 of the Evidence Act. The conditions for admissibility of such a statement are:

¶97

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶98

¶99

the proximity of time, proximity of place and the continuity of action. While examining whether the declaration is so connected with the fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, all the surrounding circumstances obtaining in each case have to be taken into consideration. In the instant case the aforesaid statement came straight from the mouth of the victim who sustained the stab injury on his chest, that too, immediately on getting the stab injury. Similarly, the statement or declaration made by P.W.5 who immediately reached the scene............................................. is also

¶100

admissible in evidence u/s.6 of the Evidence Act, since here also there is proximity of time, proximity of place and continuity of action. The intention conveyed or communicated thereunder by the words spontaneously came out from the witness is also very clear. The mind of the witness was so acted with the event which took place in his immediate presence that at the spur of the moment the

¶101

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶102

¶103

possibility of even a faintest element of a wicked idea creeping into his mind is to be ruled out. There was no scope for deliberation or fabrication since the evidence is to the effect that it was a statement or declaration made by the witness immediately on reaching the scene where he found his friend having been stabbed by the accused with M.O.2 knife.

¶104

It was held by the Apex Court in Sukhar v. State of U.P. (AIR 1999 S.C. 3883) cited by the learned

¶105

Prosecutor:

¶106

“....The rationale in making certain statement or fact admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act is on account of the spontaneity and immediacy of such statement or fact in relation to the fact in issue. But it is necessary that such fact or statement must be a part of the same transaction. In other words, such statement must have been made contemporaneous with the acts which

¶107

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶108

¶109

constitute the offence or at least immediately thereafter”...

¶110

Therefore, the declaration made by the victim as well as the declaration or statement made contemporaneously by P.W.5 inspires confidence in the mind of the Court.

¶111

The learned Public Prosecutor is right in his

¶112

submission that the declaration and statement as aforesaid forming part of res gestae, proved to have been made contemporaneously, would strengthen the prosecution case.

¶113

Sri.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the defence has vehemently argued that PW2 Raju who used to sell country liquor on behalf of deceased Joby has to be treated as an interested witness and so his evidence cannot be relied upon. Though PW2 was cross examined in extenso his evidence that he was present at the place of incident and that his attention was drawn to the scene in the manner referred to

¶114

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶115

¶116

above could not be properly assailed.

¶117

PW6, Joseph Scaria who was also called as Baby

¶118

did not fully support the prosecution but he has given an entirely different version. He was permitted to be cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. His statement was that there was a scuffle between the accused, PW5 and the deceased and so he went there and tried to intervene in the matter and then he saw Joby falling down and thereafter trying to rise up and then the accused fell down. This is really a distorted statement. Those portions of the statement which were contradictions were marked by the prosecution as Exts.P4 and P5. When other witnesses were examined the defence had no case that there was any scuffle between the accused and deceased Joby. This apart, the accused himself had no such case when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶119

The statement given by PW5 that he heard the deceased calling .......................................................... being a

¶120

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶121

¶122

statement given by the deceased so proximate in time, proximate in place having continuity in action do certainly

¶123

amount to res gestae evidence and as such it is relevant and admissible.

¶124

Similarly the statement given by PW2 that his attention was drawn when PW5 called ….........................................……. also was proximate in time

¶125

and place and conveyed the very same intention and since it also had the continuity of action, it is also relevant and admissible under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the evidence given by PW5 which is supported by PW2 would certainly inspire confidence in the mind of the court that it was the appellant who inflicted stab injury on the chest of Joby at the relevant time and place.

¶126

It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that the motive aspect which was projected by the prosecution could not be substantiated since the

¶127

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶128

¶129

witnesses cited for that purpose turned hostile. The case of the prosecution is that there was a property transaction as per which the property which belonged to the accused was agreed to be exchanged to PW7, Anayadi Ravi and in turn the latter’s property was agreed to be exchanged in favour of the accused and that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was also to be paid by PW7 to the accused to equalise the value of the property but later the accused wanted to back out from the said transaction for which he sought the assistance of the deceased. The deceased Joby declined to help the appellant by persuading PW7 to resile from the contract. Though Pws.7, 8 and other witnesses did not support the prosecution, there is the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 with regard to the same. The fact that there was a property transaction between the accused, appellant and PW7, was admitted when he was cross examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Not only that the statement given by PWs.3 and 4 was not challenged by the

¶130

Crl.A.1059/2007 26

¶131

accused in cross examination. It was stated by PW3 that with regard to property transaction, in the morning of 12.2.2004 the accused had abused Joby using obscene and filthy language. When cross examined it was stated by PW3 that the demand made by the appellant was that his property should be given back by PW7. PW4 has also stated that there was property transaction between the accused and PW7 which had taken place about 4 or 5 months prior to that date and that as per that transaction PW7 was to give some money to equalise the sale price. The balance amount was to be paid on 13.2.2004. It was further stated that the brother-in-law and nephew of the accused had approached the deceased on 12.2.2004 with a request that the latter should go to the house of the accused. It was not heeded to by deceased Joby. It was further stated that on the same day when the accused and the deceased were seen at Venmani-Alackal city which is only about 300 metres away from the place of incident the

¶132

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶133

¶134

accused had abused the deceased using obscene words. Therefore, the evidence given by PWs.3 and 4 would show that there was an incident as alleged by the prosecution with regard to the property transaction and the subsequent attitude or approach of the appellant resulted in the parties to fall apart. Even if there are slight inconsistencies with regard to the statement given by those witnesses it cannot be said that those inconsistencies will go to the root of the matter affecting the edifice of the prosecution. It is also to be borne in mind that when evidence regarding the actual incident as spoken to by PW5 radiates confidence in the mind of the Court and when that evidence gets support from the evidence given by PW2 the motive aspect may assume little significance. It is also pertinent to note that the aforesaid statements given by PWs.3 and 4 were not controverted at all during cross examination. There is also yet another unimpleadable evidence which would point out to the guilt of

¶135

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶136

¶137

the accused. PWs.1 and 3 brothers of the deceased reached there within a few minutes after the incident. Both of them were at Alackal city, which is only about 300 metres away from the place of the incident. When they enquired Joby told them that he was stabbed by the appellant. That certainly amounts to a dying declaration admissible under Section 32 (1) of the Evidence Act.

¶138

PW5 has also corroborated the statement of PW3 that on the same day earlier to the incident in question there was an incident at Alackal city between the accused and Joby with regard to the property transaction. Request made by the accused to Joby was to intervene so as to enable him to resile from the contract but it was declined by the deceased on the ground that the transaction was had about 5 or 6 months prior to that date.

¶139

The other argument canvassed by the appellant is

¶140

that the incident took place at about 7 PM and so it was not

¶141

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶142

¶143

possible for the witnesses to identify the knife and also to see the incident properly. All the witnesses have stated that there was twilight and it was possible for them to see the incident properly. That was also not effectively challenged by the defence. Even PW6 who wanted to support the accused deposed that there was sufficient light to see the incident. That was also not challenged by the defence. As such it would be a futile exercise on the part of the defence to contend that the incident could not have been properly witnessed by the witnesses. True that till the knife was actually seen or it came into the possession of PW5 after it was grabbed from the possession of the accused, the colour of the handle of the knife could not have been seen properly to identify the same. But there is evidence to show that when the accused attempted a second stab PW5 intervened and got hold of the same and thereafter it came to the hands of PW6 who threw it aside. It was seized from there by the

¶144

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶145

¶146

Investigating Officer as per Ext.P4 scene mahazar. MO2 knife, MO1 shirt, lungi and other articles seized by the Investigating Officer contained the very same group of human blood as evidenced by Ext.P27, the F.S.L. report. That also would fortify the prosecution case that Joby alone sustained injury in the incident and it was with MO2 knife, the said injury was inflicted.

¶147

While Ext.P3 the Inquest Report was prepared on 13.2.2004 at about 11.30 AM itself the Investigating Officer had taken statements of PW2, PW1 etc. and even that time the name of the assailant was mentioned. The upshot of our discussion as above is that it was the accused who inflicted the fatal stab injury on the body of deceased Joby to which he succumbed within half an hour.

¶148

The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the offence would fall under the first part of Section 300 since the very nature of the stab injury caused on the vital

¶149

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶150

¶151

part of the body would abundantly make it clear that the intention of the offender was to cause the death of the victim.

¶152

The Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that even if it does not come under clause firstly, it can come under clause secondly as it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knew to be likely to cause the death of the victim.

¶153

The Learned Counsel for the defence

¶154

Sri.Unnikrishnan vehemently argued that even if the entire prosecution case is accepted still it would come under exception (4) to Section 300, which states that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel and unusual manner. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution witnesses did not support the motive aspect and so it was most unlikely that

¶155

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶156

¶157

the accused would have had the intention to cause the death of deceased Joby. It is also submitted that going by the evidence it can be seen that the deceased and others had gathered there at the place of incident for consuming country liquor and they were engaged in conversation and it was to that place the accused went and requested for country liquor. The Learned Counsel submits that if as a matter of fact the accused had any such serious grudge against Joby, it would be quite unusual and unnatural to believe that he would request Joby to buy or give him country liquor. But the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no motive at all is unsustainable since evidence given by Pws.3, 4 and 5 would show that the accused had some enemity towards deceased Joby as he had declined the request of the former to persuade PW7 to resile from the contract with respect to the exchange of property. The further fact that on the same day the accused had abused

¶158

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶159

¶160

deceased Joby using obscene words when he was seen at Venmani-Alackal city would also negative the plea so put forward by the defence. But the learned counsel for the accused would submit that till the attention of PW5 was drawn to that place by the words ………………………… ………… Nobody could see the accused carrying or having in his possession MO2 knife. The learned counsel further submitted that there is evidence to hold that deceased Joby was also in the habit of carrying or keeping in his possession a knife and so it was possible that the knife (MO2) might be of deceased Joby also. But going by the evidence it can be seen that there was no such scuffle at all. There was no such case when Pws.2, 4 and 5 were examined. No such case was there when the accused gave the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also. Therefore, the theory that there might have been a sudden fight between the appellant and deceased Joby cannot be countenanced at all.

¶161

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶162

¶163

Notwithstanding the persuasive argument made by Sri.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant, we are not inclined to hold that Exception (4) to S.300 would apply to the facts of this case. To invoke Exception 4 to S.300 four requirements must be satisfied namely (1) it was a sudden fight; (2) there was no premeditation (3) the act was done in a heat of passion (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The fact that only one fatal injury was caused is not a decisive factor. What is of prime importance is that there must have been a sudden fight. Though it can be argued that it was an un-meditated act to hold that there was a sudden fight, there is no device to build such a case nor is there any circumstance to assume such a possibility.

¶164

In this connection the case put forward by the accused when examined in S.313 Cr.P.C. also assumes importance. According to him, he had reached the place near

¶165

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶166

¶167

the pump house and that he saw the accused exhibiting and wielding a knife and boasting that he had murdered a person

¶168

by stabbing 28 times and on seeing such incident he left the place. It is not a case where he remained there and was present even at the time when the deceased sustained the stab injury or that there was any scuffle or tussle between him and Joby. So much so, the case now advanced by the appellant that the fatal stab injury must have been caused in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel is totally unacceptable.

¶169

The next question is whether the Exception 1 to S.300 would come into play. Exception 1 says that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

¶170

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶171

¶172

Sri.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel would submit that since admittedly P.W.5 was away from the

¶173

scene for a short while and since other than the accused and deceased Joby, no other person was present at the exact spot, there is no clinching and satisfactory evidence to prove the genesis of the incident. It is also pointed out that the prosecution did not bring out the time gap between when P.W.5 left the company of the accused and Joby to go near P.W.6 nor is there any cogent evidence regarding the distance from the exact place of incident to the place where from P.W.5 was stated to have heard the alarm or scream made by the deceased. So much so the contention now advanced by the appellant is that it was all the more probable that after P.W.5 and 6 left the company of the accused and Joby, there ensued a wordy altercation either with regard to the non-supply of country liquor or with regard to the reluctance on the part of the Joby to persuade

¶174

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶175

¶176

P.W.7 to resile from the contract regarding the exchange of properties. In short, according to the defence, the evidence regarding that part of the incident is not clear and convincing. We find force in the argument advanced by the appellant that it could have as well been a case where the deceased and accused engaged in a wordy altercation which caused grave and sudden provocation or at any rate that possibility cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel further submits that when there is any element of doubt, the benefit of the same should go to the accused. Thus, according to the learned counsel, even if the entire prosecution case is found acceptable, the evidence is only to the effect that the accused gave a fatal stab injury on the chest of the deceased Joby. There is no evidence regarding the actual genesis of the incident. The theory of sudden fight between the two having been found against the only other point that survives for consideration is whether by

¶177

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶178

¶179

any act, gesture or word the deceased caused sudden

¶180

provocation by which the accused was deprived of the power of self control and while so deprived of the power of self control, the accused inflicted the stab injury on the deceased. Since that possibility cannot be ruled out altogether, it has to be found that the offence alleged against the accused would only be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

¶181

The next question is whether the offence would fall under the first part or under the second part of 304 I.P.C. In this connection it can be indubitably found that it is a case where the accused caused the death of deceased Joby with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, though it was done while he was deprived of the power of self control by the grave and sudden provocation. Hence we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant can only be under S.304

¶182

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶183

¶184

Part I - I.P.C. and not under S.302 I.P.C. As such the conviction of the appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and sentence passed there under are to be set aside but conviction should be had under Section 304 - Part I - IPC and not under S.302 I.P.C. As such the conviction of the appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and sentence passed thereunder are to be set aside but conviction should be had under S.304 - Part 1 I.P.C.

¶185

Regarding the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the accused is having slight physical disability to his one hand and one leg and that he has been in jail for about five years and so further incarceration may not had. But considering the nature of the act and all the circumstances, we find that rigorous imprisonment for 10 years And a fine of Rs.10,000/- would be adequate sentence.

¶186

In the result, the conviction of the appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and the sentence passed thereunder by the

¶187

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶188

¶189

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha are set aside. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under S.304 Part I I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/and in default of payment of the same to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Set off is allowed as provided under S.428 Cr.P.C.

¶190

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶191

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

rka

Crl.A.1059/2007

In the result, the conviction of the appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and the sentence passed thereunder by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha are set aside. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under S.304 Part I I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/and in default of payment of the same to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Set off is allowed as provided under S.428 Cr.P.C.

¶196

The evidence would make it clear that all the five persons

¶197

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶198

¶199

that is accused, the deceased Joby, P.W.2, P.W.5 and P.W.6

¶200

had gathered there for consuming liquor, there is also no evidence to show that P.W.2 used to supply/used to be supplied from a place near pump house, it is for the parties during evening period all those persons used to gather there. The possibility of Joby already having drunk in such circumstances cannot be ruled out, learned counsel for the appellant submits. In such circumstances, the possibility of deceased using filthy language against the accused and thereby the appellant lost his temper completely also cannot be totally ruled out. There is no evidence to show that the appellant came there with the object of causing any bodily injury to the deceased who actually threw out the first challenge and so as to find who was the aggressor, there is no acceptable evidence.

¶201

Notwithstanding the persuasive argument made by Sri.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant, we are

¶202

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶203

¶204

not inclined to hold that Exception (4) to S.300 would apply to the facts of this case. To invoke Exception 4 to S.300 four requirements must be satisfied namely (1) there was a sudden fight; (2) there was no premeditation (3) the act was done by the assailant in a heat of passion (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The fact that only one fatal injury was caused is not a decisive factor. What is of prime importance is that there must have been a sudden fight. It can be argued that it was an un-meditated act. But to hold that there was a sudden fight, there is no edifice to build such a case nor is there any circumstance to assume such a possibility.

¶205

In this connection the case put forward by the accused when examined under S.313 Cr.P.C. also assumes importance. According to him, he had reached the place near the pump house and then he saw the accused exhibiting and wielding a knife and boasting that he had murdered a

¶206

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶207

¶208

person by stabbing 28 times and on seeing such incident he left the place. It is not his case that he remained there and was present even at the time when the deceased Joby sustained the stab injury or that there was any scuffle or tussle between him and Joby. So much so, the case now advanced by the appellant that the fatal stab injury must have been caused in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel is totally unacceptable.

¶209

The next question is whether Exception 1 to S.300 would come into play. Exception 1 says that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. Sri.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel would submit that since admittedly P.W.5 was away from the scene for a short while and since other than the accused and deceased Joby,

¶210

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶211

¶212

no other person was present at the exact spot, there is no clinching and satisfactory evidence to prove the genesis of the incident. It is also pointed out that the prosecution did not bring out the time gap, when P.W.5 left the company of the accused and Joby to go near P.W.6 nor is there any cogent evidence regarding the distance from the exact place of incident to the place wherefrom P.W.5 was stated to have heard the alarm or scream made by the deceased. So much so the contention now advanced by the appellant that it was all the more probable that after P.W.5 and 6 left he company of the accused and Joby, there ensued a wordy altercation either with regard to the non-supply of country liquor or with regard to the reluctance on the part of Joby to persuade P.W.7 to resile from the contract regarding the exchange of properties. In short, according to the defence, the evidence regarding that part of the incident is not clear and convincing. We find force in the argument

¶213

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶214

¶215

advanced by the appellant that it could have as well been a

¶216

case where the deceased and accused engaged in a wordy altercation which caused grave and sudden provocation cannot be ruled out. The learned counsel further submits that when there is an element of doubt, the benefit of the same should go to the accused. Thus, according to the learned counsel even if the entire prosecution case is acceptable, there is only evidence to show that the accused gave fatal stab injury on the chest of the deceased Joby and not the actual genesis of the incident. The theory of sudden fight between the two having been found against the only other point that survives for consideration is whether by any act, gesture or word the deceased caused sudden provocation by which the accused was deprived the power of self control and while so deprived of the power of self control, the accused inflicted the stab injury on the deceased. Since that possibility cannot be ruled out

¶217

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶218

¶219

altogether, it has to be found that the offence alleged against the accused would only be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

¶220

The next question is whether the offence would fall under the first part or under the second part of S. 304 I.P.C. In this connection it can be indubitably found that it is a case where the accused caused the death of deceased Joby with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death, though it was done while he was deprived of the power of self control by the grave and sudden provocation. Hence we are of the view that the conviction of the appellant can only be S.304 Part I - I.P.C. and not under S.302 I.P.C. As such the conviction of the appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and sentence passed there under are to be set aside.

¶221

Regarding the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the accused

¶222

Crl.A.1059/2007

¶223

¶224

is having slight physical disability to his one hand and one leg and that he has been in jail for about five years and so further incarceration may not be had. But considering the nature of the act and all the circumstances, we find that rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/would be the adequate sentence to be imposed.

¶225

In the result, the conviction of the appellant under S.302 I.P.C. and the sentence passed there under by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha are set aside. The appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under S.304 Part I I.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/and in default of payment of the same to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Set off is allowed as provided under S.428 Cr.P.C.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,

Crl.A.1059/2007

JUDGE

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶231

rka