Allowed

Bhadran, C.NO.6154,C.PRISON,TVM. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Dec 2011CRL.A/909/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction under Section 307 of IPC, the High Court of Kerala set aside the lower court's judgment. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to uncorroborated testimony from the injured witness, contradictions regarding the time and place of occurrence, and discrepancies in the motive and medical evidence.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the judgment of the Sessions Court is set aside; the appellant is acquitted of all charges; and he is set at liberty.

Bhadran, C.NO.6154,C.PRISON,TVM. Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2011 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 CRL.A.No. 909 of 2011(C) -----------------------SC.253/2010 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC), FAST TRACK COURT I, PATHANAMTHITTA CP.37/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RANNI

¶4

APPELLANT(S): ------------------------

¶5

BHADRAN, C.NO.6154, CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶6

BY ADV. PRAMOD KOCHUTHOMMEN .E[STATE BRIEF]

¶7

RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

---------------------------

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LALIZA.T.Y.

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

Kss

¶13

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶14

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶15

Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2011.

¶16

J U D G M E N T

¶17

The appellant, who is undergoing imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, on the basis of the judgment dated 24.3.2011 in S.C.No.253 of 2010 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track court-I, Pathanamthitta, preferred this appeal from jail, challenging his conviction and sentence.

¶18

The prosecution case is that, at about 9 p.m. on 11.5.2009, the accused with an intention to commit murder of PW1, who demanded the amount due from the accused, stabbed him with knife on the left side above the lips and also stabbed on the left shoulder, inside left elbow and above left side of forehead causing serious injuries, on the road in front of the offering box of Angamoozhi Sastha temple and thus the accused/appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. On the basis of the above allegation, crime No.37 of 2009 was registered in the

¶19

¶20

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶21

Moozhiyar police station and on completing the investigation, report was filed in the committal court ie., Judicial First Class Magistrate court-I, Ranny, wherein C.P.No.37 of 2010 was instituted. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 12.5.2010 in C.P.No.37 of 2010, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions court where S.C.No.253 of 2010 is instituted, which was subsequently made over to the trial court for disposal.

¶22

As there was no counsel, of the choice of the accused, the trial court has made available the service of advocate Sri.C.T.Vinod from the District Legal Service Authority to defend the case on behalf of the accused. Thus after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the trial court has framed a formal charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and when the said charge read over and explained to the accused, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty. Consequently, the prosecution adduced its evidence, consisting the oral testimony of Pws.1 to 11 and the documentary evidence of

¶23

¶24

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶25

Exts.P1 to P16 and P5(a). Beside the above, M.O.s.1 to 5 were identified and marked as material objects. No evidence either documentary or oral adduced from the side of the defence. Towards the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge of the trial court has found that the accused has committed offence under Section 307 of IPC and accordingly he is convicted thereunder. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/and in default he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one more year. It was also declared that the appellant is entitled to get set off for the period that he had undergone as an under-trial prisoner. It is the above finding, conviction and sentence challenged in this appeal.

¶26

As indicated earlier, the present appeal is preferred from the jail where he is undergoing imprisonment in pursuance to the impugned judgment. As done in the trial court and as ordered by this Court, Sri.Pramod Kochuthomman E., is appointed as state brief to prosecute

¶27

¶28

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶29

the appeal for and on behalf of the appellant. Thus I have heard Sri.Pramod Kochuthomman E., the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Laliza T.Y., the learned Public Prosecutor for the state.

¶30

In order to prove the prosecution allegation, as I indicated earlier, though the prosecution has cited and examined 11 witnesses, the prosecution mainly depends upon the evidence of PW1, the injured, to prove its allegation. When PW1 was examined, he had deposed in terms of the prosecution allegation. According to him, the incident was taken place on 11.5.2009 when he demanded the wages due from the accused. According to PW1, the accused told that ' no amount is due and a sum of Rs.150/- is due to the accused from PW1 ' and he went out of the shop of one Biju, after taking tea and when he reached near the offering box, the accused took a knife and stabbed on him. According to PW1, the accused told that he was going to kill him. According to PW1, after sustaining injury he sat there and after some time, one Soman and Kanakan - the brother

¶31

¶32

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶33

of PW1, came at the spot and taken him to Pathanamthitta Government Hospital, from where he was further taken to Medical college hospital, Kottayam. According to PW1, on sustaining injury and when he cried, his brother came over there and at that time, after inflicting the injury the accused fled to his house. According to PW1, there was bent on the tip of the knife and is having bronze handle and he had seen the incident which took place under the street light. According to PW1, the accused left the place with the knife and at the time of the occurrence, he was having an umbrella and chappals. PW1 has identified before the court, M.O.1 as the knife which used to stab him, M.O.2 as his umbrella and M.O.3 series as the chappals left at the place of occurrence.

¶34

PW2 is conducting a tea shop at Angamoozhi junction and he had deposed that he has seen the scuffle between the accused and PW1. According to PW2, they beat each other. He had also denied the statement in Ext.P1 that he had seen the accused stabbing PW1.

¶35

¶36

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶37

According to PW2, PW1 was seen sitting near the offering box. According to PW2, one Prasad came and told that PW1 was lying in a pool of blood. According to PW2, he had seen PW1 lying below an electric post and according to PW2, as there was no vehicle, they informed the matter to Moozhiyar police and the police reached at the spot and the injured was taken to Pathanamthitta hospital. PW2 was declared as hostile to the prosecution. PW3 is an attestor to Ext.P2 scene mahazar through which M.O.2 umbrella and M.O.3 chappals were seized. PW4 is the Circle Inspector of police who verified the records and filed the charge. PW5 is the doctor attached to Government hospital, Pathanamthitta, who issued Ext.P3 wound certificate. PW6 is another doctor of the Medical college hospital, Kottayam, through whom Ext.P4 discharge certificate is marked.

¶38

PW7 is an attestor to the mahazar and admitted the signature in Ext.P5 recovery mahazar, under which M.O.1 knife was recovered, on the basis of Ext.P5(a) statement of the accused, recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence

¶39

¶40

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶41

Act. PW8 is the Village officer who prepared Ext.P6 scene plan. PW9 is the Head Constable attached to Moozhiyar police station who recorded Ext.P7 F.I. statement of one Kanakan, brother of PW1, at 10.30 a.m. on 12.5.2009. The said Kanakan is no more. PW10 is the then Circle Inspector who registered Ext.P8 FIR on 12.5.2009 at 5.30 p.m., on the basis of Ext.P7 FI statement.

¶42

PW11 is the Investigating Officer, who is the then Circle Inspector. When PW11 was examined, he had deposed about the various steps taken towards the investigation. Through PW11, the prosecution has marked the following documents namely, Ext.P1 property list, Ext.P10 arrest memo dated 13.5.2009, Ext.P11 inspection memo, Ext.P12 address report with respect to the accused. Ext.P13 is another property list prepared by PW11. Ext.P14 is the report obtained from FSL, Thiruvananthapuram, and Ext.P15 is the chemical certificate given by the Scientific Assistant, FSL, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P16 is the remand application

¶43

¶44

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶45

dated 13.5.2009. According to PW11, on the arrest of the accused, on the basis of his statement, Ext.P5(a) which was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act M.O.1 knife was recovered as per Ext.P5 recovery mahazar. The learned Judge of the trial court after considering the above evidence and materials, particularly the evidence of PW1, the injured, found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the accused. It is the above finding and order of conviction and sentence that are challenged in this appeal.

¶46

The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that, regarding the exact time of the incident, there is no conclusive evidence and the prosecution materials and evidences show different time with respect to the alleged incident. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that, in Ext.P7 FI statement and Ext.P8 FIR, the time of the occurrence is shown as 9 p.m., whereas according to PW1, the injured, the incident was taken place at 8.30 p.m. It is also pointed out that in Ext.P3 wound

¶47

¶48

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶49

certificate the time is noted as 8 p.m., as given to the doctor. It is the submission of the learned counsel that apart from the interested version of PW1, the prosecution has not produced any independent evidence and the witnesses shown as attestors to Ext.P2 scene mahazar and Ext.P5 recovery mahazars are only the direct or distant relatives of PW1. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has no specific case regarding the motive behind the alleged offence. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the alleged recovery of the weapon was effected from a public place and therefore, recovery has no legal sanctity. Another point raised by the counsel for the appellant is that, regarding the place of occurrence also, the prosecution evidence has no clarity and the vocal and documentary evidence on this point is contradicting each other. Thus according to the learned counsel, the prosecution evidences are insufficient but the learned Judge of the trial court ignoring the inadequate evidence of prosecution, convicted the appellant for the offence under

¶50

¶51

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶52

Section 307 of IPC. Thus according to the learned counsel, the appellant is entitled to get an acquittal.

¶53

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor stoutly opposing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its allegation against the appellant by adducing cogent and satisfactory evidence, especially the evidence supported by the injured witness, namely PW1. It is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that though there is slight infirmities and discrepancies in the evidence of PW1, the court below by giving due weightage to the evidence of PW1, who is an injured, accepted the case of the prosecution. It is the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that, the evidence of PW1, the injured witness, is intact and the minor variation with respect to the time of occurrence that contained in the documents are not sufficient to reject the substantial evidence of an injured witness. Thus according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the trial court had

¶54

¶55

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶56

considered the entire facts and circumstances involved in

¶57

the case, especially, the available evidences and materials on record, particularly, the evidence of PW1 which is fully supported by the documentary evidence and found in favour of the prosecution and no interference is warranted with respect to the above finding.

¶58

I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also considered the evidence and materials on record and perused the judgment of the trial court.

¶59

In the light of the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor and in the light of the evidence and materials on record, the question to be considered is whether the trial court is justified in its finding and convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC.

¶60

At the outset it is to be noted that, the main evidence of the prosecution to prove its case is, the

¶61

¶62

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶63

deposition of PW1 who is the injured. Absolutely there is no independent witness to prove the incident alleged by the prosecution against the accused under which PW1 sustained injury. Therefore, the question to be considered is how far the evidence of PW1 can be accepted for canvassing a conviction against the appellant and whether it is proper and correct to convict the appellant solely on the basis of such injured witness. The defence attacked the evidence of PW1 on various grounds. According to the defence, though PW1 is an injured he is highly interested and therefore there is every possibility of falsely implicating the appellant/accused into the crime. The defence has also challenged the prosecution evidence on the ground that there is conflict in the evidence of prosecution with respect to the place of occurrence. The motive alleged by PW1 for the alleged incident according to the defence appears to be incorrect in the light of Ext.P7 FI statement. The defence has also got a case to the effect that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the intention attributed against

¶64

¶65

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶66

the appellant in committing such a serious offence. According to the defence, from the evidence of DW1 and from the medical evidence, no intention can be gathered, or that, no conclusion can be arrived from the prosecution evidences that, the accused had maintained an intention to commit the murder of the the injured.

¶67

Now let me examine the defence argument in the light of the available prosecution evidence. During chief examination of PW1, regarding the place of occurrence he had deposed that, “കടയ�ല ന�ന�� ഇറങ� വ�ട�ല�ക� ല��ക�ന�യ� മ�ഴ�യ�ര ലറ�ഡ��ള ��ത�ന� സമ�� ഉള ക�ണ�കവഞ�ക� അട�തതത�. എള�യ�ല ന�ന�� കത� എട�ത� ക�ത�.... During” his examination he had further deposed that, “��ത�ലന�ട� ല'രന�ണ� ക�ണ�കവഞ�.” During the cross examination PW1 he had stated that, “ഞ�ന '�യ ക�ട�ച� നടന� വര�കയ�യ�ര�ന�. നടന� വര�ന വഴ�ക� രവ�തയ ഒറ ക�ത� ക�ത�കയ�യ�ര�ന�.” In the deposition of PW1, in page 6, PW1 has deposed that,

¶68

¶69

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶70

കത� എട�ത� എതന ക�ത�കയ�യ�ര�ന�. ല9�� ത'യ�ത പ�സ ല'�ദ�ചലതയ�ള�. മറ� ക�ര<� ഒന�� ഇല. പ�സ തര�ന ല'�ദ�ച� ഒര� ക�ത�� ക�ത�-(Q). അതത. സ�ഭവ സമയ� എവ�തട ന�ലക�കയ�യ�ര�ന�-(Q). ഞ�ന '�യ ക�ട�ച� നടന� വര�കയ�യ�ര�ന�. നടന� വര �ന വഴ�ക� രവ�തയ ഒറ ക �ത� ക�ത�കയ�യ�ര�ന�-(Q). അതത. പ�സതയപറ�യ�ള സ�സ�ര� ഉണ�യലതയ�ള�. '�യ ക�ട�യ�� കഴ�ഞ� വ�ട�ല ല��ക�ന�യ� ക�ണ�കവഞ�യ�തട മ �ന��ല ന�ലക �കയ�യ�ര�ന� എന� തമ�ഴ� തക�ട�ലത� (Q). തക�ട�ത�.” PW1 has further stated that the verbal exchange resulted in a scuffle between PW1 and the accused. As per Ext.P2 scene mahazar, the place of occurrence is at the tar road portion adjacent to PWD bridge. As per Ext.P7 FI statement, the place of occurrence is quite away from the offering box and adjacent to the right hand rail of the bridge. But according to PW1, the incident was taken place while he was on the way to his house and not in front of the offering box. So regarding the exact

¶71

¶72

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶73

place of occurrence, the evidence of PW1 is not tallying with Ext.P2 scene mahazar and Ext.P6 scene plan.

¶74

Regarding the origin of the incident, there is no satisfactory and believable evidence. According to PW1, when he demanded the wages due from the accused, the accused informed him that no amount is due and a counter claim was raised that a sum of Rs.150/- was due from PW1 to the accused. Thus according to PW1, on making the demand the accused inflicted the injuries on him. Though PW1 has stated during his deposition that there was no altercation between PW1 and the accused, during the cross examination he had stated that, ' altercation resulted in scuffle and made such improvement ' . Regarding the injuries, PW1 during his deposition has stated that therewere two injuries on the head above the left ear and one injury below the right elbow and another injury in between ribs and another injury on the left back side, but in Ext.P3 no injuries are noted on the head and on the right elbow. The above document would show that PW1 has got a

¶75

¶76

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶77

tendency to depose against the accused and to give improvised version so as to canvass a conviction. In the present case as I indicated earlier, regarding the origin of the incident, there is no cogent evidence. It is unbelievable that on a demand of a due amount, all of a sudden the accused taken the knife and inflicted injuries on PW1 ; whereas the nature of the evidence given by PW1 shows that the incident was taken place in a different manner at a different place. Hence there is no convincing evidence regarding the origin of the incident. The injuries noted by the doctor in Ext.P3 wound certificate, can also sustained by PW1, if there was a scuffle. PW1 in this case has deposed that there was a verbal exchange between himself and the accused, which resulted in the scuffle. As per Ext.P3 wound certificate and as per the evidence of PW5, the doctor noted the first incised injury on the back of the left shoulder of PW1 which is having a depth of only 2x1 cm. The second incised injury is a born deep injury having 4 cm. depth vertically parallel to injury no.1. The third injury is a

¶78

¶79

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶80

born deep incised injury having a measurement of 5x1 cm. on the left side of the shoulder. With respect to the fourth injury the depth cannot be assessed. According to PW5, the fifth injury is a fatal injury and is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to PW5, the fifth incised injury is having a measurement of 2x1 cm. below left clavicle and the depth of that injury cannot be assessed. PW5 has also deposed that, except injury no.1, all injuries are in the left shoulder. Though PW5 has stated that injury no.5 is fatal, the depth of that injury is not recorded. In the chief examination, PW5 has stated that the depth of the injury depends upon the width of the weapon and the method of using the weapon. When the weapon was shown to PW5, he was of the opinion that the width is very low. Therefore, the resultant conclusion that can be arrived is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove with sufficient evidence that injury No.5 was a fatal one. Thus the available medical evidence are not sufficient to hold that the incident was taken place in the manner suggested by

¶81

¶82

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶83

PW1 and there is no conclusive evidence as to how the incident was taken place.

¶84

According to the prosecution, the crime was registered on the basis of Ext.P7 FI statement given by one deceased Kanakan, who is none other than the brother of the victim- PW1. It is relevant to note that the brother of the victim, the said Kanakan, was not expected to lodge a false FIR statement against the interest of his brother-PW1. Going by Ext.P7 FI statement, it can be seen that in Ext.P7, the said Kanakan has stated before the police that, “രവ�തയ ഇവ�ലടയ�ക� തക�ണ� വന വഴ� ഞ�ന അവലന�ട� ക�ര<� ത�രക�യത�ല

¶85

അവന ഭദദന� പ�സ പകവ�യ��യ�യ� തക�ട�ത�ര�ന�തവന��, ��ദ��വശ<� ല'�ദ�ച�ട�� തക�ട�ത�ല എന�� ഇനത� 9�ഗ�Dന�ല വച� കണലപ�ള വ�ണ�� ല'�ദ�ച� എന�� ........”. So the amount which was due to PW1 as per Ext.P7 is the loan amount obtained by the accused from PW1. Whereas the claim of PW1 in his chief examination was that, “ഞ�ന ദ�ത�ക� ലവണ� �ണ� ത'യ�തത�തF ക�� ല'�ദ�ച �. റബര വ�റക�തF �ണ�യ�ല

¶86

¶87

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶88

തര�ന�ണ�യ�ര�ന പ�സയ�ണ� ല'�ദ�ചത �. ദ�ത� ക�� തര�ന ഇല എന� �റഞ�.” The above version of PW1 is diametrically opposed to what stated by his own deceased brother while lodging Ext.P7 FI statement. According to me, the above version of the deceased brother of PW1 is appears to be correct. In Ext.P7 the said Kanakan has stated that, the wife of PW1 and their son were in gulf. If that be so, it is quite unbelievable that PW1 was engaged by the accused as a coolie worker. So the version given by the deceased brother of PW1 is more probable and reasonable. If that be so, it can be safely concluded that regarding the subject matter of the dispute and the origin of the incident, PW1 has suppressed certain vital facts and the motive alleged by PW1 itself is under shadow of doubt. Ofcourse, when direct evidence is available, the motive has no much relevance. But the facts which are alleged, connected with the motive, turned to be false. The false evidence given by a witness will go against the credibility of such witness. Therefore,

¶89

¶90

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶91

the evidence of PW1, in the absence of any independent evidence and in the light of the above contradictions and his tendency to depose falsely before the court to canvass a conviction against the appellant, tendered as unbelievable and unacceptable.

¶92

Beside all the above infirmities with respect to the evidence of PW1, it is also relevant to note that there is no independent evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW1 as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant and except the official witnesses, all others are very much interested in the prosecution as they are close relatives of PW1. PW3 who is an attestor to Ext.P2 scene mahazar is a relative of PW1's brother's wife. Similarly, PW7 one Sunil who is an attestor to Ext.P5 recovery mahazar is also a relative of PW1. PW2 who turned hostile is also a neighbour of PW1. Though PW1 has stated during his examination that several persons witnessed the incident, including shop owners at the locality, the prosecution has not chosen to cite and examine any such independent

¶93

¶94

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶95

witness from the locality and on the other hand, they cited only the relatives of PW1, in support of the prosecution case. Non examination of independent witness and the interest of the prosecution to examine the close relatives of PW1, caste serious doubt regarding the veracity of prosecution case itself, especially when the evidence of PW1 is not reliable for the reasons which I discussed above.

¶96

In this juncture it is pertinent to note that though the prosecution has claimed that Ext.P7 FI statement was lodged at 10.30 a.m. on 12.5.2009, the FIR was registered only at 5.30 p.m. on 12.5.2009. No explanation is forthcoming for the delayed registration of Ext.P8 FIR. It is further relevant to note that eventhough the prosecution has got a case that Ext.P8 FIR was registered at 5.30 p.m. on 12.5.2009, based upon the FI statement given at 10.30 p.m. on the same date, Ext.P8 FIR reached in the court only at 10.30 a.m. on 14.5.2009. Thus there is a delay of two days. The above delay is not explained. Ofcourse, since the delay is only two days, it may not have much

¶97

¶98

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶99

consequence but in the present case, though the FIR was registered at 5.30 p.m. on 12.5.2009, no explanation is forthcoming for such a delay. In the light of the discussions contained in the para just above, it can be seen that the prosecution has miserably failed to examine any independent witness and the prosecution has chosen to select three witnesses who are closely interested and associated with PW1. The delay in reaching the FIR in the court has to be examined in the background of the facts indicated above. It is pertinent to note that though the prosecution has claimed that the accused was arrested at 12.15 a.m. on 13.5.2009, he was produced before the court at 6.40 p.m. on 13.5.2009, as per Ext.P16 remand application. If that be so, I failed to understand, what prevented the police from producing Ext.P8 FIR in the court on 13.5.2009 itself, if the same was registered on 13.5.2009, when Ext.P16 remand application was filed and when the accused was produced. In this case also no explanation is forthcoming. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that

¶100

¶101

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶102

Ext.P8 FIR was not registered as claimed by the prosecution on 12.5.2009. So the very initiation of the prosecution case and the very registering of a crime itself is under serious doubt.

¶103

Thus the whole prosecution case that, the accused inflicted injuries on PW1 when PW1 demanded his wages from the accused, appears to have not proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the foregone discussion, I have already found that regarding the time of the alleged incident itself, the prosecution has no consistent case especially when in Ext.P3 wound certificate the time of the alleged incident was shown as 8 p.m., and in Exts.P7 and P8, which are respectively the FI statement and FIR, the time is shown as 9 p.m., whereas PW1 says the time of incident arose at 8.30 p.m. From Ext.P7 FI statement as per the version given by the deceased brother of PW1, the motive for the incident was, when PW1 demanded back the amount borrowed by the accused. Whereas PW1 says that he was attacked by the accused when he demanded his

¶104

¶105

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶106

wages due from the accused. With respect to the place of occurrence also, the prosecution evidence particularly, Ext.P6 and the deposition of PW1 are contradict each other. When PW1 was examined, he had deposed before the court that the accused inflicted injuries on his head but Ext.P3 wound certificate and the evidence of PW5, the doctor who examined PW1, shows that therewere no injuries on his head. In the decision cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in Sucha Singh V. State of Punjab [2009(2) KLT Suppl.1208 (SC)] , the Apex court has set aside the judgment of the High Court in a case where there is significant contradictions in the matter of number of injuries, time of occurrence, place of occurrence, sequence of events and lack of motive and false implication. According to me, the above decision is squarely applicable in the light of the contradictions with respect to the number of injuries, the time of occurrence, place of occurrence, sequence of events, the conflict in the motive alleged and the non examination of the independent witness, especially

¶107

¶108

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶109

when the evidence of PW1 is not believable. Thus according to me, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the evidence adduced by the prosecution are insufficient to convict the appellant for the offence alleged against him. Therefore, I am unable to approve the conviction recorded by the trial court against the appellant/accused and accordingly the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC is set aside.

¶110

In the result, this appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 24.3.2011 in S.C.No.253 of 2010 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Fast Track court-I, Pathanamthitta, and the appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and he is set at liberty.

¶111

As the appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him by setting aside the impugned judgment, the appellant is entitled to get released from the

¶112

¶113

Crl.A.No.909 of 2011

¶114

jail forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The Registry is directed to forward the gist of this judgment to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram, forthwith, for appropriate action.

¶115

V.K.MOHANAN, Judge

¶116

ami/

Bhadran, C.NO.6154,C.PRISON,TVM. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhadran, C.NO.6154,C.PRISON,TVM. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs P.M.Sreenivasan

Manoj @ MANU,C.NO.6114,C.PRISON,TVM. Vs State of Kerala

A.K.Rajagopalan Vs State of Kerala

Sureshkumar Vs State of Kerala

Udayakumar, Convict NO.5838, Cp, Tvm. Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Mahadevan Vs Jessy Nina Pannicker