This criminal appeal challenges the acquittal of the accused in a case involving alleged grievous hurt with a chopper. The High Court found that medical evidence did not corroborate oral testimony and adjusted facts, upholding the lower court's acquittal on benefit of doubt.
Return of file to lower court without interference; appeal dismissed.
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 P.D.RAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/13TH MAGHA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 1918 of 2004 (B)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN Crl.L.P. 580/2004 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29-09-2004
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 8/2002 of J.M.F.C.,NILAMBUR DATED 23-072004
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT::
VARGHESE KOTTARATHIL VEEDU, KANDANPOTTI, CHOKKAD P.O. (KALIKAVU, POLICE STATION LIMIT).
BY ADV. SRI.K.G.PAVITHRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED::
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-022016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.D.RAJAN, J
Crl.A.No. 1918 of 2004 ....................................... Dated 2nd February, 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the judgment in C.C.8 of
2002 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur. Appellant is the complainant in the above case. The complainant's case in
the trial court is that on 11.8.2001 at 11.30 pm, the complainant found accused putting a fence on the bank of kottapuzha river. The complainant approached the accused and told him not to put up a fencing till the civil dispute is over. Accused at that time caught hold on the neck of the complainant and thereafter took a chopper and attempted to cut the throat of the complainant. It was ward off by him, as a result, the chopper hit on his left hand and sustained a cut injury. Immediately he was admitted in the Primary Health Centre, Kalikavu. Police recorded his statement and registered Crime No.439 of 2001. Subsequently, the case was referred by the police, against that, he preferred a protest complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur.
Cra 1918/2004 2
out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning him. He did not adduce any defence evidence. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate after analysing the evidence acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by that the complainant preferred this appeal by special leave.
Cra 1918/2004
3
is proved to be guilty. This rule actually means that a person accused of a crime is not bound to make a statement or offer any explanation about the circumstances which throws suspicion upon him. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There may be exception where the rules of presumption applies in certain cases. In such case, a statutory presumption with regard to the proved facts and circumstances may arise which will help in reaching a conclusion about the guilt of the accused.
Cra 1918/2004
4
Ext.P2 in the trial court. PW2 who is the son of PW1 supported the evidence of PW1. He also stated a similar version given by PW1. PW3 and PW4 who are also independent witnesses supported the story stated by PW1. Even though PW1 stated that he sustained an injury with a chopper, he has not stated which part of his hand sustained injury due to the attack. In Ext.P1 or in the complaint, specific part where he sustained injury is not disclosed.
Cra 1918/2004
5
It is the primary responsibility of the complainant to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and unless and until such evidence is not found, accused is entitled to get benefit of doubt. Trial court extended that benefit to the first respondent in this case and acquitted him. I find no illegality in the acquittal of the first respondent. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.
P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE
lgk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court erred in acquitting the accused despite evidence of injury sustained by the complainant.
Whether the medical evidence in Ext.P3 corroborates the oral testimony regarding the weapon and timing of the injury.
Whether the benefit of doubt should be accorded to the accused in view of an admission of pending civil dispute.
VARGHESE KOTTARATHIL VEEDU, KANDANPOTTI, CHOKKAD P.O.
FATHER GEORGE VATTAPPARA MANAGER, VANAYAKUMAR ESTATE
STATE OF KERALA
P.D. RAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
