Dismissed

Balan S/O.Maruthan, C.NO.1986, Central Prision, Kannur v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Feb 2018CRL.A/228/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed an appeal by a husband convicted for murdering his wife. Certifying the Sessions Court's finding of guilt for murder via a chopper and the lenient life sentence under Section 302 IPC as sustainable law and facts.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 2015 was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence.

Balan S/O.Maruthan, C.NO.1986, Central Prision… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 1ST PHALGUNA, 1939

¶6

CRL.A.No. 228 of 2015

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 150/2012 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD DIVISION, OTTAPALAM, DATED 19-08-2013

¶8

CP No.140/2009 of J.M.F.C., MANNARKAD, DATED 19-04-2011

¶9

CRIME NO. 193/2008 OF AGALI POLICE STATION , PALAKKAD

¶10

APPELLANT : -

¶11

BALAN, S/O.MARUTHAN, C.NO.1986, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR.

¶12

BY ADV.SMT. PREETHY R. NAIR (STATE BRIEF)

¶13

RESPONDENT : -

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, (AGALI POLICE STATION, Cr.No.193/2008)

¶15

BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. AMBIKA DEVI S., FOR ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-02-2018, THE COURT ON 20-02-2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

DMR/-

¶18

A.M.SHAFFIQUE & P. SOMARAJAN, JJ.

¶19

-----------------------------------------------Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2015

¶20

Dated this the 20^th day of February, 2018

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Somarajan, J.

¶23

The husband who was found to be the murderer of his wife came with this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No.150/2012 of the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad Division at Ottapalam.

¶24

The wife who is the victim by name Chandrika met with a sad death in the hands of her husband while she was returning to her home after collecting water in a pot for domestic purpose, from a nearby place. The accused who confronted with the wife on her way and inflicted cut injuries on her body using a chopper and ran away from the place of occurrence.

¶25

The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of

¶26

Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2015

¶27

¶28

fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months with a rider that in the case of granting of commutation or remittance of life imprisonment by the Government by virtue of Section 432 or 433 Cr.P.C. subject to the statutory restriction under Section 433A Cr.P.C., the accused is entitled to set off the period from 22.9.2008 to 22.2.2010 and from 28.1.2013 to 19.8.2014 (723 days) under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

¶29

Post-mortem examination on the body of deceased was conducted by PW8, Dr Saji K. Subair. The injuries noted in the post-mortem certificate exhibited as P3 are as follows:-

¶30

“1. A lacerated wide opened wound of length 18cm begins from left part of upper lip to the (L) ear, which deepens to see the mandible bone which separated from its articulation.

¶31

Lacerated wide opened wound of length 26cm starting from (Rt) ear towards the neck through which fracture of mastoid and occipital bone can seen, occipital part of brain is visible.

¶32

Cut off round shaped wound of size 6x6cm seen over (Rt) shoulder joint.

¶33

A lacerated wound of length 4cm seen on the front of neck.

¶34

Small abrasion seen below the chin.”

¶35

Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2015

¶36

¶37

The cause of death is stated to be due to massive haemorrhage, injury to brain due to trauma by sharp weapon.

¶38

PW4, the person who accompanied the victim to the

¶39

place from where she had collected water in a pot for domestic purposes, had given a detailed narration of what she had seen and experienced on the ill fated day. It was at 7.00 a.m on the ill fated day and the alleged incident was happened in broad day light. After collecting water in a pot the victim proceeded to her house, followed by PW4. PW4 heard a scream from the victim. Immediately she rushed to the place

¶40

of occurrence and had seen the victim lying on the ground after receiving cut injuries on her body. It was happened while she was on her way back to her house. The accused was found running away from the place of occurrence with a stained chopper in his hand. Nothing was brought out to discredit or shake the credibility of the oral testimony of PW4. Both the victim and accused are known to her and familiar to her. She had also spoken about the strained relationship in between the accused and deceased who are the husband and wife and that

¶41

¶42

Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2015

¶43

the accused used to doubt her chastity and picked up quarrel frequently. The version given by her is so clear and unambiguous in all respects with respect to the sequence of incident with its details. No enmity or hatredness brought out and even no suggestion of either enmity or hatredness put up during the cross examination of PW4. Her presence in the place of occurrence is probable and acceptable as she was with the victim just before the commission of offence. The alleged incident was happened while they were returning to their respective houses after collecting water. Her identification of accused is under challenge on the reason that the accused was at that time on his heels and there is no probability to see the face of accused by PW4. The accused is so familiar to PW4 and known to her very closely. A person who is so familiar to the witness could be identified even while he is on his heels. She had seen him in broad day light and there is nothing to doubt about the identification of accused by PW4.

¶44

The oral evidence tendered by PW4 stood as corroborated by the recovery of MO1 chopper under Exhibit P6

¶45

Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2015

¶46

¶47

mahazar based on Exhibit P11 confession statement on 23.09.2008. The accused was arrested on 22.09.2008 and MO1 chopper was detected and recovered based on the confession statement (Exhibit P11) given by the accused while under custody. Exhibit P6 mahazar and its recovery was proved through PW11 who witnessed the recovery and nothing was brought out to discredit his evidence. MO1 chopper found to be stained by human blood on forensic lab examination. Exhibit P14 is the lab examination report. Blood group of the stain was not detected. But, the origin of the blood detected as human blood. When origin is proved, it would be an incriminating circumstance if there is no proper explanation from the accused how it was stained with human blood or existence of material to show the presence of human blood otherwise than what is alleged by the prosecution. The recovery of MO1 chopper from a bushy area as deposed by PW11 and the presence of human blood would sufficiently bring the discovery within the sweep of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. As such, Exhibit P11 portion of confession

¶48

Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2015

¶49

¶50

statement is relevant as against the accused as an incriminating circumstance and gives sufficient corroboration to the oral testimony of PW4.

¶51

It is true that PW4 did not witness the commission of offence. But, she had seen the victim and the accused immediately after the occurrence. The victim was with her just before the commission of offence. At that time she was proceeding towards her house after collecting water from the nearby place in a pot. PW4 was just few meters away from the victim at that time and she heard the screaming from the victim and rushed to the place of occurrence and had seen the accused and the victim. The victim was lying on the ground after sustaining injuries. The accused was found running away from the place of occurrence with the chopper stained with blood. She had identified the chopper as MO1 and it was found to be stained by human blood. Nobody else was there in the place except the accused and the victim and hence the chance of inflicting injury by any other person other than the accused can be safely ruled out. Further, the subsequent behaviour of

¶52

Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2015

¶53

¶54

the accused who ran away from the place of occurrence would be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act as he is the husband of the victim. The conduct of accused by running away from the place of occurrence without attending the victim or without removing her to any nearby hospital would sufficiently show that it was he who inflicted injury on her and not by any stranger. The fact that he was carrying the chopper stained with blood while he was on his heels would assume relevance while testing the same with the recovery of the said weapon stained by human blood based on his confession statement.

¶55

It is true that in the kavimundu and shirt the origin of blood was not detected and hence it will not give much assistance to the prosecution case. But, the medical evidence adduced and cause of death and nature of injuries sustained would support the main substratum of the prosecution case. The nature of weapon used and nature of injuries inflicted on vital part of the victim and number of blows would sufficiently bring the matter within the sweep of first and second limbs of

¶56

Crl.Appeal No.228 of 2015

¶57

¶58

Section 300 IPC - an intentional commission of murder with full knowledge and hence the conviction under Section 302 IPC against the accused does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶59

The sentence awarded being the lesser one does not call for any interference. Hence, the appeal fails, deserves only dismissal and we so do.

¶60

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

¶61

A.M.SHAFFIQUE (JUDGE)

¶62

P. SOMARAJAN (JUDGE)

¶63

DMR/-

Balan S/O.Maruthan, C.NO.1986, Central Prision, Kannur v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balan S/O.Maruthan, C.NO.1986, Central Prision, Kannur 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Mohanachandran Nair Vs the Asst.Commissioner Kollam

M/S.Prasanthi Cashew Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Asst. Commissioner

Kurian @ Jiji Vs State of Kerala

Babu , C.NO.9359 , Central Prison, Trivandrum Vs State of Kerala

Shajan Mathew , C.NO.9166, Central Prison, Trivandrum Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf v.P., C.NO.3257, Central Prison, Kannur Vs State of Kerala