Dismissed

Rajmohan, C.NO.1414 v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Sept 2020CRL.A/137/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against a murder conviction, the High Court of Kerala upheld the trial court's decision. The court found the circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony and evidence of the hatchet, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence; pending interlocutory applications were dismissed.

Rajmohan, C.NO.1414 Vs State of Kerala — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.R.ANITHA

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 24TH BHADRA, 1942

¶7

CRL.A.No.137 OF 2017

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 337/2013 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT – II(SPECIAL COURT), KOTTAYAM.

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CP 19/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, KANJIRAPPALLY.

¶10

CRIME NO.408/2013 OF MUNDAKAYAM POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM.

¶11

APPELLANT :

¶12

RAJMOHAN, C.NO.1414, CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM – 12.

¶13

BY ADV. M J SAJITHA (STATE BRIEF)

¶14

RESPONDENT :

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DGP, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶16

BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S U NAZAR.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 2

¶19

A.HARIPRASAD & M.R.ANITHA, J J.

¶20

¶21

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017

¶22

Dated this the 15th day of September, 2020

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

A.HARIPRASAD, J

¶25

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, imposed by the

¶26

Additional Sessions Judge – II (Special Court), Kottayam in Sessions Case

¶27

No.337 of 2013, the sole accused therein has come up in appeal.

¶28

2. Heard Ms.M.J.Sajitha, the State Brief, appointed on behalf of

¶29

the appellant and Sri.S.U.Nazer, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor for

¶30

the State.

¶31

Prosecution case in brief, revealed from Ext.P1 First

¶32

Information Statement (F.I.S), is that the appellant was a habitual drunkard.

¶33

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 3

¶34

He was addicted to narcotic substances also. In an inebriated mood, he used

¶35

to abuse neighbours. On 18-05-2013, after 9 O' Clock in the night, the

¶36

appellant started abusing neighbours in his usual style and at that time, deceased Subhash @ Raghu, who was a neighbour of the appellant, went to the appellant's courtyard and questioned his action. At about 9.45 p.m on

¶37

that day, accused picked up a hand-axe (hatchet), which was used by him

¶38

as an implement for his profession as a wood cutter, and inflicted multiple

¶39

cut injuries on the deceased causing his instantaneous death.

¶40

PW's 1 to 3 heard the altercation between the accused and

¶41

deceased and also the deceased crying for help. Since they were not daring

¶42

to go to the appellant's courtyard, PW's 1 and 2 went to the nearby public

¶43

road and found a police jeep passing through. They informed the matter to

¶44

the patrolling police officers and they came along with them to the place of

¶45

occurrence to find the deceased lying in a pool of blood with multiple

¶46

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 4

¶47

injuries. At that time, the accused was not present in his house. Although

¶48

the deceased was removed to a hospital in the police jeep, when they

¶49

reached there Doctor declared him dead. PW1 went to the jurisdictional

¶50

police station and lodged Ext.P1 F.I.S. Thereafter, the investigation was started and PW13, after completing the investigation, laid a charge sheet against the accused.

¶51

In Ext.P1 F.I.S, PW1 has stated that the deceased, the appellant

¶52

and PW2 are his neighbours. Even though PW1 is not an eye witness to the

¶53

incident, according to the averments in Ext.P1 F.I.S and his deposition, he

¶54

heard the appellant abusing the deceased when the latter questioned his

¶55

utterances of obscene words. The incident happened on 18-05-2013 at

¶56

about 9.45 in the night. According to PW1, the deceased went and

¶57

questioned the appellant saying that he should stop uttering filthy words

¶58

since persons in the locality reside with their family and it was not proper

¶59

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 5

¶60

for him to behave in that manner. Infuriated by the admonition, the

¶61

appellant attacked him with MO1 hatchet is the evidence tendered by

¶62

PW1. Even though he cannot be regarded as an eye witness to the incident,

¶63

his testimony will clearly show that the altercation was between the

¶64

appellant and the deceased and there was no third person involved in the

¶65

incident. Despite cross-examination, we find no reason to discard his

¶66

testimony. His testimony fully supports the recitals in Ext.P1 F.I.S

¶67

In the same terms, PW2 also testified. Presence of PW2

¶68

immediately after the incident along with PW1 has been spoken to by PW1 as well. According to PW2, he also resided adjacent to the appellant's

¶69

house. It was the appellant's usual behaviour to consume intoxicants and

¶70

abuse neighbours. Deceased questioned him, when his behaviour became

¶71

unbearable. PW2 also deposed that the incident happened on18-05-2013

¶72

at about 9.45 hours in the night. He deposed that there was a wordy duel

¶73

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 6

¶74

between the appellant and the deceased and he heard the distress cry of the

¶75

appellant. Since he was scared of going to the appellant's courtyard, he

¶76

along with PW1, went to the public road side and procured the presence of

¶77

police officers passing through the road in a jeep. Despite best efforts, life of the deceased could not be saved. In spite of cross-examination, we find

¶78

no reason to discard the testimony of PW2 that he, in all probability, could have clearly understood that the appellant was responsible for the killing of

¶79

Subash @ Raghu. His testimony is in perfect harmony with that of PW1.

¶80

PW3 is yet another witness speaking in the above terms. In

¶81

fact, he is the brother-in-law of the appellant. It has come out in evidence

¶82

that the appellant, at the material time, was staying alone in his house as

¶83

his wife and children had deserted him. PW3 also deposed that the

¶84

appellant was in the habit of drinking and making problems. PW3 is a

¶85

neighbour of deceased Subash @ Raghu. PW3 further deposed that the

¶86

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 7

¶87

appellant was a wood cutter and he used to keep MO1 hatchet always with

¶88

him. PW13 testified that on 18-05-2013, at about 9.45 hours in the night

¶89

the incident happened and he heard a hullabaloo from the appellant's

¶90

courtyard. He also heard a shriek from the deceased for his life. He also went along with PW's 1 and 2 to the hospital carrying the deceased. In spite of cross-examination, we find no discredit made to the testimony of

¶91

this witness.

¶92

All the above witnesses speak in unison the same version that

¶93

the appellant attacked the deceased when he went to the appellant's courtyard to question the former's indecent behaviour affecting tranquillity

¶94

of a residential area. Even though they did not directly see the incident, considering the location of their houses and the time at which the incident had happened, we have no hesitation to hold that the circumstantial

¶95

evidence adduced by these witnesses clearly established the role of the

¶96

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 8

¶97

appellant in the incident. All these witnesses have specifically deposed to

¶98

that MO1 hatchet is an implement for the appellant's profession as a wood

¶99

cutter and he used to carry it always.

¶100

Learned trial Judge, in paragraph 23, enlisted the

¶101

circumstances against the appellant. One of the circumstances relied on by

¶102

the trial court is that PW's 1 to 3, in harmony, deposed about the noise of

¶103

fight emanated from the courtyard of the appellant. After the incident, the

¶104

noise subsided and the appellant vanished from the scene.

¶105

Another circumstance relied on by the court below is the

¶106

answers given by the appellant at the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He stated that the incident happened when the deceased came

¶107

to his courtyard and challenged him. According to the trial Judge, this indicates his presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. We

¶108

find this reasoning is logical and hence acceptable.

¶109

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 9

¶110

PW's 4 and 5 are the witnesses examined to prove Ext.P3

¶111

inquest report. There is no challenge against the testimony of these

¶112

witnesses.

¶113

There cannot be any dispute on the fact that the deceased

¶114

Subash @ Raghu died of a murderous assault. Ext.P6 is the post-mortem

¶115

certificate. The ante-mortem injuries read as follows :

¶116

“ 1. Incised penetrating wound 6 x 1 cm, brain deep and oblique on the left side of fore head, its front lower inner end overlying orbital margin and 3 cm outer to midline. The frontal bone underlying was seen cut, exposing cranial cavity, dura was seen cut corresponding to the above. The left frontal lobe of brain was seen incised (6 x 1 cm). There was collection of subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage.

¶117

Incised penetrating wound 6 x 2 cm oblique on the right side of front of chest, its upper inner sharply cut 2

¶118

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 10

¶119

cm outer to midline and 9 cm below the inner end of collar bone. The chest cavity was seen penetrated by obliquely cutting the costochondral junction of 3rd and fourth rib and sternum. The pericardial sac was seen incised and root of aorta and pulmonary artery were seen cut involving its whole thickness. Pericardial sac contained 200 ml of blood and left chest cavity contained 1 litre blood mixed with blood clots. Lungs were pale.

¶120

Incised penetrating wound 5.5 x 1.8 cm oblique on the left side of front of abdomen its upper inner end 9 cm outer to midline and 4 cm below costal margin. Penetrating through the abdominal wall the grater omentum was seen incised. The jejuna loop of small intestine was seen penetrated 3 x 2 cm. Abdominal cavity contained 200 ml of blood and coils of intestine were pale.

¶121

Incised would 6 x 2 cm, muscle deep vertical on right

¶122

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 11

¶123

side of front of abdomen its upper end 8 cm below

¶124

costal margin and 4 cm outer to midline.

¶125

Abrasion 2 x 0.5 cm on the back and inner aspect of left fore-arm, its lower end 4 cm above wrist.

¶126

Three linear abrasion 1 x 0.2 cm, 1.5 x 0.2 cm and 1.5 x 0.1 cm on back of left hand lying side by side, 3 cm and 2 cm apart.

¶127

Incised wound 7 x 1 cm, muscle deep oblique on the inner aspect of right foot, its upper front end 9 cm behind root of big toe. ”

¶128

PW8 Dr.Zakaria Thomas conducted autopsy on the dead body.

¶129

He has opined that death was due to injuries 1 to 3. Considering the nature

¶130

of injuries 1 to 3, it will be clear that they were inflicted with a heavy

¶131

hatchet with a brute force. In spite of cross-examination on this witness,

¶132

we find no material worthwhile elicited to discredit the medical opinion

¶133

regarding the cause of death.

¶134

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 12

¶135

Another set of evidence relied on by the prosecution is

¶136

recovery of MO1 hatchet as per the information furnished by the appellant while in custody. PW's 7 and 9 are the independent witnesses examined to

¶137

prove recovery of MO1 hatchet at the instance of the appellant. These two witnesses completely supported the prosecution case and they deposed that the appellant, on his arrest on the next day, had been taken to his house

¶138

and he took out blood stained MO1 hatchet from his house. Ext.P11 chemical analysis report would go to show that item No.2 (MO1 hatchet)

¶139

tested positive for human blood. That apart, the dhoti worn by the deceased also tested positive and found to be of 'B' blood group. Admittedly, the deceased was having 'B' positive blood group. PW's 1 to 3 categorically deposed that the appellant used to wear a nightie (ladies night dress). According to them, he was wearing a nightie at the time of occurrence as

¶140

well. Item No.3 in Ext.P11 is the nightie said to have been recovered by

¶141

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 13

¶142

police. The analysis report would show that it contained human blood. The

¶143

appellant has not furnished any explanation for the presence of human

¶144

blood on the dress material worn by him at the time of occurrence.

¶145

PW6 is a witness to Ext.P4 scene mahazar. No challenge is

¶146

made against his testimony. PW10 Village Officer prepared Ext.P7 site plan

¶147

and PW11 Scientific Assistant collected the material objects from the crime

¶148

scene.

¶149

PW12 recorded Ext.P1 F.I.S as furnished by PW1. He also

¶150

substantiated the testimony of PW's 1 to 3 stating that immediately after the incident they informed police and police officers went to the crime scene

¶151

and removed the deceased to a hospital in an attempt to save his life. There

¶152

is no effective challenge against the testimony of PW12.

¶153

PW13 is the Investigating Officer. He started investigation on

¶154

the next day morning itself. He recovered material objects and

¶155

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 14

¶156

apprehended the appellant. He effected recovery of MO1 hatchet on the confession of the appellant while in custody. As mentioned earlier, the recovery has been properly proved by independent witnesses. Investigating

¶157

Officer also testified in support of the recovery. He sent the body for postmortem examination and questioned the material witnesses. He spoke about the recovery of dress materials worn by the deceased and the appellant. After completing investigation, he submitted a charge sheet.

¶158

Defence suggestion at the trial that the appellant was a

¶159

mentally challenged person is stoutly denied by all the material witnesses

¶160

and the investigating officer. Similarly, the defence case tried to be developed that intoxicating substances were administered to the appellant against his will is also denied by these witnesses.

¶161

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that in the

¶162

absence of any eye witness, the testimony of PW's 1 to 3 cannot be

¶163

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 15

¶164

accepted. According to her submission, there was no occasion for anyone to

¶165

see the incident as the appellant's house lies in the lower level of a terraced

¶166

land. When we go through the testimony of PW's 1 to 3, we find that they

¶167

have no case of witnessing the incident. It is to be remembered that the incident happened in a village setting and the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution are natural witnesses as they are inhabitants in the

¶168

locality. There cannot be any dispute that the witnesses and the appellant

¶169

were known to each other. We find no reason for PW's 1 to 3 to falsely

¶170

implicate the appellant in the crime.

¶171

Learned counsel contended that recovery of MO1 is not

¶172

believable because the appellant has a case that he usually did not reside in

¶173

the dilapidated house from where MO1 hatchet was allegedly recovered.

¶174

All the material witnesses deposed that his house was in shambles. It has

¶175

also come out in evidence that he was staying alone in that house as his

¶176

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 16

¶177

family had abandoned him. Further evidence would show that he was in

¶178

the habit of drinking and abusing neighbours. It appears that he was

¶179

reclusive without any closeness to his neighbours.

¶180

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, we find that the

¶181

material witnesses have no reason to speak falsehood against him. The recovery proved through independent evidence has been fortified by the

¶182

testimony of PW13, the investigation officer.

¶183

As mentioned above, the court below has correctly analysed all

¶184

the circumstances borne out from the prosecution evidence to hold that the

¶185

appellant was solely responsible for the incident. The settled principle that

¶186

in a case on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution evidence should form

¶187

an unbroken chain and it should lead to the guilt of the accused alone and

¶188

his innocence shall not be possible by any hypothesis. If we analyse the

¶189

evidence in this case, we are of the view that the entire circumstance taken

¶190

Crl.Appeal No. 137 of 2017 17

¶191

together will point to the guilt of the appellant and there is no reason to

¶192

think that he is innocent of the allegations. On a reappraisal of the entire

¶193

evidence, we find that the trial court is justified in finding the appellant

¶194

guilty for the offence of murder and convicted and sentenced him under

¶195

Section 302 I.P.C. Having regard to the sentence, we find no reason to interfere there also.

¶196

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction

¶197

and sentence of the appellant.

¶198

All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

A. HARIPRASAD,

JUDGE.

M.R.ANITHA, JUDGE

amk

Rajmohan, C.NO.1414 v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajmohan, C.NO.1414 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

Subhash @ Ansari Vs State of Kerala

Suresh, S/O.Vasu, C.9510 Vs State of Kerala

Ummer Beary Vs the State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Rajesh

Rajesh Vs State of Kerala

Priyan Vs State of Kerala