Faisal vs State of Kerala Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam

P. Bhavadasan, J.—The accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty on both counts. He was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence u/s 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. For the offences u/s 201 of Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The term of substantive sentence were to run concurrently. Set off for the period of remand was allowed. The incident which gave rise to this case is alleged to have occurred on 19.6.2008 at about 10.30 pm. On the next day, on 20.6.2008, PW2 who owned a building in which rooms were let out for casual labourers including the accused was informed about still body of the deceased in the room in the first floor of the building. PW2 came to the place and found the deceased Palaniswami lying dead in a pool of blood. He informed the police. Police came to the spot. PW2 thereafter laid Ext.P5 F.I. Statement which was recorded by PW12, who registered crime as per Ext.P17 F.I.R. PW13 took over the investigation. He conducted the inquest and prepared Ext.P12 Inquest Report. He seized articles found at the place of incident and also sought assistance of the Scientific Assistant, PW7 to collect materials from the place. The body was thereafter sent for autopsy. PW6, Doctor conducted autopsy and prepared Ext.P13 Post Mortem Certificate. PW13 recorded the statement of the witnesses and the articles seized during investigation were sent for chemical analysis and after completing investigation, charge was laid before court.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi took cognizance of the offence. Finding that the offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, committed the case to Sessions Court, Manjeri. The said court made over the case to Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track No. III (Adhoc), Manjeri for trial and disposal.

The latter court framed charges for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 of IPC. To the charge, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined Pws 1 to 13, marked Exts.P1 to P25 and identified and marked material objects Mo1 to Mo9. After the close of evidence by prosecution, accused was questioned u/s 313 of Cr.PC regarding the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence. He denied all the incriminating circumstances and maintained that he is innocent. He pointed out that he has nothing to do with the incident and that he had not made himself scarce or absconded as alleged by the prosecution. Finding that accused could not be acquitted u/s 232 of Cr.P.C, he was asked to enter on his defence. Accused chose to adduce no evidence. On appreciation of evidence, court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as already mentioned.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the court below has erred both on facts and in law in coming to the conclusion that the accused has committed the offence. According to the learned counsel, there is absolutely no legal evidence to connect the accused with the crime alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel drew the attention of this court to the fact that court below ought not have placed reliance on the evidence of PW3 and come to the conclusion that accused was seen standing near the place of incident with Mo1 pickaxe in his hand. Learned counsel pointed out that the evidence of PW3 has to be read as a whole and on reading the evidence of PW3, it is clear that he is not speaking the truth and no reliance could be placed on his evidence at all. If one is to eschew the evidence of PW3, there are only certain circumstances relied on by the court below to come to the conclusion that the offence has been committed by the accused. Learned counsel went on to point out that the first circumstance is regarding the incident alleged to have taken place at 4 pm. Prosecution case according to the learned counsel is that the accused and the deceased Palaniswami picked up quarrel at about 4 pm and deceased had toppled a bucket containing water in the room of the accused which has annoyed the accused. Learned counsel pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence to establish the said incident and no witness speaks about having seen the said incident at all. Learned counsel went on to point out that the further circumstances relied on by the prosecution do not show that the accused had anything to do with the incident. It is pointed out that the evidence of PW3 would at best show that he had intervened during the talk between PW1 and accused about the deceased and nothing more than that. There is nothing to show that the accused had gone to the room of the deceased as alleged by the prosecution on the date on which the incident is said to have occured as contended by the prosecution. Learned counsel went on to point out that considerable reliance has been placed by the court below on the false explanation offered regarding the injury said to have been sustained by the accused on his finger. According to learned counsel, first of all, there is no evidence to show that any injury was sustained by the accused in his finger. He was not subjected to any medical examination nor was he questioned as to how he had sustained the injury. Even assuming there is such injury, that could not have been relied on as a circumstance to hold against the accused. The next circumstance relied on by the court below according to the learned counsel is that ashes were recovered from the room of the accused which according to the prosecution was as a result of burning of blood stained shirt of the accused and plastic paper used for wiping of the blood. There is absolutely no evidence according to the learned counsel to show that the shirt worn by the accused was burnt or that he had wiped the blood with a plastic paper and had burned it. Ashes collected from the alleged room of the accused were not subjected to chemical analysis and no chemical tests were conducted to arrive at a finding that ashes so recovered from the room were that of burned plastic paper used for wiping off the blood and the shirt alleged to contain blood stains. Learned counsel then went on to point out that the next circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that accused has made himself scarce since the incident and was arrested only on 30.6.2008. Learned counsel went on to point out that there is absolutely no evidence to show that accused was not present in the place. May be he was arrested only on 30.6.2008, but there is no legal evidence at all to show that the accused had concealed himself and had kept himself away from law. Another circumstance relied on, according to the learned counsel, is the presence of blood stains in the lungi said to have been worn by the accused at the relevant time. Apart from challenging the evidence regarding the seizure of the lungi, it was also pointed out that even assuming it was the lungi of the accused it only shows that it had blood stains but its origin was not determined at all.

Once the evidence of PW3 is not found to be acceptable, then the case rests on circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel went on to point out that the parameters regarding a case which rests on circumstantial evidence are well settled. The link in the chain of events should be complete and should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and should not be inconsistent with any hypothesis of his innocence. Prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who alone could have committed the offence and any doubt which arise in that regard must go in favour of the accused. Learned counsel went on to point out that court below relied on conjectures and surmises and not on legal evidence and the conviction and sentence are unsustainable in law.

Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand referred to various circumstances relied on by the lower court to come to the conclusion that it was the accused who had committed the offences. Learned Public Prosecutor relied on the evidence of PW3 to contend that in chief examination he stated that he had occasion to see the accused standing with Mo1 pickaxe in his hand near the body of Palaniswamy when he went to the room of the deceased. That evidence of PW3, according to the learned Public Prosecutor goes a long way in establishing the guilt of the accused. Taken along with the said fact and the circumstances relied on by the court below, according to the learned Public Prosecutor are sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Evidence shows that accused and deceased had consumed liquor in the room of the accused at about 4 pm on the date of the incident and there was a toppling of bucket of water kept in the room by the deceased which had annoyed the accused. Later, according to the learned Public Prosector, evidence shows that PW1, PW3 and another person had consumed liquor in the room of PW3 and after they left, PW3 had gone for taking food. When he returned, he saw PW1 and accused engaged in a conversation speaking ill about the deceased. He asked to stop the conversation and it was thereafter that accused has proceeded to the room of the deceased and committed the act. It was pointed out that the accused had no satisfactory explanation for the injury suffered on his hand and he has given two inconsistent versions regarding the injury to PW1 and PW3 and that is sufficient to show that he was hiding the real facts and that he is responsible for the death of Palaniswami. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that Mo1 pickaxe which was used by the accused to inflict the injuries contained human blood which should further go in favour of the prosecution. Learned Public Prosecutor went on to point out that soon after the incident, the accused has made himself scarce and that is a circumstance which goes against him and he has no explanation to substantiate his absence from the place till 30.6.2008 when he was arrested from Calicut. Learned Public Prosecutor also drew the attention of this court to the fact that recovery of ashes from the room of accused and also presence of blood stains in the lungi which are incriminating items which go against the accused and court below was justified in coming to the conclusion that it was the accused and none else who had committed the offence.

Ext.P13 is the post mortem report drawn up by PW6, which shows the following injuries.

Incised punctured perforating wound 3 x 0.7 cm rectangle shaped with sharp cut edge on the right side of back of chest, obliquely placed with right upper end and left lower end which was square cut.

Hexagonal shaped incised punctured perforating wound with splitting of underlying soft tissues over 3.5 x 1. cm on the left side of back of trunk obliquely placed with a right upper end left lower end.

Incised punctured perforating wound 3.5 cm long gaping for 1.3 cm on the left side of back of trunk inner to the previous injury, obliquely placed with a left lower end and right upper end showing marginal contusion.

Incised wound 3.5 cm long 0.4 cm broad obliquely placed on the left side of back of trunk, superficial with a right upper end and left lower end 1 cm outer to midline and 28 cm below the top of shoulder.

Abrasion 7 x 0.5 cm oblique on the left side of front of neck with a right lower end and left upper end just outside middle line.

Incised wound 3.5 cm long gaping superficial vertically placed with minimum obliguity over the front of left upper arm towards the outer aspect with 6 cm above the elbow".

Going by the evidence of PW6 and Ext.P13, the deceased died on sharp penetrating chest injuries transfixing the chest through the lung and heart which was noted as injuries 1 and 3 in Ext.P13 post mortem certificate.

A perusal of the post mortem report shows that the injuries were inflicted on the back of the deceased. PW6 has given the opinion that the injuries which resulted in the death of deceased could have been caused by use of a weapon like Mo1. The inquest report prepared by PW13 shows the injuries on the body. From the evidence on record, it follows that the deceased Palaniswami died as a result of the injuries suffered by him and that the death is homicidal.

The next question that arises for consideration is whether there is legal evidence to show that it was the accused who committed the offence alleged against him. The main item of evidence relied on by the prosecution is the evidence of PW3. For the purpose of proving the case, prosecution examined Pws 1 and 3 as occurence witnesses. PW1 turned hostile and his evidence was of no help except for the fact that he had found injury on the finger of the accused, to which the accused offered an explanation. Coming to the evidence of PW3, in chief examination, though he turned hostile, he stated that he had occasion to see the accused carrying Mo1 in his hand standing near the body of the deceased in the room of the deceased.

True, even if a witness turns hostile, it is not necessary that his entire evidence should be eschewed. That portion of the evidence which goes in favour of the prosecution could be accepted if it is found to inspire confidence in the mind of the court. At the same time, the evidence of witness has to be taken and read as a whole. In cross examination, PW3 has specifically stated that he has not seen the accused standing in the room of the deceased carrying Mo1 pickaxe. He has categorically denied having seen any such incident. The veracity of the evidence of a witness is tested by cross examination and when in cross examination, he contradicts what he has stated in chief examination, his evidence becomes unworthy of credit. It is clear that PW3 is not speaking the truth and if that be so, his evidence cannot be relied on at all. Reliance placed by the court below on the evidence of PW3 therefore cannot be accepted. The court below was not justified in picking out a stray sentence in the evidence of PW3 to hold against the accused. His evidence read as a whole shows that no reliance can be placed on any portion of his evidence. The first among the circumstances is that accused and the deceased were found consuming liquor at about 4 pm on the date of incident in the room of the accused and there was a quarrel between them and that a bucket full of water was toppled by the deceased which had annoyed the accused. Except for the observation made by the court below, there is absolutely no evidence regarding this incident at all. None of the witnesses speak about actually having seen the incident which according to the prosecution is a reason for the accused having committed the offence. There is absolutely no evidence to show that either deceased or the accused had taken drinks at 4 pm together or there was a quarrel in the room of the accused or that a bucket full of water was toppled. Of course, PW3 says that he had heard that there was such an incident, but that is only hearsay. No witness who has actually seen the incident been examined.

Prosecution case is that in the night at 8.30 pm on the date of the incident, PW1, PW3 and the accused were taking alcohol and thereafter by about 9 pm, PW3 had gone out for getting food. When he came back, he saw PW1 and accused speaking ill about the deceased and he had asked them to discontinue the conversation and thereafter he went to his room. It is the version of PW3 after dissuading PW1 and the accused, he went to his room, closed the door and went to sleep. There is absolutely nothing to show that Palaniswami had provoked the accused by abusing him and that had infuriated the accused. Merely because accused and PW1 were seen talking about Palaniswami, it could not be taken as a circumstance to hold that accused had a role to play in causing the death of Palaniswami.

Much reliance seems to have been placed by the court below on the inconsistent version given by the accused regarding the injury on his finger. Though PW1 says that the injury was on the finger, PW3 says that it was on the hand of the accused. He has given two versions. To PW1 he has stated that injury was caused while he was opening a bottle and to PW3 he has stated that it was due to the use of a blade. Whatever that be, one fails to understand how it would advance the case of the prosecution at all. Prosecution has adduced no evidence to show that such an injury could be sustained by the accused during the commission of the act. There is no medical evidence also to support the version of the prosecution that accused has suffered injury during the commission of the act. In fact, it does not appear that accused was subjected to medical examination soon after the arrest and if at all there was an injury there is nothing to prove that accused has suffered injury in the incident. Moreover, we are unable to comprehend as to how an injury of the nature stated to have been suffered by the accused could have been caused by using a weapon like Mo1. Neither PW1 nor PW3 has stated about the injury suffered by accused to the police which constitutes a material omission.

From Ext.P13 and the evidence of PW6, it is clear that the injury had been inflicted while the deceased was lying on his abdomen. The injuries must have been inflicted by the assailant with force. It is not possible to comprehend any struggle or scuffle between the deceased and the assailant. At any rate, prosecution has not been able to explain as to how the injury alleged to have been sustained by the accused could have been suffered. That circumstance even if true too does not go in favour of the prosecution.

The next item of evidence on which considerable reliance is placed is recovery of ashes from the room of the accused. It is true that PW13, Investigating Officer along with the assistance of PW7 had collected ashes from the room of the accused. Prosecution allegation is that they were the traces of burning of the blood stained shirt and blood stained plastic paper used by the accused to wipe off the blood. Surprisingly, the ashes so collected were not subjected to chemical analysis to ascertain the origin of the ashes. Moreover, it does not stand to reason that accused who took care to burn the blood stained shirt and the so called plastic paper alleged to have been used for wiping off the blood would have retained Mo2 lungi to be seized by the Investigating Officer on his arrest. As long as there is no evidence to show that ashes collected from the room of the accused is a result of the burning of the shirt and plastic paper alleged to have used for wiping off blood, that also cannot be taken as a circumstance to hold against the accused.

What now remains to be considered is the circumstances relied on by the prosecution regarding the abscondence of the accused. Of course, PW3 in re-examination, does say that accused was not seen from the date of the incident. On going through the evidence, it is felt how such an answer could have been given during re examination. Re examination is allowed and resorted to, to clarify the ambiguities in cross examination and not to bring out new facts or circumstances. Whatever that be, all that PW3 says is that he has not seen the accused after the date of the incident. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, none of the inmates of the building including PW1 and PW3 had also informed police about the incident and they claim total ignorance about the incident at all. None of the inmates of rooms in the building were present at the time of inquest. The evidence of PW2 is only hearsay regarding the departure of the accused in a bus in the night of the date of the incident. Except for the fact that accused was arrested on 30.6.2008, there is nothing to show that accused had made himself scarce to avoid arrest.

Once the evidence of PW3 is not found to be acceptable and credit worthy, then the case as rightly pointed out, rests on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that each of the circumstance will have to be proved and the circumstance so proved should form a complete chain consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any hypothesis of his innocence. The appreciation of the evidence in this case at best points a finger of suspicion at the accused. There is a long distance to travel between ''may'' and ''shall''. Prosecution at best has been able to create a doubt that accused might have committed the offence. There is absolutely no legal evidence to come to the conclusion that it was the accused who committed the act which resulted in the death of Palaniswami. In the result, appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 1 of 2009 by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track No. III (Adhoc), Manjeri are set aside. Accused is found not guilty of the offences alleged against him. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.