Jayan vs State Of Kerala

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J

The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.96 of 2010 on the files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Palakkad. He stands convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

One Anitha, an unmarried lady sustained serious injuries in an occurrence that took place at about 4.00 p.m. on 19.10.2006 near the public water tap in the vicinity of her residence and she succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. Raveendran, the brother of Anitha also suffered an injury in the same occurrence. The matter was immediately informed to the police, and on receiving information, Town North Police, Palakkad registered a case based on the statement furnished by Raveendran. The investigation in the case revealed that it was the accused who caused death of Anitha and caused injury to Raveendran. Accordingly, final report was filed against the accused alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. The accusation in the case is that the accused who maintained hostility towards Anitha for evading his proposal to marry him, caused her death by stabbing on the right side of her neck and also on the left side of her chest with a knife when she came near the water tap for drawing water. It is also the accusation in the case that the accused caused injury to Raveendran also when he tried to prevent the attack on Anitha at the scene.

On the accused being committed to trial, the Court of Session framed charges against him, to which he pleaded not guilty. Thereupon, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses as PWs 1 to 16 and proved through them 17 documents as Exts.P1 to P17. Exts.D1 and D2 are the case diary statements of PW4 and PW12 respectively. MOs 1 to 5 are the material objects. When the incriminating evidence was put to the accused in terms of the provisions contained in Section 313 of the Code, he denied the same and pleaded innocence. Thereupon, on a consideration of the evidence on record, the Court of Session found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. As noted, the accused is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, hence this appeal.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

The point that falls for consideration is whether the conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed on him are sustainable in law.

No arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the accused challenging the finding rendered by the Court of Session that the death of Anitha is a homicide. On the other hand, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel were as to the reliability and acceptability of the evidence tendered by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. According to the learned counsel, satisfactory evidence has not been let in by the prosecution to prove the occurrence and that the accused, in the circumstances, is liable to be acquitted on that ground.

Let us now examine the evidence tendered by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. The first among the witnesses cited by the prosecution is Raveendran, the brother of Anitha. He was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that on the relevant day at about 4.00 p.m., while he was sitting on the side of a shop of the building of one Janardhanan along with a few others, including his brother Suresh, Anitha came to the nearby public tap to draw water. It was deposed by him that the accused then rushed from the nearby cement shop to the place where Anitha was standing and stabbed on her neck with a knife carried by him and thereupon, pulled her hair and stabbed again on her left chest with the same knife. It was deposed by PW1 that when he rushed to the scene and attempted to prevent the attack, the accused brandished the knife carried by him, and as a result, he also sustained an injury on his finger and that even though PW1 attempted to get hold of the accused, the accused ran away from the scene towards Kallepully. It was deposed by PW1 that his brother Suresh immediately took Anitha to the hospital in an autorickshaw. PW1 affirmed that it was he who gave Ext.P1 First Information Statement. PW1 identified the accused as also MO1 as the knife with which the accused inflicted injury on Anitha. It was also deposed by PW1 that the accused made a proposal to marry Anitha, but she was not inclined to the said proposal and that on the date of occurrence, a party from Coimbatore visited their house in connection with another marriage proposal for her. In cross-examination, PW1 stated that the police had shown to him the weapon used by the accused to inflict injuries on Anitha on the date of occurrence itself. On a specific question put to PW1 by the counsel for the accused, PW1 clarified in cross-examination that he informed the police that the first injury was inflicted by the accused on Anitha on the right side of her neck.

PW4, Suresh, another brother of Anitha is the next witness examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. PW4 was referred to by PW1 in his evidence. PW4 gave evidence consistent with the evidence given by PW1 as regards the occurrence. It was clarified by PW4 in his evidence that the cement shop is one of the shops functioning in the building of Janardhanan and that the accused rushed from the said cement shop to the public water tap where Anitha was standing and after inflicting the first injury on the right side of the neck of Anitha, the accused caught hold of her hair, turned her towards him and it was thereupon that he inflicted the stab injury on her left chest. It was also deposed by PW4 in his evidence that after inflicting the second injury, the accused pushed her towards the direction of the building of Janardhanan and when PW1 attempted then to intervene, the accused brandished the knife carried by him and it was at that point of time that PW1 suffered an injury on his right hand. It was also clarified by PW4 in his evidence that the accused thereupon ran away towards Kallepully with the knife. It was stated by PW4 that it was he who took Anitha to the hospital in the autorickshaw of one Sathish along with one Valsala, and Anitha succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. As stated by PW1, PW4 also stated in his evidence that a marriage prospect from Coimbatore came to their house on that day with a proposal for Anitha and Anitha agreed to the same. PW4 also identified the accused. PW4 identified MO1 as the knife used by the accused to inflict injuries on Anitha.

PW8 is another ocular witness examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. PW8 deposed that he was sitting at the relevant time in front of the cement shop, and the accused was sitting then inside that shop. It was also deposed by PW8 that PW1 and PW4 were standing at that time in front of the said building. PW8 also gave evidence consistent with the evidence tendered by PWs 1 and 4 as regards the occurrence. It was also clarified by PW8 in his evidence that before brandishing the knife, the accused made an utterance.

The relevant portion of the evidence reads thus:

"എന ക ല ങ   ആ ക വ ണല ന  പറഞ"

PW8 deposed that he too helped PW4 along with others to take Anitha by the autorickshaw to the hospital. PW8 deposed that even though he did not accompany Anitha to the hospital, he followed them and he was with PW4 when they were informed that Anitha is no more. It was deposed by PW8 that it was he who brought PW4 back home. PW8 deposed that it was he who showed the accused to the police on the same day at the tea-shop of one Kuttan at Kallepully.

PW9 is one Valsala and she is residing near the scene of occurrence and she knew both the accused and Anitha. PW9 deposed that when she went to the scene of occurrence on hearing cries, she saw the accused holding the hair of Anitha, and when PW1 attempted to prevent the accused then, the accused brandished the knife carried by him and PW1 suffered an injury on account of the same. It was deposed by PW9 that she was also with PW4 in the autorickshaw in which Anitha was taken to the hospital.

PW12 is the autorickshaw driver in whose vehicle Anitha was taken to the hospital. PW12 deposed that while he was sitting in the autorickshaw near the scene of occurrence, he heard a noise and when he turned towards that place, he saw the accused there. It was deposed by PW12 that PW4 then called him to the scene and when he took his autorickshaw to that place, Anitha, who was in an injured state then, was taken by his autorickshaw to the District Hospital. It was later clarified by PW12 in his deposition that when he saw the accused at the scene, he was carrying a knife. Even though PW12 deposed that he saw the accused stabbing Anitha on the left side of her neck, later it was clarified by him that the stab was either on the left or right side of her neck and also that the accused was brandishing the knife carried by him thereafter. It was stated by PW12 that he saw the accused stabbing Anitha only once.

PW6 was the doctor who examined PW1 on the date of occurrence at the District Hospital, Palakkad. PW6 deposed that she examined PW1 at 6.30 p.m. and the cause of the injury was stated to her by PW1 as “സവ  ദര ല  കത    നവ    ക"ല" ണ തടതത    ച  " on 19.10.2006 at about 4.00 p.m. near Manali”. It was deposed by PW6 that on examination, she noticed an incised wound measuring 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cms on the right middle finger of PW1 and that the said injury was one that could be caused as alleged. Ext.P4 is the certificate issued by PW6 in this regard. PW7 was the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Anitha. Ext.P6 is the postmortem certificate issued by PW7. The ante-mortem injuries noted on the body of Anitha by PW7 at the time of the postmortem examination, as deposed by him, are the following:

“1) Incised wound 3.5 x 1.8 x 2.2 cm, transversely oblique with bevelling downwards and to front, with extension 2 x 1.4 x 1.2 cm backwards and downwards and with tailing 0.3 cm from its lower back end, placed on right side of neck. The upper front end of the wound was 3 cm below right jaw margin and 2.7 cm outer to midline front of neck. The lower back end was 5 cm to the right of midline back of neck and 1 cm above root of neck. The ends of the wound were sharp cut. The wound cut the subcutaneous tissues, sterno mastoid muscle partially and the external jugular vein. The wound was directed downwards, backwards and to left.

(2) Incised penetrating wound 3.5 x 1 cm, vertically oblique on left half of front of chest, upper left round cut and 6.3 cm below top of left shoulder and 10 cm outer to midline front. The lower inner sharp cut end was 9 cm below top of left shoulder and 8.8 cm outer to midline front of chest. The wound cut the subcutaneous tissues and muscles underneath and penetrated the left chest cavity between left collar bone and first rib at 1.5 cm outer to sterno-clavicular joint. The wound penetrated through the apex of left lung and the mediastinum. The wound further penetrated the right chest cavity through the mediastinum, cutting the trachea and the oesophagus. The superior vena cava was just out. The wound cut the apex of the right lung, causing an incised wound 0.6 x 0.2 x 0.8 cm. The depth of the wound was measured 10.8 cm. The wound was directed to right, backwards and downwards. Left chest cavity contained 400 ml of blood and 250 gms. of blood clots. Right chest cavity contained 300 ml. of blood. Trachea and bronchi contained blood. Left lung collapsed, contained aspirated blood in lower lobe. Right lung partially collapsed, contained aspirated blood in back and outer aspects of lower and middle lobes.

(3) Contused abrasion 0.5 x 0.4 cm on upper aspect of right foot, 2 cm behind root of big toe.

(4) Contused abrasion 0.6 x 0.3 cm on upper aspect of left foot, 1 cm behind root of second toe.

(5) Superficial incised wound 0.8 x 0.2 cm on front and outer aspect of left upper arm 7 cm below top of shoulder.

(6) Superficial incised wound 2.2 x 0.2 cm along upper border of right collar bone, lower inner end 5 cm outer to midline front of neck.”

The opinion given by PW7 as to the cause of death of Anitha in his examination is that she died due to the incised penetrating injury sustained to her chest. It was deposed by PW7 that the injury sustained by Anitha to her chest is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that injuries 1, 2, 5 and 6 sustained by Anitha were injuries that could be caused with MO1 knife.

PW13 was the police officer who registered the case, PW15 and PW16 were the police officers who carried out substantial parts of the investigation and PW14 is the police officer who completed the investigation and submitted the final report in the case. Among them, PW16 deposed that during interrogation after the arrest, the accused disclosed to him that he can hand over a knife if he is taken to a place, and on the basis of the said disclosure, when the accused was taken to the place mentioned by him namely, a place just outside the north-western compound wall of the house of one Krishnankutty which was on the way to Harithanagar from Kallepully junction, he took out MO1 knife which was bloodstained then, from a thicket therein and handed over the same to PW16. Ext.P11 is the disclosure made by the accused which led to the discovery of MO1 knife. It was deposed by PW16 that he seized MO1 knife as per Ext.P7 mahazar. The evidence tendered by PW16 as regards the recovery of MO1 knife was supported by two independent witnesses examined by the prosecution on their side as PW10 and PW11. Both of them are witnesses to Ext.P7 mahazar and they deposed that they saw the accused taking out MO1 knife from the place referred to above.

It is on the basis of the evidence discussed above that the Court of Session arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused under Sections 324 and 302 IPC. The question to be examined now is whether the Court of Session was justified in taking the said view.

As noted, PWs 1, 4, 8, 9 and 12 were the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. We have examined the evidence tendered by the said witnesses meticulously. Among the said witnesses, PWs 1 and 4 are none other than the brothers of Anitha and among them, PW1 is a person who suffered an injury in the occurrence. PWs 1 and 4 were sitting together near the scene of occurrence in front of the building of Janardhanan at the time of the occurrence and PW8 was standing in front of the said building at the relevant time. All the three witnesses consistently deposed that they saw the accused inflicting a stab injury, first on the right side of the neck of Anitha and thereafter pulling her hair and stabbing again on the left side of her chest. The evidence tendered by them appears to us to be real and natural, and no reason has been brought to our notice to doubt the veracity of the said evidence. Going by the evidence tendered by PW9, she reached the scene only on hearing the cries and she did not see the accused stabbing Anitha. PW9 however stated in her evidence that she saw the accused brandishing the knife carried by him and PW1 sustaining injury when he attempted to approach the accused to save his sister. Even though PW9 did not see the accused stabbing Anitha, her evidence substantially corroborates the evidence tendered by PWs 1, 4 and 8. As in the case of PWs 1, 4 and 8, there is absolutely no reason to doubt the veracity of the evidence tendered by PW9 as well. Coming to the evidence tendered by PW12, there prevails a doubt whether he saw the occurrence, for his evidence is not consistent with the evidence tendered by PWs 1, 4 and 8. We, therefore, do not wish to place any reliance on the evidence tendered by PW12 as regards the occurrence. Needless to say, the evidence tendered by PWs 1, 4, 8 and 9 are reliable and acceptable. The said evidence would also prove the motive alleged against the accused to commit the crime.

Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution places reliance on the forensic evidence as also the medical evidence in the case to prove the occurrence. The report of the Forensic Science Laboratory on the various articles sent for forensic examination was marked through PW16, the investigating officer, as Ext.P16. Item 1 in Ext.P16 report is MO1 and items 2 to 6 therein are the clothes worn by Anitha at the time of occurrence. It is stated in Ext.P16 that blood contained in all the six items referred to above belong to the same group namely “O”. Ext.P16 report, therefore, corroborates fully with the oral evidence tendered by PWs 1, 4, 8 and 9. As noted, the evidence tendered by PWs 6 and 7, namely the doctor who examined PW1 and the doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the body of Anitha also corroborate the oral evidence tendered by PWs 1, 4, 8 and 9.

A contention seriously pressed into service by the learned counsel for the accused is as to the reliability and acceptability of the evidence tendered by PW16 relating to the recovery of MO1 knife. The argument advanced by the learned counsel in this regard is that even before the alleged recovery was effected, the police had shown a knife to PW1. The learned counsel placed reliance on the evidence tendered by PW1 in this regard to bring home the said point. We do not find any merit in this argument. The materials indicate that after recording the First Information Statement from PW1 on the date of occurrence, PW1 was questioned again by the police another time and he was shown MO1 knife for identification on the said occasion. A meticulous reading of the evidence tendered by PW1 in this regard would show that the statement made by PW1 in his cross-examination that he was shown the knife on the date of occurrence itself is a mistake. We take this view since PW1 was examined almost nine years after the occurrence.

In the light of the discussion aforesaid, there is no infirmity in the finding rendered by the Court of Session in this regard. Even assuming that there is a doubt cast on the evidence tendered by PW16 as regards the recovery of MO1 knife, the same is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Court of Session, for even without the same, we would come to the same conclusion as the oral evidence tendered by PWs 1, 4, 8 and 9 in this case are of a sterling quality.

The appeal, in the circumstances, is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed.