Santhosh @ Malayattoor Santhosh vs State of Kerala

P. Bhavadasan, J.—The accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 332, 333 and 302 IPC. He was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 332 and 333 but was acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 449. He was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable u/s 302 and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable u/s 332. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable u/s 333. It was also ordered that he will be entitled to set off in case of commutation of sentence, as per law. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:

On 04.12.2003 in the night, the accused met PW1 Santha, who was a lady of easy virtue and took her along with him to the terrace of a two storeyed building. He removed his clothes and placed himself on the top of the lady.

The Railway Protection Force had registered a crime as Crime No. 81/03 for the offence punishable u/s 379 IPC in connection with the theft of some parcel items kept on Platform No. 1 of the South Railway Station. The Railway Police and the R.P.F. started investigation in the said case. The RPF had formed a special squad under the leadership of PW7, Shri. Gopakumar, Circle Inspector of Police, for investigating into the said crime. On 04.12.2003, the squad got information that the accused had some active involvement in the theft and so, the squad under the leadership of PW7, went in search of him. On getting some discreet information that the accused was in the terrace of a building behind a hotel at Kalathiparambu Road, PW7 and 2 others climbed over the wall of the building, in the terrace where the accused and the lady were present. On seeing them, the lady informed the accused that police have come. Immediately, the accused took out a knife, which was kept below his shirt and threatened the Police Officers, not to come near him or try to apprehend him. He wielded the knife at PW7, and in the process the said witness suffered an injury on his left hand. Then, the deceased, another Police Officer caught hold of the accused. The accused stabbed the deceased and he bend down to the ground. PW7 and the lady, i.e., PW1, tied the wound with a cloth. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the Medical Trust Hospital. Unfortunately, by 1.30 am, the injured Police Officer namely, Shourie breathed his last. PW7 was also taken to the hospital for the injury suffered by him.

On receiving intimation about the incident from the hospital, PW11, the ASI of Police attached to the Central Police Station went to the hospital and recorded Ext. P9 F.I. statement furnished by PW7. On the basis of Ext. P9, Crime No. 890/03 as per Ext. P14 F.I.R. was registered. The investigation was taken over by PW12 Circle Inspector of Police. He went to the hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased Shourie and prepared Ext. P2 inquest report. He had the body sent for autopsy, which was conducted by PW8, who prepared Ext. P11 postmortem report. In the meanwhile, PW12 visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ext. P1 scene mahazar. He also seized the articles found on the terrace and MO1 knife from the compound of the house. The dress worn by the deceased was recovered as per Ext. P18 mahazar and the saree worn by PW1 at the time of incident was recovered as per Ext. P19 mahazar. He also seized from the Railway Protection Force Office, the registers containing the details of the crime of theft, regarding which investigation was going on. He recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared the site plan, completed the investigation and laid charge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate''s court.

The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam took cognizance of the offence. On appearance of the accused before the said Court, all legal formalities were complied with. Finding that the offences were exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court, Ernakulam as per Section 209 Cr.P.C. The Sessions Court, on appearance of the accused and after hearing both sides, framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 332, 333 and 302 IPC. To the charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, examined PW1 to PW12 and marked Exts.P1 to P13. Material Objects 1 to 8 were also identified and marked. On being questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances brought in evidence against him and maintained that he is innocent. Presumably finding that the accused could not be acquitted u/s 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on defence. From the side of the defence Exts.D1 to D5 were marked. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the court below found that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 302, 332 and 333 IPC. The conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed. They are assailed in this appeal.

The question that arises for consideration is whether the court below was justified in convicting the accused and sentencing him for the offences punishable u/s 302, 332 and 333 IPC.

That Shourie died is a matter not in dispute. Shourie, on receiving the fatal injury was first removed to Medical Trust Hospital at Ernakulam. P.W.9, the Doctor, who was on casuality duty attended to him. He had issued Ext.P12 certificate. The Certificate shows that Shourie had received a fatal stab injury on his chest. P.W.9 had examined P.W.7, who too received injuries at the hands of the accused. P.W.9 has pointed out the injuries suffered by both the injured could be caused by the use of a weapon like M.O.1. The doctor also says in his evidence that Shourie soon breathed his last.

Ext.P2 is the inquest report prepared by P.W.12. That too shows the injuries suffered by Shourie. P.W.8, the Forensic Surgeon attached to Medical College Hospital, Calicut conducted autopsy on the body of Shourie. Ext.P11 is the report. It makes mention of the injury on the chest of Shourie and the report concludes by saying that cause of death was stab injury to left chest involving left lung and pulmonary veins. The doctor has opined that the said injury could be caused by the use of a weapon like M.O.1. He gives the details of the injury in his evidence. According to the doctor that is a fatal injury, which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the person concerned. From the above evidence, it follows that the death of Shourie was homicidal.

The next question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that it was the accused, who caused the fatal injury.

In order to prove the said fact, prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 7. Of course there is the evidence of the doctor who attended to Shourie and P.W.7 initially at Medical Trust Hospital.

P.W.1 seems to be a lady of easy virtue. Though she is married to Shaji, their relationship does not appear to be very pleasant and in fact Shaji keeps a concubine. P.W.1 is a manual labourer. Initially she had no place to stay. Later she took a room on rent at Kalamassery. Though a person by name Purushothaman joined her, that relationship too did not last long. On the date of the incident, that is on 4.12.2003, the accused came across P.W.1 and to satiate his lust, he took her to the terrace of a building near Girls'' High School compound at Ernakulam. According to the evidence of this witness, while they were having sexual intercourse, Railway Police Force under the leadership of P.W.7 came to the terrace and light from the torch lit by one of them fell on the face of P.W.1. She immediately alerted the accused. The accused is stated to have got up and picked up a knife which was kept beneath his shirt, which was laid on the terrace, while he undressed. He wielded the knife and threatened the officers not to come near him or attempt to catch him. In the said act, he caused injury to P.W.7. Shourie, another Constable who was accompanying P.W.7 immediately caught hold of the accused. In a bid to escape and extricate himself, the accused stabbed Shourie. After stabbing Shourie, the accused made good his escape. P.W.1 would say that the accused had left his dhothi at the place of the incident. They tore a piece out of the same and tied the wound of Shourie. P.W.1 then says that Basheer, another official, who was accompanying P.W.7 was called for help. He rushed to the spot. By that time Railway porters and other officers came to the place. They brought Shourie down the building and removed him to the hospital. This witness had identified M.O.1 as the knife used by the accused and also M.O.3 as the shirt worn by him at the relevant time. She also identified M.Os. 4 and 5 as the dress of Shourie.

The next important witness is P.W.7, who was then the C.I. of RPF attached to South Railway Police Station. According to him, on 4.11.2003 the Chief Parcel Supervisor had laid a complaint regarding the theft of certain parcels that came from Madras and copy was forwarded to the RPF. ERS. No. 2 of 2003 was registered and also police registered Crime No. 81 of 2003. They decided to conduct a joint operation. A special squad was formed under the leadership of P.W.7. That consisted of P.W.7, Basheer, Shourie and Antony. P.W.7 would say that on 4.12.2003 he got reliable information that the accused in this case, who was suspected to be involved in theft, was on the terrace of the building near the Girls'' High School. In order to nab him, P.W.7 proceeded to the place with members of his team. On reaching the place, two of them stayed on the ground and P.W.7 and Shourie mounted the compound wall and got on the terrace of the building where the accused was having intercourse with P.W.1. On lighting the torch he heard P.W.1 saying that the police had come. That alerted the accused, who took out a knife and threatened him and Shourie of dire consequences if they attempted to take him into custody. In the process, P.W.1 would say that he suffered an injury on his left and middle fingers. Seeing that P.W.7 would say that Shourie rushed at the accused and caught hold of him. In a frantic effort to escape, the accused stabbed Shourie and the stab fell on his chest. Shourie fell on the floor. P.W.7 says that he and P.W.1 tried to tie the wound of Shourie, but it was bleeding profusely. Finding it difficult to bring down Shourie without the help of other people, he directed Basheer, a member of his team, who was standing below to get some persons. With the help of others brought by Basheer, Shourie was brought down. He was taken to Medical Trust Hospital. On examination the Doctor pronounced him dead. He identified M.O.1 as the knife used by the accused and M.O.3 as the shirt of the accused. He identified M.Os. 4 and 5 as the clothes worn by Shourie. M.O.6 was identified as the sari worn by P.W.1.

When P.W.1 was cross-examined, she had stated that she had taken a few favours from the RPF. She used to sleep in the railway platform and used to travel without tickets. On all those occasions she had been strictly warned by the railway police. It has come out in cross-examination that she was residing in Kottayam along with Shaji. But that relationship did not last long. When her husband began another relationship, she left him and came to Ernakulam. She had left her child in a Convent at Kottayam.

P.W.7 was also cross-examined at length. The main attack made against the evidence of P.W.7 is that going by the records produced by the prosecution, the Railway Police had got the records of the case relating to the theft only after the incident was over. It is therefore contended that it would not have been possible for P.W.7 and his team to nab the accused as averred by him.

One must notice that the above contention is without any merit whatsoever. A careful reading of the documents produced by the prosecution would show that the Railway police and State police had decided to have a joint effort to trace the culprit in the theft case. Suspicion fell on the accused in this case. The claim of the defence that no report was given as to the registration of E.R.S.2/2003 to the court has of no consequence. A reading of the evidence of P.W.7 would show that, that is only for the purpose of holding a departmental enquiry and it has nothing to do with the crime registered. It is significant to notice that the stolen articles were seized from the compound of a house by P.W.12. Those articles were released to the railway police. May be that the special squad was constituted early. But the court below has adverted to the provisions of RPUP Act and has come to the conclusion that they are entitled to arrest a person even without warrant who is suspected of theft regarding railway property.

May be that P.W.1 is a lady of easy virtue. But that by itself is not a ground to reject her evidence. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 7 are uniform, consistent and convincing. There is nothing to show that they had any oblique motive in implicating the accused or that their evidence is tainted.

It was argued that the squad which went in search of the accused consisted of four persons including P.W.7. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the accused these four persons would have easily prevented the accused from inflicting injuries on Shourie.

We are afraid that the learned Counsel has not carefully perused the evidence. The evidence is to the effect that leaving two persons on the ground, P.W.7 and Shourie had mounted over the compound wall and reached the terrace. When the accused was alerted of the arrival of the railway police, he became furious and brandished his knife. The rest of the incident was immediate. Initially P.W.7 received a minor injury and then Shourie had acted. Even assuming that the two persons were standing in the ground could have come to the aid of Shourie, it would have taken sometime. By that time, the incident was over. Equally fallacious is the contention taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant that at any rate Shourie could have been immediately brought down and if taken to the Hospital, his life could have been saved. The evidence of P.W.7 clearly shows that when he realised that he along with two others will not be able to carry Shourie down, he had sought the help of other persons also. It is significant to notice that P.W.7 would say that he had taken immediate steps to save Shourie.

It could thus be seen that there is no merit in any of the contentions taken by the appellant. It is also significant to notice that the court below has considered the evidence in detail, namely, the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 7. There is nothing to show that the court below has erred in any manner in coming to the conclusion that the fatal injury which caused the death of Shourie and the injury caused to P.W.7 were infact inflicted by the accused. The said finding does not call for any interference.

Learned Counsel appearing for the accused then as a last resort pointed out that there was only one stab injury and there was no intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of Shourie. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision reported in Kailash v. State of M.P. 2006 KHC 1514.

Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand pointed out that it is not the number of injuries that matters, but the nature of the injury and the place where the injury was inflicted. Referring to the postmortem report, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the injury was caused on a fatal portion of the body and was caused with considerable force. Under such circumstances, the act of the accused cannot escape from falling either under Clause (3) or Clause (4) of Section 300.

When one recapitulates the facts and evidence in the case, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the accused had any intention to cause the death of Shourie. When he heard P.W.1 saying that railway police had arrived, the accused became furious and brandished his knife. His effort was only to keep the police officers away from him so that he can escape from the scene. It is true that he caused minor injury to P.W.7. But there was nothing to indicate that he had intended to go further had not the deceased caught hold of him. Even after Shourie caught hold of him, his intention was to extricate himself and escape. In that process, he caused the injury. Viewed in the above context, one has also to note that only a single stab injury was caused to the deceased. True, it was with considerable force and on a vital portion of the body. However, it is very difficult to bring the act of the accused herein under Clause (3) of Clause (4) of Section 300 of IPC.

In the decision reported in Rajinder v. State of Haryana 2006(3) KLT 218(SC) Sections 299 and 300 have been elaborately considered. The decision considered in detail as to what act could be said to fall under Clauses (3) or (4) of Section 300.

On the other hand from the principle laid down in the decision reported in State of Punjab Vs. Bakhshish Singh and Others, and Ramchandra Dhondiba Kaware Vs. State of Maharashtra, it can be seen that an act similar to the one in this case at best falls only u/s 304 Part I of of IPC.

On an elaborate consideration of the various aspects, it is felt that the act of the accused will fall only u/s 304 Part I of IPC.

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the court below for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC are set aside and the accused stands convicted for the offence punishable u/s 304 Part I of the IPC and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of which he has to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. The conviction and sentence u/s 332 is retained. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Set off as per law is allowed u/s 428 Cr.P.C.