AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhavadasan, J.—The accused in this case was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC for causing the death of his father and causing injury to his mother, for which he was found guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in the event of commutation, remission and in default to pay fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, for the offence u/s 302 IPC. He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable u/s 324 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Set off was not allowed. The incident in this case occurred on 01.05.2004. PW2, the deceased and the accused were residing in the same house. On 1.5.2004, at about 10.30 am, on hearing a cry from the house of PW2, PW1 reached the place when he found PW3 and another person carrying PW2 and late Kumaran to the hospital. He saw the accused standing there. PW1 laid Ext.P1 F.I.statement which was recorded by PW9, who registered Ext.P9 F.I.R. PW10 conducted inquest over the body and filed Ext.P10 inquest report. Autopsy on the body was done by PW5 and Ext.P4 post mortem report was filed by PW4.
PW12 took over the investigation and he prepared Ext.P8 scene mahazar. He seized the articles found on the body of the deceased, examined witnesses, recorded their statements and laid charge before court.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Parappanangadi, before whom final report was laid, took cognizance of the offence. On appearance of the accused before court, all formalities were completed. Finding that the case is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to Sessions Court, Manjeri. The said court made over the case to the Fast Track Court No. 1 (Ad Hoc) Manjeri for trial and disposal.
Charge was framed by the said court for the offence punishable u/s 302 and 324 of IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, examined PWs1 to 12 and had Exts.P1 to P15 marked. MO1 was identified and marked. After close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Finding that the accused could not be acquitted u/s 232 Cr.P.C, he was asked to enter on his defence. Ext.D1 statement was marked from his side. On an evaluation of the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offences and the conviction and sentence as already mentioned followed.
The prosecution case is that on the date of incident, the accused who was not in the habit of going for any job, wanted to go out of the house. His deceased father did not like that and so, locked him up in a room. PW2, the mother of the accused was watching the reaction of the accused from another room. He was shouting and knocking at the door, for opening the door. After a while, PW2 saw her husband removing the bolt and opening the door. PW2 remained in the adjacent room. Since for a few seconds, she did not hear any voice, out of curiosity, when she rushed to the verandah, she saw her husband lying on the floor, bleeding from his nose and her son standing near him with the broken walking stick in both his hands. On seeing PW2, the accused turned his wrath against her and beat her with the walking stick on her head and the back of her chest and hands. Hearing her cries, their neighbours including PW3 reached the place and took them to hospital. PW4 examined them and her husband was declared dead. PW2, who was found to have suffered severe injuries, was referred to the Medical College Hospital.
The prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of PW2 and PW3 to prove the incident. There is no dispute regarding the cause of death of Kumaran as could be seen from Ext.P4, which shows that the injuries were inflicted on his head. There cannot also be any dispute regarding the fact that the death is a homicide, i.e., the death is as a result of the injuries inflicted on the deceased.
The principal witness of the prosecution is PW2, who is none other than the mother of the accused and the wife of the deceased. Her evidence shows that on the date of incident, her son who was not in the habit of going for any job, wanted to go out which was not liked by the deceased father. PW2 saw the accused being locked up in a room by the deceased. She also heard the accused knocking from inside the room. After some time, when she came out, she saw her husband lying on the floor, bleeding from the nose and the accused standing nearby, with broken stick in both hands. When she approached him, she too was beaten by the accused. She would say that hearing her cries, the neighbours reached the place and removed them to the hospital. Her version gets corroboration from the evidence of PW3 regarding the latter part.
PW3 would say that on hearing the cries of PW2, when he reached their house, he saw both the deceased and PW2 lying on the floor and the accused standing near them with sticks in both his hands. He, along with PW1 took them to the hospital.
The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 are clinching enough to show that injuries were inflicted by the accused himself. The suggestion to PW4 doctor that the injuries could have been sustained by the deceased in a fall, was ruled out by him. The doctor was certain that the injuries were the result of an infliction by force.
From the evidence, it would appear that the accused was setting up his defence u/s 84 of IPC. PW5 doctor does say that the accused had shown symptoms of mental aberration for which he had been treated. But, there is nothing to indicate that he had any disease of such a nature that he was not capable of knowing the nature of the act committed or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to law.
As regards the incident, the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of PW2, who is none other than the mother of the accused. She would, normally, be extremely reluctant to falsely implicate her son. Her evidence stand scrutiny and was rightly accepted by the court below. Her testimony shows the indifference of her son and annoyance he caused to his parents which, often, irritated the deceased. No falsehood could be pointed out in the evidence of PW2, except for some minor inconsistencies with regard to the statement given to the police. Her evidence is trustworthy and true and it was rightly accepted by the court below.
Faced with the above situation, unable to assail the finding of fact regarding infliction of injuries, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there was only a single blow inflicted on the head of the deceased and that was in the heat of passion and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the offence could fall u/s 302 IPC. At best, it could fall only u/s 304 IPC.
The postmortem report namely Ext.P4 shows that there were actually, six injuries found on the body of the deceased and the cause of death is injury Nos.2 and 3 which were corresponding to internal injury No. 1. There is nothing in the evidence to show that all the injuries are inflicted in a single blow. Moreover, injury No. 1 is on a vital part of the body which shows that there is fracture on the skull. The claim that there was only one injury and therefore, Section 302 is not attracted, does not stand scrutiny as it is clearly discernible from the nature of injury which is described in the postmortem certificate and spoken to by PW5, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. It is also significant to notice that the blow which was inflicted on the deceased was of such an impact that the stick which was used was broken into three pieces. Therefore, it is clear that the blow was inflicted on a vital part of the body with tremendous force.
As regards the defence based on Section 84 IPC, as already stated, there is absolutely no evidence at all. There was no attempt from the defence side to establish his exception u/s 84 IPC. True, there was a suggestion to PW2 about his illness. PW2 stated that in the distant past, he had some problems but, he had been cured of the ailment. If, as a matter of fact, the accused was suffering from any mental illness, there would have been some evidence to establish the said fact. In the absence of any convincing material, the plea has to fail. The court below was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the offences under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC are made out. No grounds are made out to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the court below. However, we make it clear that the accused will be entitled to set off if the appropriate Government seeks to exercise their power u/s 432 or 433 of IPC.