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, 307 and 309 of the IPC. He was found guilty on all counts. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under S.302 and in default, to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, for the offence punishable under S.307, in default of which he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable u/s 309 IPC. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. The prosecution case is that on 4.12.2006 at about 8 am, when PW1, who is the younger brother of the accused was returning home from the church, he came to know that Alphonsa, the wife of the accused and his son Vineeth are no more and that PW2, who is the daughter of the accused has been injured and they have been taken to the hospital. He claims to have gone to the house of the accused. He says that a lot of people had gathered at the place. He did not enter the house. He straight away went and laid Ext.P1 F.I. Statement before the Erattupetta Police Station. Ext.P1 F.I.statement was recorded by PW11 who, as per Ext.P1(a) F.I.R., registered a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of IPC. PW12 Sub Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the body of Vineeth and seized MOs 1 to 4. Ext.P3 is the said inquest report. PW13 conducted inquest over the body of Alphonsa and seized MOs 5 to 18. Ext.P2 is the said inquest report. The bodies were thereafter sent for autopsy. PW8 conducted autopsy on the body of Vineeth and he furnished Ext.P4 postmortem report. The postmortem certificate in respect of Alphonsa is Ext.P5. PW2 was attended to by PW9, who prepared Ext.P6 wound certificate. PW13, who was in charge of the station, completed the investigation and laid charges before court.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta, before whom the final report was laid, took cognizance of the offence. On appearance of the accused, all formalities were completed. On finding that the case is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions under S.209 of Cr.P.C. The Court of Sessions made over the case to the Additional Sessions Court, (Adhoc)-I, Kottayam for trial and disposal.
To the charges framed under Sections 302, 307 and 309, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The Prosecution, therefore, examined PWs 1 to 14 and had Exts.P1 to P9 marked. MOs 1 to 18 were identified and marked.
After close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. Finding that the accused could not be acquitted u/s 232 of Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. He chose to adduce no evidence except to produce Exts.D1 to D2(a).
The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence in the case, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the acts attributed to the accused and found him guilty as already mentioned. The said conviction and sentences are assailed in this appeal.
The appeal has been preferred from the jail and Smt.Rashmi.K.V. was appointed as the State Brief to appear on behalf of the appellant. The learned counsel, in her well prepared presentation, pointed out that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish any motive for the incident and in a case of the present nature, motive assumes considerable importance. The learned counsel also pointed out that there was no convincing evidence to show that it was the accused who had inflicted injuries on the deceased and the minor daughter namely PW2. In the absence of any definite evidence regarding those aspects, the accused could not have been found guilty.
The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, pointed out that the court below has analysed the evidence in considerable detail and has come to the conclusion that the injuries which resulted in the death of Alphonsa and Vineeth could have been inflicted only by the accused and that PW2 must have suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. It is further pointed out that the evidence of PW14 would clearly show that the injuries found on the body of the accused could have been self inflicted injuries. The learned Public Prosecutor drew attention of this court to the fact that the accused, PW2 and the two deceased were alone in the house and since the accused had no case that anybody else had come to the place, it was for him to explain as to how the deceased and PW2 had suffered injuries. Attention was also drawn to the evidence of the witnesses and it was pointed out that there was no challenge to the evidence given by the witnesses that the injuries suffered by the deceased and PW2 were at the hands of the accused. It was also pointed out that the accused had not offered any explanation when questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, the finding of the court below is only to be confirmed.
Ext.P4 is the postmortem certificate relating to the deceased Vineeth. PW8 had conducted autopsy on his body, which shows as many as 17 ante mortem injuries. According to the postmortem certificate, the cause of death was due to the injures sustained to the neck and head
Ext.P5 is the postmortem certificate relating to Alphonsa, who is none other than the wife of the accused. It shows as many as 9 injuries on her body and the cause of death is due to the injuries sustained to her neck and head. The evidence of PW8 clearly shows that the injuries found on the body of Vineeth and Alphonsa were inflicted wounds and that their death was due to the injuries suffered by these victims. This witness has also spoken to the fact that those injuries could well be caused by the use of weapons like MO14. Therefore, it is clear that the death of Alphonsa and Vineeth was homicide and that was the result of inflicted injuries. The finding of the court below in this regard, therefore, calls for no interference at the hands of this court.
The next question that arises for consideration is whether there is any evidence to show that it was the accused who had inflicted injuries on the deceased as well as on PW2. One cannot omit to note the fact that at the relevant time, the inmates of the house were only the deceased, the accused and PW2, who is the minor daughter of the accused.
The evidence of PW3 is to the effect that hearing the cries of PW2, the minor daughter, she reached the house of the accused and found Vineeth and Alphonsa lying bleeding and PW2 standing there crying, with injuries on her face. She would say that she asked the child as to who had inflicted injuries on her and she says that the child replied that the accused had inflicted the injuries. She also deposed that when she went to the house, she happened to see the accused also, lying in the kitchen.
PW4 is the person, who had taken the injured to the hospital. He is none other than a cousin of the accused. He would say that when he reached the house, hearing about the incident, he happened to see the accused lying on the floor in the kitchen and so was Alphonsa. He also found Vineeth lying injured. He found that PW2 was standing in the kitchen with injuries on her ears and chin.
PW2 is none other than the minor daughter of the accused. She was shy and reluctant to disclose the cause of death of her mother and brother and to disclose as to who had inflicted injuries on them. However, she would say that the injuries suffered by her were inflicted by the accused.
14 The version given by these witnesses regarding the incident and regarding the commission of acts by the accused are not under challenge. In fact, it would appear that there is no specific denial of the acts said to have been committed by the accused.
The fact that PW2 had suffered injuries, could be discernible from the evidence of PW9 and Ext.P6, which is the wound certificate relating to the minor child. Even though Ext.P6 shows the cause of injury as only assault, when read along with the evidence of PW2, it is evident that the injuries suffered by her were inflicted by the accused.
Considering the fact that at the relevant time, there were only the two deceased persons, the accused and PW2 the minor daughter in the house and since there is no suggestion to any of the witnesses or any other evidence to show that anybody else had come to the house, the accused owed an explanation as to how the incident had occurred. It is more so, in view of the fact that PW14, the doctor who examined the accused has issued Ext.P9. The injuries found on the body of the accused could have been self inflicted injuries. When questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused came forward with no explanation either for the injuries suffered by the deceased or the injuries suffered by himself. He was satisfied by denying all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him, while questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C.
True, the prosecution has not been able to prove the motive for the acts committed by the accused. But the evidence shows that Alphonsa, the wife of the accused was suffering from cancer and that had a telling effect on the accused and he was depressed and was always in a passive mood. However, in the light of the telling circumstances disclosed by evidence pointing out only at the accused, one need not labour much on the motive. In the light of the convincing and cogent evidence regarding the acts committed by the accused, the inability of the prosecution to prove any motive, is of little significance or consequence.
Under the above circumstances, we have no hesitation to uphold the finding of the court below that the injuries which resulted in the death of Vineeth and Alphonsa was inflicted by the accused and so also the injury found on the body of PW2.
The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the weapons of offences seized from the place were not shown to the accused and they were sent for chemical examination, only after eight months. The contention based on the weapons of offence, has no merits. The doctor, who has conducted postmortem has clearly spoken to that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could be inflicted by the use of weapons like MO14. Even assuming that the weapons of offence as such are not recovered, that is not a ground to find in favour of the accused. Since the finding in the postmortem certificate and the evidence of the doctor are to the effect that the injuries which resulted in the death of the deceased are inflicted injuries, the above contention has no merits.
The next question that arises for consideration is as to what are the offences committed by the accused. As already noticed, as many as 17 injuries were found on the body of Vineeth and 9 injuries on the body of Alphonsa. All the injuries are seen inflicted above the neck. The doctor who conducted postmortem has stated that those injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course, to cause death of the person concerned. A reading of the postmortem report clearly shows that the injuries were inflicted on the vital parts of the body. There can be no doubt that they were intentionally inflicted. On going through the evidence, we were unable to find any exception which would take the accused away from the ambit of Section 300 IPC.
As far as the injuries inflicted on PW2 are concerned, from the nature of the acts committed by the accused, it is evident that those injuries were inflicted with the intention of causing death of the child and that the child was lucky enough to escape. The court below was therefore, perfectly justified in finding that the offence u/s 307 is also made out.
Finally, the question arises as to whether Section 309 is attracted or not. The evidence of PW14 doctor and the injuries suffered by the accused, going by Ext.P9 wound certificate could be self inflicted injuries. It is more so, when no explanation whatsoever is offered by him regarding the injuries. Therefore, it is evident that he tried to commit suicide. So the court below was also justified in invoking Section 309 of IPC against the accused. Since the sentences are proportionate to the offences, we find no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentences passed by the court below.
The result is that this appeal is devoid of any merits and it is accordingly dismissed.