Kerala High Court
A.P.Muhammed vs State Of Kerala on 2 January, 2013
Bench: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, C.T.Ravikumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013/12TH POUSHA 1934
CRL.A.No. 39 of 2008 ( )
------------------------
SC.637/2005 of ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, KOZHIKODE
APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED::
---------------------
A.P.MUHAMMED
S/O.HASSAN, AGED 50 YEARS
AYENCHETTIPOYIL HOUSE, NEELWASWRAM AMSOM
VENNEKODE DESOM.
BY AVS.SRI.KKM.SHERIFF
SRI.P.M.KUNJUMOIDEENKUTTY
SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN
SMT.SHEENA SAMUEL
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT::
---------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM.
2. C.I.OF POLICE,
MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION.
BY SRI.TOM JOSE PADINJAREKKARA, ADGP.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-01-2013, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
==========================
CRL.APPEAL. No.39 OF 2008
==========================
Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2013
JUDGMENT
Ravikumar, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.8.2007 of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kozhikode in S.C.No.637 of 2005 whereby and whereof the appellant was convicted under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the conviction under section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence under section 307 IPC. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to be run concurrently.
Crl.A.39/08 2
2. The prosecution case, in succinct, is as follows: PW1 Hussain, the injured, his wife Amina, the deceased and their children were residing in a house nearby the house of PW7 Aboobacker Musaliyar, the brother of PW1. The appellant is their neighbour. There was a dispute regarding user of a pathway between them. The appellant, on account of his enmity arising therefrom, stabbed PW1 and Amina, his wife with MO1 knife while they were awaiting their turn for examination in the casuality at Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode for treatment on 15.8.2003 at about 4.15 p.m. Amina died almost instantaneously and PW1 sustained serious bodily injuries likely to cause his death. After inflicting such bodily injuries on PW1 and his wife Amina, the appellant attempted to flee from there. But he was restrained in the X-ray room of the hospital by the security staff. On being informed about the incident, PW22 the Sub Inspector attached to Medical College Police Station, Kozhikode came to Medical College Hospital and found Amina, who succumbed to the injuries and PW1 who was undergoing treatment for the injuries sustained in the attack. He seized MO1 knife in the presence of PW4 Crl.A.39/08 3 and MO8 knife cover under Ext.P5 mahazar from the appellant in the presence of PW10 and thereupon, he along with the appellant and K.M.Aboobacker, the son of the brother of PW1, reached the police station and recorded Ext.P11 First Information Statement from Aboobacker and registered Ext.P11(a) First Information Report on its basis. PW25 who took over the investigation on 15.8.2003 arrested the appellant on that day itself and seized MO2 Dhothi, MO3 shirt and MO9 belt from the appellant under Ext.P6 seizure mahazar. On 16.8.2003, PW25 went to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and conducted inquest on the body of Amina and prepared Ext.P7 inquest report. MO4 maftha, MO5 parda and MO6 maxi worn by deceased Amina at the time of occurrence were also seized. Thereafter, he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar. He seized Ext.P31 in-patient register under Ext.P28 seizure mahazar and the register of the casuality under Ext.P33 mahazar. He made the requisition for conducting postmortem on the body of Amina and PW24 Dr.N.Rajaram conducted autopsy on the body of Amina and issued Ext.P39 postmortem certificate opining that she died due to the combined effect of injuries sustained (injury Nos. 1, 2 and 4). Ext.P8 Crl.A.39/08 4 wound certificate of the deceased Amina and Ext.P9 wound certificate of PW1 were seized by PW25. He caused the preparation of Ext.P35 site plan by PW21, the village officer. After obtaining Ext.P41 report from the chemical examiner, PW25 laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kunnamangalam. The learned Magistrate committed the case as per committal proceedings in C.P.49 of 2004 to the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The same was then made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kozhikode. After preliminary hearing, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the appellant under sections 302 and 307 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the appellant in Malayalam and he pleaded not guilty.
3. In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined twenty six witnesses, exhibited documents as Exts.P1 to P44 and identified twelve material objects. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating circumstances which were put to him were denied by the appellant. Crl.A.39/08 5 Additionally, the appellant filed a statement under section 313 Cr.P.C to the effect that on 15.8.2003, PW1, his brother Moideen's son, Mohammed Basheer and his brother PW7 attacked and inflicted injuries on him. Further it is stated therein as hereunder:-
The appellant went to the Medical College Hospital at about
4.15 p.m along with his wife and the doctor who examined him asked him to wait there for some time. He was then sitting in the casuality room along with his wife and then saw K.M.Aboobacker, PW1, Mohammed Basheer, Abdulla, PW17, Sainudheen and PW10 along with deceased Amina observing him while walking through the passage. K.M.Aboobacker and PW1 along with Amina then came towards him with a knife and attempted to attack him. He caught hold the hand of PW1 and the deceased Amina and K.M.Aboobacker joined PW1. At that time, somebody belonging to the group of PW1 beat him with a stool and he evaded it and then it hit on the head of Amina and thereafter, he somehow caught hold of the knife from the hands of PW1. He wielded the knife to save his life and then, out of fear of further attack, ran to the nearby room and closed it from inside and thereupon somebody locked it from outside. Thereafter, police Crl.A.39/08 6 came and took him to police station.
4. Finding that it is not a fit case for acquittal under section 232 of Cr.P.C, the appellant was asked to enter on his defence. The appellant examined DW1 and DW2 and got marked Exts.D1 to D3 and D5 besides getting a portion of the statement of PW22 made under section 161 Cr.P.C. On the evidence on record, the trial court found the appellant guilty under sections 302 and 307 IPC and convicted him thereunder. Thereupon, he was sentenced as aforesaid. This appeal is directed against the said conviction and sentence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Tom Jose Padinjarekkara, Additional Director General of Prosecution.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the evidence on record were not conclusive enough to arrive at the conclusion of guilt against the appellant either under section 302 IPC or under section 307 IPC. It is argued that the trial court went Crl.A.39/08 7 wrong in relying on the evidence of PW1, PW4, PW6, PW13 and PW18 to find the appellant guilty on account of the discrepancies in their oral testimonies. Time of occurrence spoken of respectively by PW1, PW6, PW13 and PW18 vary at each other and at the same time, no specific time was mentioned by PW4 and therefore, according to the learned counsel, discrepancy in their version in that regard was sufficient to discard their evidence and as such, they are to be discarded, it is contended. The motive for the commission of the crime against PW1 and his wife Amina was not proved by the prosecution and the evidence of PW7 would reveal that the entire cases between Imbichahammed Musliar, brother of the appellant and PW7 who is the brother of PW1 were settled in Lok Adalath and as such his evidence would debunk the alleged motive, it is contended. It is also argued that there is continuity in action as regards the incident occurred in the Medical College Hospital resulting in the death of Amina and sustenance of injuries to PW1 and the earlier incident occurred at 3 p.m near the house of the appellant between himself, his wife on one side and PW1, his wife, PW7 and PW12 on the other side and as such, the incident occurred in the Medical Crl.A.39/08 8 College Hospital ought to have been treated as part of the same incident. At any rate, having registered crime Nos.172 of 2003 and 173 of 2003 of Mukkam Police Station in respect of the incident that occurred between them at 3 p.m, there was no reason for not conducting investigation in those cases especially when the said incident was alleged as the motive for the latter incident, it is further contended. Ext.P32(a) register would reveal the appellant's Out- patient number in Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode as 45447 and Exts.P32(b) to P32(d) would reveal the O.P ticket numbers of PW1, deceased Amina and PW7 respectively as 45461, 45482 and 45449. Based on the same, it is contended that it would go to show that the appellant had reached Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode ahead of PW1, his wife Amina and others. According to the appellant, PW1, his wife Amina, PW7 and others who accompanied them came to the hospital solely with the object of attacking him. It is further argued that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the case of the appellant that even in case of a finding against him in respect of the alleged offences, he is not liable to be convicted as he had exercised only his right of private defence. It is contended that the finding of Crl.A.39/08 9 the trial court that the appellant herein had failed to prove the right of private defence is against the weight of evidence and as such, unsustainable. It is also contended that the nature of the injuries would go to show that they could not be caused by wielding MO1 weapon. Per contra, learned Additional Director General of Prosecution contended that it is a case where direct evidence is available and the ocular evidence conclusively prove that it was the appellant who committed the murder of Amina and inflicted bodily injuries likely to cause his death on PW1 and therefore, motive has lost its significance. The appellant has failed to establish the right of private defence and further it is contended that even if there was defect in the investigation, it cannot by itself, be a ground for acquittal. It is also submitted that neither the conviction nor the sentence imposed by the trial court invites appellate interference.
7. Firstly, we will consider the question whether death of Amina was homicide or not. PW13 the doctor who examined Amina immediately after she sustained the stab injuries, noted the injuries and issued Ext.P8 wound certificate. He advised to admit Amina in Crl.A.39/08 10 the ward. But, before she could be admitted in the ward, she breathed her last. The facts that Amina died due to the injuries sustained by her and that those injuries were sustained while being in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode are not in dispute. PW24 Dr.N.Rajaram conducted the autopsy on the body of Amina and issued Ext.P39 postmortem certificate. In Ext.P39 postmortem certificate, the following antemortem injuries were noted:-
1. Incised penetrating wound 2.80 x 0.5 cm oblique over the left side of outer aspect of lower part of chest and abdomen, its lower end 9.5 cm above the hip bone and its upper end 17.5 cm outer to midline. The upper end of the wound was cleanly cut and its lower end showed splitting of tissues. On dissection the wound had entered the abdominal cavity through the 11th intercoastal space by cutting the intercoastal muscle (2x0.8 cm) and terminated by cutting the stomach at the greater curvature 2.5 x 1cm. The wound was directed transversely to the right for a total minimum depth of 7 cm. The abdominal cavity did not contain any fluid blood or blood clot. On dissection the stomach was half full and contained partly digested rice and other food particle mixed with blood.
2. Incised penetrating wound 2.8x0.5cm oblique over the back of right side of chest: its lower end 7.5 cm outer to midline and its upper end 14 cm below shoulder. The upper end was cleanly cut and its lower end showed splitting of tissues. On dissection the wound had entered the right chest cavity by cutting the 6th intercostal muscle (2.5 x 0.5 cm) perforated the middle lobe of right lung; wound of entry (2x 0.8 cm) wound of Crl.A.39/08 11 exit (2x 0.8 cm) and terminated by cutting the descending part of the aorta (3x 1cm). The wound was directed downwards forwards and to the left for a total minimum depth of 13 cm.
3. Abrasion 0.8x 0.1cm almost horizontal over the right side of upper lip 1cm below the alae of nose.
4. Contusion 8x2.5x0.3cm over the top and back of scalp.
On dissection the occipital and parietal bone of frontal size showed fissured fracture for a length of 20 cm. On dissection the dura matter corresponding to the skull fracture showed a laceration for a length of 8x0.5cm. The left parietal lobe was lacerated over an area 7x2.5x3 cm with subarachnoid haemorrhage around the cerebral laceration and also with multiple intracerebral haeumorrhages in the substances of parietal lobe.
8. PW24 deposed that the cause of death of Amina was the combined effect of injuries 1, 2 and 4 sustained by her. It was deposed that the said injury Nos.1 and 2 could be caused by a weapon like MO1 knife. During the cross-examination, PW24 deposed that injury No.4 itself could cause death and it got no corresponding external injury and that was possible because of thick hair. PW24 had also deposed that injury No.4 was possible with a blunt weapon. Based on such answers during his cross-examination, it was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the injuries do not Crl.A.39/08 12 tally with the weapon. We are not impressed with the said contention. The nature of the injuries, the fact that they were inflicted on the vital parts of the body and the evidence of PW24 with Ext.P39 postmortem certificate would reveal that Amina died due to injuries 1, 2 and 4 noted as such in Ext.P39 postmortem certificate and that those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In such circumstances, we find no reason to disagree with the opinion of PW24 corroborated with Ext.P39 that the death of Amina was due to the combined effect of injuries 1, 2 and 4 noted as such in Ext.P39 postmortem certificate. Therefore, the death of Amina was a clear case of homicide.
9. Ext.P9 is the wound certificate of PW1 issued by PW13, Dr.A.T.Rajeevan. In Ext.P9, the following injuries are noted:
1. Two incised wounds over back of neck-3cm sized-deep wound.
2. 3cm sized deep incised wound-3 in number over the scapular area left side-penetrating to the thoraxie cavity.
Haemo thorax left. Haematoma left supra clavicle.
10. PW13 opined that those bodily injuries inflicted on the Crl.A.39/08 13 body of PW1 are serious injuries and therefore, likely to cause his death and that it can be caused by a weapon like MO1 knife. PW13 would depose that PW1 was profusely bleeding and if no proper medical attention was given within 10 to 15 minutes, he would have died of those stab injuries sustained by him.
11. In order to constitute an offence under section 307 IPC, there must be an act done under such circumstances that death might be caused if the act took its effect and that the act complained of must be capable of causing death in the natural and ordinary course of events. In this context, it is apposite to refer to explanation 2 to section 299 IPC. Going by the said explanation, where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. Therefore, the mere fact that proper remedies and skilful treatment resorted to avert the death of a person who sustained such injuries capable of causing death in the natural and ordinary course of events cannot lessen the seriousness of the injuries or the gravity of Crl.A.39/08 14 the offence. The evidence of PW13 with Ext.P9 wound certificate and also nature of the injuries sustained by PW1 would establish that the act was one which satisfies the said circumstances and that the commission of the said act that resulted in the injuries noted in Ext.P9 would attract the offence under section 307 IPC.
12. The question is whether the appellant was responsible for the homicidal death of Amina and for the bodily injuries found on the body of PW1 likely to cause his death. PW1 is the husband of the deceased Amina and as found earlier in the same transaction, there was an attempt to commit his murder. He would depose that he is a meat seller and that he and his family resided in the house at Anjettipoyyil and his brother Aboobacker Musaliyar was residing near his residence with family. He would also depose that a dispute with respect to the user of a path way was going on between himself and his brother on one side and the appellant and his brother on the other side. He would further depose that the matter was settled in the adalath and a favourable order to provide a pathway having width of 10 feet for the use of all was violated by the appellant and his brother Crl.A.39/08 15 and then, he was constrained to file a complaint against the appellant. PW1 also deposed that on 15.8.2003, at about 3 'o' clock, he heard a sound from the residence of his brother Aboobacker (PW7) and soon he rushed to the brother's residence and found the accused, his wife and daughter pelting stones at PW7, his wife and children besides abusing them with vulgar words. On pelting stones, his brother sustained injuiry on his head and the appellant and his wife caught hold of him and brought him down. He further deposed that the appellant then mounted on him and pulled his hand backwards and twisted it besides beating him. After the appellant and his family left the place, he along with his wife Amina, PW4 and Abdulla went to Medical College Hospital for treatment in an autorickshaw and his brother's son Aboobacker and Mohammed Basheer accompanied them in a bike. As the autorickshaw was not having enough speed, they got into a jeep on reaching Kattangal and proceeded to the hospital. But, when the jeep reached Kunnamangalam, its diesel got exhausted and its driver brought another jeep and they reached the hospital at 4.15 p.m in that jeep. They were waiting their turn for examination in the casuality and since PW7 was bleeding he was examined by the doctor Crl.A.39/08 16 and he was directed to go to the dressing room to dress his wounds. Aboobacker and Abdulla who are sons of his brothers accompanied PW7. He deposed that it was while waiting near the casuality room along with his wife that somebody stabbed on his back from behind and when he looked back, he found the accused with MO1 knife in his hand. PW1 also deposed that the appellant stabbed him again and then stabbed his wife who intervened on seeing the attack on him. He would depose that he had clearly seen the appellant inflicting two stab injuries on Amina and upon seeing this, he fell unconscious. He deposed that he learnt about the death of Amina due to stab injuries on regaining his consciousness. PW1 identified MO1 knife as the knife used by the appellant to inflict stab injuries on him and also on his wife Amina. PW3 Bhaskaran was the head nurse on duty and he turned hostile to the prosecution. At the same time, he would depose that he was in the Head Nurse's room and on hearing the hue and cry from the casuality, he rushed to the casuality room and found one person who was shirtless moving in an abnormal manner with profuse bleeding from his back. Since none was attending him, he held him and by that time, the person became unconscious. He would further Crl.A.39/08 17 depose that he gave instructions to his assistants to attend that person and after sometime, when he returned there, he found the dead body of a lady lying on the table. He would further depose that he learnt that the person who inflicted the injuries was detained by the security staff in the X-ray room. However, he deposed that he had not witnessed the incident. PW4 Ajayan, who was a coolie worker deposed that he came there as a byestander to one Kunhiraman who was admitted in the intensive care unit. He would also depose that as Kunhiraman was in the ICU on getting bored while standing before the ICU, he used to go to causality department as well to spend his time and on the date of occurrence, while he was standing in the casuality ward, he had seen a man and woman and standing there and one person who was also standing there, gone towards them and inflicted stab injuries on the backside of the said man and also inflicted injuries on that lady. According to PW4, that lady fell down in the passage leading to the casuality and that he had seen the stabber who said that he would not do anything and would surrender in case of arrival of the police and then went to the X-ray room where he was detained by the security men. He deposed that police then came to the Crl.A.39/08 18 spot and seized the knife from the said person and also took him away. He has also deposed that he attested Ext.P3 scene mahazar and also seizure mahazar of MO7 chappals, MO4 Mafta, MO3 shirt and MO1 knife. He identified the accused as the person who inflicted injuries on PW1 and the deceased. Though PW4 deposed that the appellant went to the X-ray room saying that he would not do anything and would surrender before police in case they arrive no cross-examination was made on that point. So also there was no challenge against the evidence tendered by PW1 during his chief examination that the security personnel locked the appellant in the X- ray room and that the appellant was then taken by police from there and also seized the knife from the appellant. PW6 Dr.Biju K. deposed that he was working in the department of Orthopaedic in Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and on that day, he was on duty in the casuality. He would depose that while examining the patients, he heard a hue and cry and went to see what was going on and then he found two men engaged in a melee and abusing each other. He would further depose that it was the appellant who stabbed the other person and also the lady who intervened in the melee. According to PW6, the Crl.A.39/08 19 appellant also inflicted two or three stab injuries on that lady. Though PW6 was vehemently cross-examined the fact that he had seen the incident was not seriously disputed. In fact, the suggestion made to PW6 was that the knife reached the appellant from the hands of PW1 during the melee and that the appellant had only wielded the knife in self defence but, PW6 denied the said suggestions. He would depose that he along with Dr.Rajeev then examined that lady who sustained injuries in the said attack and found her dead. He would also depose that the man who sustained injuries in the said attack was then removed for surgery. PW13 Dr.Rajeev turned hostile to the prosecution. However, it is clear from his evidence that on 15.8.2003, he was on duty in the casuality department. According to him, at the time of occurrence, he was in the observation room near the casuality and at about 4.15 p.m. he heard a hue and cry from the casuality and found people running hither and thither and when he came to the casuality room, he found two patients being brought to the casuality room and laid on the examination table. He would admit that he along with other doctors examined them and issued Exts.P8 and P9 wound certificates. He would further depose that on that day, he examined the Crl.A.39/08 20 the injured man and found him profusely bleeding from his wounds. He would further depose that if proper medical attention was not given within 10 to 15 minutes he would have died of the stab injuries sustained by him. He deposed that he had not witnessed the actual incident of infliction of injuries either on PW1 or on his wife Amina. At the same time, he deposed during the cross-examination by the defence that it would be incorrect to say that he had examined the appellant on that day before the incident. PW18 Dr.Shajeem was the duty Medical Officer in the casuality department. According to him, at about 4 p.m, while he was examining patients, he heard a noise. He found a person stabbing on a lady and another man with profuse bleeding from his upper back near the neck. According to him, the injured man fell down in the consultation room and the lady fell down in the passage on the side of the casuality room. He also deposed that the person who had inflicted injuries ran towards the X-ray room. He would depose that the injured man and lady were brought to the examination table and the lady was examined by the doctors but within a short time, she died of the injuries sustained by her. The man who sustained injuries in the attack was taken to the operation theatre. Crl.A.39/08 21 He deposed that sometime later, police came there and took the person who inflicted the injuries on that lady and the man and that he was not sure whether it was the appellant who was caught for the commission of the crime, from there. The tenor of the cross-examination was to establish that it was impossible for him, from where he was then at the time of occurrence, to see the incident. PW18 maintained the stand that the incident took place inside the casuality hall. PW9 Unni Nair, a retiree from Military Service, was working as a security in the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. He deposed that on 15.8.2003, he was doing duties in the corridor of the causality room at about 4- 4.15 p.m. He heard the scream of a lady from the examination room and he went there and found a man and a lady on the floor and another man was seen besides them holding a knife. He identified that person as the appellant. He further deposed that when he along with one Rameshan went towards the appellant he told them "I will not hurt you people. I have settled the score which I had to settle personally". He would further depose that the appellant was locked inside the X- ray room and information was then passed to the police and then police came and seized the knife from the appellant and took him to Crl.A.39/08 22 police station. According to him, by the time police reached, one of the injured was dead. During the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that the appellant himself got inside the X-ray room and locked from inside and deposed that in fact, the appellant was put inside the X-ray room and its door was closed. PW19 Vinod was working as the record Librarian in the Medical College Hospital at the relevant point of time. He has produced the I.P. Register (book No.99) and casuality register (book No.9) and they were got marked respectively as Exts.P32 and 32(a). Ext.P32 would reveal that the deceased Amina was admitted as an inpatient No.45738 and PW7 Aboobacker Musliar was admitted there with IP No.45278. Ext.P32
(a) would reveal that the accused was examined as an out patient with O.P.No.45447 and PW1 Hussain was examined with O.P.No.45461. The respective OP ticket numbers of the deceased Amina and PW7 Aboobacker were 45482 and 45449 and those OP numbers were marked respectively as Ext.P32(a) to P32(d). PW22 Sureshan who was then working as Sub Inspector of Police, Mukkom on coming to know about the fact that a scuffle had taken place in Ayancheripoil and the injured were taken to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, Crl.A.39/08 23 he reached there and thereafter recorded the statement of Abdulla who was the son of the brother of PW1 from Medical College Police Station and based on his statement, crime No.172 of 2003 was registered by him under section 447, 323, 324 read with 34 IPC. Ext.P36 is the First Information Statement lodged by Abdulla in the crime and Ext.P36(a) was the FIR registered on its basis. Another crime was registered by him as crime No.173 of 2003 based on the FI statement lodged by one Ummacha (Ext.P37) and on its basis Ext.P37
(a) FIR was registered by him. On the side of the appellant, DW1 and DW2 were examined. DW1 Anjettil Moosa Haji is an agriculturist. He was examined to prove that the appellant had reached the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode ahead of PW1, Amina and their relatives. No relevance need be attached to the said evidence as PW1 himself admitted during his cross-examination that when he along with the others reached Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, the appellant and his wife were there in the hospital. Dr.Ahamed Miswar was examined as DW2. He was then working as Lecturer in the Department of Surgery in Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. He would depose that he had examined the appellant on 16.8.2003 and Crl.A.39/08 24 issued Ext.D5 wound certificate noting the multiple abrasions on his body. The alleged cause of the said abrasions is admittedly, not noted in Ext.D5.
13. Now, the first question is whether the evidence of PW1 is credible and reliable. We have already adverted to the evidence of PW1 who is the husband of the deceased Amina and got injured in the same transaction. He had deposed that the injuries that led to the death of his wife Amina were inflicted by the appellant besides inflicting serious stab injuries likely to cause death, on him. There is no serious challenge against the said piece of evidence of PW1. PW1 identified MO1 knife used by the appellant to inflict those injuries on Amina and also on him. During examination under section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant himself admitted that police came to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and took him from the X-ray room and MO1 knife was seized from him. The defence set forth by the appellant and the tenor of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses reveal that virtually he admitted the fact that the injuries that caused the death of Amina and those injuries found on the body of PW1 were Crl.A.39/08 25 inflicted by him. It is to be noted that the contention now, raised by the appellant is that he had no intention to murder Amina and that he inflicted injuries on PW1 in exercise of private defence. They would also reveal that the appellant had abandoned the attempt to make out a case that injury on Amina was caused in the scuffle at the hands of someone belonging to the group of PW1. In that context, it is to be noted that with respect to the injuries on Amina, the appellant's case was that someone belonging to the group of PW1 beat him with a stool and when he evaded it, that hit on the head of Amina. But, Ext.P39 reveals stab injuries on Amina and in fact, injuries 1, 2 that could be caused with a weapon like MO1 along with injury No.4 caused her death. Evidently, he would admit the fact that he wielded MO1 knife and according to him, he had done so in exercise of private defence. The appellant had also admitted the fact that immediately after the incident, he got inside the X-ray room. Whether he himself got inside the X-ray room or he was locked inside it there is no dispute to the fact that when the police came to Medical College Hospital, on being informed of the incident, the appellant was inside the X-ray room and he was taken to the police station from inside the Crl.A.39/08 26 X-ray room. The appellant further admitted the fact that MO1 knife was seized from him while he was in the X-ray room. Ext.P41 chemical analysis report would reveal that MO1 knife was stained with human blood. In the circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 that it was the appellant who inflicted the injuries on him as also on his wife. In the decision in Karthik alias Karthic v. State (2010 KHC 7356), this Court held that the evidence of an injured witness could not be discarded unless and until strong circumstance is noted or reason is brought out. There can be no doubt that unless and until strong improbabilities or material discrepancies which would render the evidence of PW1 untrustworthy and unreliable are brought out, there is no reason for discarding his evidence in the light of the decision in Karthik's case (supra). A scanning of the cross-examination of PW1 would reveal that no material contradictions or circumstances were brought out to make his oral testimony untrustworthy and unreliable. When PW1 in unambiguous terms deposed that it was the appellant who inflicted stab injuries on him as also on his wife Amina and his evidence to that effect was not shaken by the lengthy cross-examination it can only be Crl.A.39/08 27 taken that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the fact that it was the appellant who inflicted stab injuries on Amina which resulted her death and also stab injuries capable of causing his death in the natural and ordinary course of events. His evidence gained support from the oral testimonies of PW4 and PW6 as also the medical evidence. The evidence of PW13, though turned hostile and PW18 also would go to show that at the relevant point of time a man and a lady had sustained stab injuries and that the lady, later, succumbed to the injuries and the man, was saved due to timely medical assistance. If it was not the appellant who inflicted those injuries he need not have taken up the plea of private defence. The ocular evidence of PW1 supported by the evidence of PW4 and PW6 and also the facts that the appellant was taken by the police from the X-ray room and MO1 knife was then seized from him would be sufficient to saddle the appellant with the culpability for the aforesaid offences. The contention of the appellant that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive on his part to commit the offence is fatal to the prosecution case also cannot be accepted. In Yunis alias Kariya v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2003 SC 539), the Hon'ble Supreme court Crl.A.39/08 28 held that where the occular evidence is very clear and convincing and evidence and role of the accused person in the crime stands clearly established, establishment of motive is not a sine qua non for proving the prosecution case. In Barikanoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1997 (1) Crimes 500) it was held that where there is an eye witness regarding the incident the motive losses all its consequence. In Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal (AIR 2010 SC 3638), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused himself and it cannot be possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or caused him to commit a particular offence. Though the defence could bring out certain contradictions in his evidence, those discrepancies were not material so as to discard his evidence in total. A careful scanning of the evidence of PW1 would reveal that despite the lengthy cross examination, defence could not shake the trustworthiness of PW1 and his evidence would clearly establish the role of the appellant in the commission of the crime. As already noticed, the appellant himself took up the private defence. The sustainability of that contention will be looked into later. The appellant attributes deficiency in Crl.A.39/08 29 investigation. According to him, the incident that led to the homicidal death of Amina and sustenance of grievous injuries on PW1 ought to have been treated as continuation of the incident that led to the registration of Crime Nos.172 of 2003 and 173 of 2003 of Mukkom Police Station and the failure to continue and complete the investigation in those crimes and get them prosecuted along with SC.No.637 of 2005 is a defect in the investigation. True that in those crime cases the appellant and PW1 and his wife were also involved and that incident occurred at 3 p.m. on 15.8.2003 at Anjettipoil. The incident that led to the case on hand occurred at 4.15 p.m. inside the Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode when PW1 and his wife were awaiting their turn for examination in its casuality room. Merely because the appellant was involved in the said incident and PW1 and his wife were the victims it cannot be considered as a transaction in continuity with the earlier incident. We find no force in the contentions raised by the appellant and at any rate, the appellant cannot be said to be prejudiced by the defect in investigation, if any, in that regard. The contention based on the little discrepancies in the versions of PW1, PW6, PW13 and PW18 with respect to the time of Crl.A.39/08 30 occurrence and the non-mentioning of specific time by PW4 it can only be held that they are immaterial and are of no consequence as the appellant himself had not seriously disputed the facts that after 4 p.m. on 15.8.2003 Amina, the wife of PW1 and PW1 sustained stab injuries from Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and Amina succumbed to the injuries so sustained. So also no evidence was brought in to discredit the version of PW6, PW13 and PW18 that they were on duty in the casuality of Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode on the date of occurrence and at the relevant point of time. So also nothing to doubt the presence of PW4 in the hospital was also made out despite lengthy cross-examination. At any rate, the little difference in regard to the time of occurrence in their versions, by itself cannot be material in view of the established and admitted facts that PW1 and his wife Amina had sustained injuries while they were in the casuality of Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and the appellant was taken by the police from inside its X-ray room and MO1 knife was seized from him at that time. When the evidence of PW1 is found as trustworthy and reliable and when the indisputable position is that the appellant was taken from the X-ray room of Crl.A.39/08 31 Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode and MO1 knife was seized from him at that time and MO1 knife was found stained with human blood, meticulous examination of the oral testimonies of PW4, PW6, PW13 and PW18 is virtually uncalled for. We have already adverted to their evidence. The question is whether anything to shatter the substratum of the prosecution case was brought out from them. A careful scanning of the evidence of the said witnesses would reveal that the defence had failed to elicit anything to shake the substratum of the prosecution case. In such circumstances, appreciation of the evidence, on the whole, would take us to hold that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing that it was the appellant who inflicted the injuries that caused the homicidal death of Amina besides grievous injuries on PW1.
14. Now, the question to be decided is what are the offences committed by the appellant? We have already found from the evidence of PW24 with Ext.P39 postmortem certificate and in the light of the oral testimonies of PW1, PW4 and PW6 that the injury Nos.1, 2 and 4 noted as such in Ext.P39 postmortem certificate caused Crl.A.39/08 32 the death of Amina and they were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death and also that those injuries were inflicted by the appellant. The contention of the appellant that he had no intention to commit the murder of Amina, the wife of PW1, got no relevancy or importance when once it is found that those injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. The nature of the injuries and the vital parts on which the fatal injuries were inflicted on Amina would leave no doubt that those particular injuries were not accidentally inflicted. In such circumstances, the commission of the said crime would constitute an offence under Section 300 IPC in case none of the exceptions under Section 300 IPC is attracted. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Periasami and another v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997 SCC (Cri) 124) to contend that the absence of specific plea of self-defence when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not enough to denude the accused of the right if the same can be made out otherwise. It is to be noted in this context that the trial court has, in fact, considered the question whether the appellant had established the right of private defence. At any rate, it cannot be accepted that the Crl.A.39/08 33 appellant had inflicted the injuries noted in Ext.P39 on Amina, the wife of PW1, in exercise of his private defence and therefore, exception thirdly of Section 300 will apply in the case on hand. There can be no doubt that this exception would apply only if the accused concerned caused the death of the concerned person without pre- meditation and that when the accused caused the death of the deceased he had no intention of causing more harm than what was necessary for the purpose of defence and that the act was done in good faith. In other words, there must present an impending peril to one's life or great bodily harm, either real or apparent, such as to create an honest belief of an existing necessity and there must also be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat. In this case, the appellant attacked PW1 from behind with MO1 knife and inflicted the injuries noted in Ext.P9 and while his wife Amina intervened, on seeing the attack on her husband, he inflicted the stab injuries noted in Ext.P39 postmortem certificate on Amina. It is also in evidence that MO1 knife was seized from the appellant while taking him from the X-ray room of MCH, Kozhikode. The evidence would reveal that it was the appellant who attacked PW1 and inflicted those injuries noted Crl.A.39/08 34 in Ext.P9 and inflicted those injuries noted in Ext.P39 on Amina, the wife of PW1. The appellant miserably failed to bring forth existence of circumstances to bring the case on hand under exception thirdly of Section 300 IPC. In the decision reported in Sikandar Singh and Others v. State of Bihar (2010 KHC 4444) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for considering the right of private defence occasion for and the injuries received by an accused, the imminence of threat to safety of the accused, the injuries caused by the accused and circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities are relevant factors. It was also held that the burden of establishing the plea of self defence is on the accused but it is not as onerous as the one that lies on the prosecution. There can be no doubt that the right of private defence is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with the necessity of adverting an impending danger which is not self created going by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxman Sahu v. State of Orissa reported in AIR 1988 SC 83. There can be no doubt that the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within the said exception under Section 300 IPC lies upon the accused. When the appellant Crl.A.39/08 35 attacked Amina, the wife of PW1, who was unarmed and was awaiting for examination in the casualty room of MCH, Kozhikode and caused homicidal death the appellant cannot take up the plea of private defence as none of the circumstances to bring the case on hand under exception of private defence is established. In the said circumstances, the commission of the offence in inflicting injuries on Amina and causing her homicidal death by the appellant has necessarily to fall under Section 300 which is punishable under Section 302 IPC. Now, as already noticed, the appellant had inflicted grievous injuries noted in Ext.P9 on PW1 with MO1 knife when he was awaiting his turn for examination in the casualty room along with his wife in MCH, Kozhikode. The contention of the appellant is that he had only exercised his right of private defence. The appellant had not succeeded in establishing that he had faced imminent danger to his life from PW1. The evidence of PW1 also is to the effect that he received stab injuries from behind while he was sitting in the casualty room awaiting his turn for examination and the medical evidence would lend support to the same as the injuries noted in Ext.P9 are also on his backside. We have also found that the injuries inflicted on Crl.A.39/08 36 PW1 by the appellant were capable of causing his death in the natural and ordinary course of events. MO1 knife was seized from the possession of the appellant and there is absolutely no evidence that it was with PW1 and PW1 posed imminent danger to the life of the appellant. The appellant cannot be heard to contend that he inflicted those injuries on PW1 in self defence. The circumstances established by the prosecution would reveal that there was no impending danger to the life of the appellant when he inflicted those injuries noted in Ext.P9 on PW1. In such circumstances, taking note of the injuries as also the weapon employed in the commission of the offence we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 307 IPC by inflicting injuries on PW1. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that the appellant was rightly convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC and also under Section 307 IPC. For the offence under Section 300 IPC punishable under Section 302 IPC the trial court had imposed only the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life on the appellant. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the said sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC. Considering the nature of the injuries and the Crl.A.39/08 37 circumstances we also find no reason to interfere with the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months imposed on the appellant for the conviction under Section 307 IPC.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kozhikode are confirmed. The appellant will be entitled to set off as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C. subject to the orders if any passed by the appropriate authority under Sections 432 and 433 of Cr.P.C.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR (JUDGE) C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ Crl.A.39/08 38 Crl.A.39/08 39 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
Crl.A.39/08 40
JUDGMENT
September, 2010