Kerala High Court
Raj Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2012
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
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/8TH KARTHIKA 1934
CRL.A.No. 669 of 2008 ( )
-------------------------
SC.266/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, THODUPUZHA
CP.67/2007 of J.M.F.C.,NEDUMKANDOM
APPELLANT(S):
------------
RAJ KUMAR,C.NO.2601,
CENTRAL PRISON,TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADV. SMT.INDU.S
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.K.RAJEEV
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-10-2012,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
&
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
==========================
CRL.APPEAL. No.669 OF 2008
==========================
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2012
JUDGMENT
Ravikumar, J.
The appellant stands convicted and sentenced under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Court of IV Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II), Thodupuzha in S.C.No.266 of 2007 for having murdered one Siby. This appeal is directed against the said conviction and sentence.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- On 15.6.2002, the deceased, PW2 Rajesh and PW5 Michael Joseph went to Chemmannar for plucking mangoes from the property of one Soman and after collecting the mangoes, they sold them at Pazhayapaduthy. On their return, they bought a bottle of liquor and drank half of it Crl.A.669/08 2 from there. Thereafter, they returned to Chemmannar town in a jeep. They came to the shop of PW3 and obtained a glass to finish the left over liquor. The appellant who came there at that time asked Siby to spare a share of it for him as well. When Siby declined to give liquor to the appellant, he got exasperated and picked up an altercation with Siby. There occurred a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and then the appellant picked up a knife from the shop of PW3 and stabbed Siby on the chest. When Siby attempted to run away, the appellant again stabbed him thrice on his back. When PW2 and others rushed towards Siby, the appellant ran away with the knife. Siby died on the spot within minutes. Thereupon, PW2 came to the house of PW1, the brother of the deceased and informed him that the appellant stabbed Siby. On hearing the same, PW1 proceeded to the place of occurrence and found Siby lying dead in front of the shop of PW3. Thereafter, he went to the Santhanpara Police Station and lodged Ext.P1 First Information Statement at 2.30 a.m on 16.6.2002. PW9 recorded the same and registered Ext.P1(a) First Information Report on its basis for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. PW10, the investigating officer went to the scene of occurrence, Crl.A.669/08 3 conducted the inquest and prepared Ext.P2 inquest report. He seized MO4 shirt, MO7 shuddy (underwear) and MO5 purse found on the body of Siby. Thereupon, PW10 made the requisition for conducting autopsy on the body of Siby and body was forwarded for conducting postmortem. PW13 Dr.G.Krishnakumar conducted autopsy on the body of Siby and prepared Ext.P11 postmortem certificate opining that the death of Siby was due to penetrating injury to the heart. PW10 arrested the appellant at 3.30 p.m. on 16.6.2002 itself. On the information furnished by the appellant as per Ext.P5(a) confession statement, PW10 recovered MO1 knife under Ext.P5 mahazar in the presence of PW12. PW11 the successor of PW10 took over the investigation and filed Ext.P8 forwarding note for sending the material objects for chemical analysis and obtained Ext.P10 chemical analysis report. He submitted Ext.P9 report before the Court regarding the mistake crept in Ext.P2 inquest report in column 7 and 8 as to the direction viz., as '4.29 metres towards south-eastern' instead of '4.29 metres towards west'. After completing the investigation, PW11 laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumkandom. The learned Magistrate committed Crl.A.669/08 4 the case to the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The learned Sessions Judge made over the case for trial and disposal to the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-II), Thodupuzha. Since the appellant was not able to engage a counsel of his choice, a counsel was appointed to defend the accused/appellant. After hearing both sides, charge under section 302 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty.
3. To prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution had examined 13 witnesses, marked Exts.P1 to P11 and identified MO1 to MO11. On the side of defence, Exts.D1 to D5 which are respectively the portions of statements of PW2, PW3 and PW5 under section 161 Cr.P.C, were marked. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating circumstances were put to him and he denied all such circumstances. Finding that it was not a fit case for acquittal under section 232 Cr.P.C, the appellant was asked to enter on his defence. However, he did not adduce any evidence. After careful consideration of the evidence on record and relying on Crl.A.669/08 5 the oral testimonies of PW2, PW3 and PW5, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted him under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. This appeal is sent from prison against the said conviction and sentence. As the appellant was not able to engage a counsel of his choice, Advocate Indu S. was appointed as his counsel.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the evidence on record are not conclusive enough to convict the appellant under section 302 IPC. It is contended that the incident had occurred when the deceased and his companions, under the influence of liquor, entered into a scuffle with him and at the hands of one of his inebriated companions. The learned counsel further contended that, at any rate, the appellant ought not to have been convicted under section 302 IPC in the absence of any proven motive on his part to murder Siby. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that evidence of PW2, PW3 and PW5 are reliable ocular evidence and they would go to show that it Crl.A.669/08 6 was the appellant who inflicted the injuries that caused the death of Siby and that those injuries were inflicted intentionally and that the fatal injury was inflicted by him on the vital part of Siby with the intention to cause his death. It is further contended that in the circumstances, none of the exceptions under section 300 IPC would apply and the learned Additional Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC and sentenced him accordingly.
5. We will firstly examine the question whether the death of Siby is homicide or not. In fact, the defence was not having a case that it was not homicide. PW13 conducted autopsy on the body of the Siby and prepared Ext.P11 postmortem certificate noting the following antemortem injuries:-
i. 7x2cm incised extending from 3cm below the supraclavicular notch, extending upwards and laterally. Its outer end is blunt and lies 1cm below the left clavicle.
ii.Abrasion 5cm below the left knee joint, anteriorly 3x0.5cm transversely.
iii.6x0.5x0.2cm incised injury 20.5cm below the posterior axillary fold on left side.
iv.3x.5x.2cm incised, transverse injury, at the level of inferior scapular angle on left side, 5cm lateral to the midline.Crl.A.669/08 7
v. 2x0.5x2cm transverse injury 13.5cm below the 4th injury bone deep, central position.
vi.Incised injury 1x.5cm left middle finger, at the level of 2nd interphalangeal joint, transversely. vii.Abrasion left side of nose.
viii.Abrasion back of right elbow.
ix.Abrasion just below left medial malleolus.
Internal examination Thoracic cavity contain about 5 litres of blood with clots. Injury corresponding to the 1st external injury, seen in the chest wall, at the level of 2nd inter costal space. No other external injury extended internally.
Heart: Pericardium is injured corresponding to the 1st external injury in the upper anterior part with clot inside the pericardium, in the pericardinal sac. (3x1.5 cm.) Penetrated injury seen over the right ventricle upper part, about 2.5x1 cm size with clots inside the heart. Lung look pale, almost all organs are pale otherwise looks normal. Stomach contains solid food materials, undigested. Brain and meninges are normal. No evidence of fracture. Total length of penetrating injury is about 8cm, which is the cause of death.
6. PW13 opined that Siby died due to penetrating injury to the heart. There was no serious challenge against the oral evidence of PW13 and also the finding in Ext.P11 postmortem certificate issued by him, as aforesaid. PW13 deposed that only the first injury noted as such, in Ext.P11, extended internally and resulted in the death of Siby Crl.A.669/08 8 and that the other injuries were not fatal injuries. The nature of the injuries as revealed from the evidence of PW13 with Ext.P11 postmortem certificate leaves no room for any doubt that the death of Siby was caused on account of the first injury sustained by him that penetrated to the heart and evidently, that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, undoubtedly, the death of Siby is a case of homicide.
7. Now, let us examine whether the appellant was responsible for the death of Siby. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of PW2 and PW5 and also the evidence of PW3 to the extent it is corroborated by their evidence to fix the culpability on the appellant. PW2 deposed that he along with the deceased and PW5 went to the property of Soman at Chemmannar to pluck mangoes and the plucked mangoes were sold at Pazhayapaduthy. While retuning, they bought a bottle of liquor and after having half of it from there, they reached the shop of PW3 and for finishing the left over of liquor, they obtained a glass from the shop of PW3. He further deposed that at that point of time, the Crl.A.669/08 9 appellant reached there and asked Siby for liquor. Refusal to yield to the request exasperated him and they got engaged in an altercation and in the quarrel, their dotties (Mundu) got unfastened and then the appellant lept into the shop and took MO1 knife kept in the ledge. Siby who was standing about 5-6 feet away, then turned towards him and then, the appellant stabbed Siby on his chest with MO1 knife. Siby attempted to flee from there saying 'I was stabbed' and then the appellant stabbed him thrice on his back. When PW2 and others came towards them, the appellant ran away from there with the knife. On being told by PW5 that Siby had breathed his last, PW2 went to the house of PW1 to tell him about the incident. However, the fact that Siby had breathed his last was not then divulged to PW1. PW5 is the other occurrence witness. He would depose on the samelines of PW3 as regards the place of occurrence and the incident that ultimately led to the death of Siby. Though PW3 and PW5 were cross examined at length, the defence could not elicit anything to render their evidence untrustworthy and unreliable. The evidence of PW2 is fully corroborated on all material points by the evidence of PW5. Their occular evidence would gain support from the medical evidence Crl.A.669/08 10 as well. We find that the presence of the said witnesses cannot be doubted at all and that their evidence is natural, reliable and does not suffer from any serious or material contradictions. Thus, the ocular evidence in this case conclusively establish the fact that it was the appellant who inflicted the injuries that caused the death of Siby. We will now, consider the contention of the appellant that he is entitled to be acquitted on account of the failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the motive. Evidently, going by the case of the prosecution, it was the refusal by the deceased Siby to give liquor despite demand that enraged the appellant and ultimately in the murder. True that PW2 and PW5 have deposed to that effect. PW3 deposed that his elder brother Kuttappan is actually the owner of the shop and he opened the shop from where the appellant took MO1 as Kuttappan went to his wife's house on that day. His oral testimony would reveal the presence of PW2, PW5, the deceased and the appellant at the scene of occurrence, but, according to him, the cause for the altercation between the appellant and the deceased was the refusal on the part of the latter to purchase one cigarette for the appellant from the shop. True that the oral testimonies of PW2, PW5 and PW3 Crl.A.669/08 11 would clearly establish the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and also the facts that the deceased sustained the injuries from there and also that he died on the spot and at the sametime, with regard to the motive, PW2 and PW5 supported the prosecution while PW3 deposed to the effect that they quarrelled when the deceased refused to purchase one cigarette for the appellant. We have already found that the evidence of PW2 and PW5 clearly established the fact that it was the appellant who inflicted the injuries on Siby that caused his death. We are of the considered view that when the occular evidence clearly establishes the commission of the crime by the appellant, the motive loses significance and its establishment is not at all essential to prove the prosecution case. We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yunis alias Kariya v. State of M.P (AIR 2003 SC 539) and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal (AIR 2010 SC 3638). In Bipin Kumar's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that motive is a thing which is primarily known to the accused himself and it may not be possible for the prosecution to explain what actually prompted or excited him to commit a particular offence. In Yunis alias Crl.A.669/08 12 Kariya's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where ocular evidence is very clear and convincing and the role of the accused person in the crime stands clearly established, establishment of a motive is not a sine qua non for proving the prosecution case. In this case, the ocular evidence of PWs 2 and 5 would clearly prove that it was the appellant, who inflicted the injuries and therefore, the failure to prove the motive conclusively will not affect the substantive case of the prosecution.
8. The next question is what is the offence committed by the appellant? The evidence of PW13 with Ext.P11 postmortem certificate would reveal that the first injury sustained by Siby was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the evidence of PW2 and PW5 would prove that the said injury was inflicted by the appellant. Then the question is whether the appellant intended to inflict that particular injury which was proved to be fatal and unless the evidence or circumstances warrant any contra conclusion, it could only be presumed that he had intended to cause that particular injury. The commission of such an offence would Crl.A.669/08 13 definitely fall under section 300 IPC punishable under section 302 IPC if none of the exceptions to section 300 IPC is attracted. Therefore, we have to consider whether any of the exceptions to section 300 is attracted in the case on hand. We are of the considered view that even in a case where the defence did not specifically raise the question of applicability of any of the exceptions to section 300 IPC, the court is duty bound to bestow serious consideration as to whether the evidence on record brought in by the prosecution or the defence, invites invocation of any of the exceptions to section 300 IPC before holding that the concerned accused had committed the offence under section 300 IPC punishable under section 302 IPC. In this case, evidently, the question of applicability of any of the exceptions to section 300 IPC was not raised by the appellant before the trial court. But the appellant has now raised a contention that exception 4 to section 300 would apply in this case. Exception to section 300 IPC reads thus:
Exception 4: Heat of passion: Mere sudden quarrel would not entitle the accused to seek for Exception 4 to section 300;
9. While considering the aforesaid question, it is worthwhile Crl.A.669/08 14 to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh (1989 SCC (Crl.) 348). In that decision their lordships held thus:-
"7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor is it relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly. In the present case, the deceased and P.W. 2 had entered the room occupied by Sikander Lal and his family members and had demanded vacant possession of the kitchen. When they found that the appellant was disinclined to hand over possession of the kitchen, P.W. 2 quarrelled and uttered filthy abuses in the presence of the appellant's sister. On the appellant asking him to desist he threatened to lock up the kitchen by removing the utensils, etc., and that led to a heated argument between the appellant on the one side and P.W. 2 and his deceased brother on the other. In the course of this heated argument it is the appellant's case that P.W. 2 took out a knife from his pant pocket. This part of the appellant's case seems to be probable having regard to Crl.A.669/08 15 the antecedents of P.W. 2. It is on record that P.W. 2 was convicted at Narnaul on two occasions under S. 411, I.P.C. and his name was registered as a bad character at the local police station. It was presumably because of this reason that, he had shifted from Narnaul to Chandigarh a couple of years back and had started to live in the premises rented by P.W. 4. When the appellant found that P.W. 2 had taken out a pen knife from his pocket he went into the adjoining kitchen and returned with a knife. From the simple injury caused to P.W. 2 it would appear that P.W. 2 was not an easy target. That is why the learned Sessions Judge rejected the case that Amrit Lal had held P.W. 2 to facilitate an attack on him by the appellant. It further seems that thereafter a scuffle must have ensued on Nitya Nand intervening to help his brother P.W. 2 in which two minor injuries were suffered by the deceased on the left arm before the fatal blow was inflicted on the left flank at the level on the 5th rib about 2" below the nipple. It may incidentally be mentioned that the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the injury found on the neck of P.W. 2 was a self-inflicted wound and had therefore acquitted the appellant of the charge under S. 307, I.P.C., against which no appeal was carried. We have, however, proceeded to examine this matter on the premise that P.W. 2 sustained the injury in the course of the incident. From the above facts, it clearly emerges that after P.W. 2 and his deceased brother entered the room of the appellant and uttered filthy abuses in the presence of the latter's sister, tempers ran high and on P.W. 2 taking out a pen knife the appellant picked up the knife from the kitchen, ran towards P.W. 2 and inflicted a simple injury on his neck. It would be reasonable to infer that the deceased must have intervened on the side of his brother P.W. 2 and in the course of the scuffle he received injuries, one of which proved fatal. Taking an overall view of the incident we are inclined to think that the appellant was Crl.A.669/08 16 entitled to the benefit of the exception relied upon. The High Court refused to grant him that benefit on the ground that he had acted in a cruel manner but we do not think that merely because three injuries were caused to the deceased it could be said that he had acted in a cruel and unusual manner. Under these circumstances, we think it proper to convict the accused under S. 304, Part 1, I.P.C. and direct him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years.
(emphasis added)
10. Bearing in mind the law laid down therein, now, we will examine the sustainability of the aforesaid contention of the appellant. The evidence of PWs 2 and 5 would go to show that the cause of quarrel was trivial and the appellant, in a sudden quarrel, in the heat of passion, picked up MO1 knife which was handy and caused the injuries. It is nobody's case that the appellant came there armed with a weapon. The circumstances in which the incident occurred as deposed by PWs 2 and 5, adverted to hereinbefore, would undoubtedly reveal the absolute absence of any premeditation besides revealing the fact that the injuries were inflicted in the heat of passion. The evidence of PWs 2 and 5 would go to show that in the sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion, the appellant lept into the shop and took MO1 knife from the ledge and inflicted the injuries on Siby. Crl.A.669/08 17 Thus, the three out of four requirements viz., occurred in sudden fight, absence of premeditation, doing of the act in a heat of passion are all satisfied in this case. Now, the question is whether the appellant had taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. No circumstance is established by the prosecution as to whether he had acted in a cruel manner. Injuries except injury No.1 were not fatal going by their very nature and also by the evidence of PW13. In Surinder Kumar's case, their Lordships held that the number of injuries inflicted on the deceased would not and could not be the decisive factor to decide whether the assailant had acted in a cruel manner. In this case, except injury No.1, all the other injuries are not fatal and therefore, merely because the appellant inflicted those non- fatal injuries, it could not be said that he had acted in a cruel manner. When that be the position, the appellant is entitled to exception 4 to section 300 IPC. When once it is so found, the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC and the sentence for imprisonment for life are liable to be set aside. As founded earlier, the quarrel was of a trivial nature. However, the appellant, in the sudden quarrel and in the heat of passion, picked up MO1 knife from the shop and Crl.A.669/08 18 inflicted the injuries including injury No.1 which is the fatal injury that caused the death of Siby. In such circumstances, it can be imputed that the said act was done with the knowledge that it was likely to cause an injury likely to cause death. However, it could not be said that the appellant intended to cause the death of Siby or that particular injury to cause death. In such circumstances, it can only be said that the appellant had committed an offence punishable under section 304 Part II of IPC. The next question is what is the sentence to be awarded to the appellant for the conviction. Section 304 IPC provides a punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years or with fine, or with both. On the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that rigorous imprisonment for a term extending to ten years will meet the ends of justice.
In the result, appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC and the sentence for imprisonment for life are set aside. The appellant is convicted for having committed the offence punishable under section 304 Part II of IPC and he is Crl.A.669/08 19 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term extending to 10 years. The appellant is entitled to set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C for the period he had been in custody, subject to the orders, if passed by the appropriate authority, under sections 432 and 433 Cr.P.C.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR (JUDGE) C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ Crl.A.669/08 20 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
CRL.A.NO.669/08
JUDGMENT
30th October, 2012
Crl.A.669/08 21