Baiju vs The State Of Kerala on 10 August, 2022

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Baiju vs The State Of Kerala on 10 August, 2022

Suspecting the chastity of one's wife, man is led to commit crimes, which he repents sooner or later, and often innocent children are left rudderless. The instant case is one in which the accused suspected that his wife, the deceased, was having an illicit affair with his own brother. This gave rise to frequent quarrels and eventually the accused stabbed his wife, with a rubber taping knife, in the presence of his children. Immediately he attempted suicide by first stabbing himself and then hanging; the latter attempt foiled for reason of the dhoti he used as ligature broke. Having fallen to the ground, with the remnants of the ligature on his neck, he jumped into a well from where he was rescued by the local people. Obviously he had to stand trial and was convicted and sentenced with life, mainly Crl.Appeal No.830 of 2021 -3- on the eye-witness testimony of his own son.

2. The prosecution paraded 25 witnesses before court and through them marked 13 documents as also produced 12 material objects. The defence examined none but marked two contradictions from the prior statement of PW6. On conviction, the accused was sentenced to life and a fine of Rs.5000/- with a default sentence of RI of six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and under Section 309, SI for six months.

3. The accused in appeal, is represented by learned State Brief, Adv.Resmi Nandanan and Smt.Sheeba Thomas, learned Public Prosecutor, appeared for the State. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the conviction was only based on the testimony of his son, a minor of impressionable age. It is recorded in the deposition that the child was weeping throughout and it can be easily deciphered that he was tutored. The accused himself suffered an injury and it is his case that PW5, the brother was responsible for the death of his wife. There is nothing to connect the knife to the accused and none of the other witnesses saw him Crl.Appeal No.830 of 2021 -4- attacking his wife. In fact, the gory death of his wife led to the accused attempting suicide; which is a sure symbol of his innocence.

4. Learned Prosecutor however, asserts that the conviction is proper and besides the eye witness testimony, the knife was recovered from the scene of occurrence. The accused was a rubber tapping employee and the knife was in his possession. The medical evidence regarding the manner and shape of injury perfectly corroborates the testimony of the son. The brother of the accused was residing near the shed in which the deceased and accused were living and he accompanied the accused to the hospital, on the direction of the police. There were no tell-tale signs on his body or dress pointing to his involvement in the crime.

5. PW1 gave the FIS and is a member of a prominent political party who engages himself in social issues of the locality. His sister, a Panchayat Member called him over the telephone and informed him about the murder. He rushed to the house of the accused and saw Crl.Appeal No.830 of 2021 -5- the body of the wife of the accused lying drenched in blood. There were frequent marital discords between the couple and the accused, who were married after a love affair; against the wishes of the wife's family. The reason for the frequent quarrels was also stated to be the suspicion of the accused, of his wife having carried on an illicit affair with his own brother. PW1 also spoke of the couple having two children; a boy aged seven years and a girl aged four years. In the FIS it was also stated that by the time he reached the crime scene, the accused was taken to the hospital by the police & the neighbours and he was informed that the accused had attempted suicide by hanging and then by jumping into the well. PW1 in Court spoke in tandem with the FIS and marked it as Ext.P1, as also spoke of having seen a rubber tapping knife near the dead body. PW1 confirmed that the accused was a rubber tapping worker and hence, in our opinion, it is only natural that he had in his possession a tapping knife.

6. PW2 is the son of the accused and deceased. True, it is recorded in the deposition that he was often Crl.Appeal No.830 of 2021 -6- weeping when questions were put to him. Quite natural, considering the circumstances and that he was a 12 year old child at the time of examination, who lost his mother and was testifying against his father; not to discount the trauma of having seen the crime, which he had to sadly recount in Court. He was studying in the 7th standard in the MGM High School Pampadi. He identified his father on the dock and spoke of his father's drunken behaviour. On the crucial day, according to him he saw his father stabbing his mother. After stabbing his mother, it was also deposed that, his father jumped into the well. He raised a hue and cry to attract the neighbours. He spoke of having told the police about what he saw. His mother was taken in an ambulance and his father was rescued from the well, by the neighbours, the latter, having been then taken by the police. In cross-examination he was asked whether he was tutored, to which he responded by reiterating that he saw his father stabbing his mother with a rubber tapping knife. Again he was questioned whether the knife was in the hands of the mother which he denied. He was also asked Crl.Appeal No.830 of 2021 -7- about his father's elder brother having coached him regarding his deposition in court, which too was categorically denied. The mere fact of the boy having wept, does not persuade us to find tutoring or disbelieve him. On the contrary, we find that there is nothing brought out in cross-examination or otherwise, to hold that the witness was tutored and his deposition, we find to be of a sterling quality. The presence of the son is undisputed and he saw the dastardly crime committed on his mother by his father and spoke of it in court. He narrated what he saw and he was unfazed in the searching cross-examination.

7. PW3 is a neighbour who came out of her house hearing the cries and saw the accused inside the well. On searching for his wife, she saw him lying stabbed with bleeding from the mouth. PW4 is another neighbour who saw the entire incident, but for the stabbing and he too heard the cries of the children and came out of his house, when he saw the accused running with a piece of cloth tied on his neck and jumping into the well. The children of the accused came crying and told him that Crl.Appeal No.830 of 2021 -8- their father had stabbed their mother. He saw the mother lying stabbed, when the children also spoke of their father having attempted suicide by hanging and he saw the broken ligature hanging from a tree. PW4 was one of the persons who rescued the accused from the well. PW6, PW7, PW15 and PW16 were neighbours who came to the scene of occurrence hearing the cries. They spoke in tune with the evidence of PW4, fully corroborating the testimony, regarding what PW4 saw on reaching the crime scene. From PW6's prior statement, two contradictions were marked in cross-examination, not really relevant. Ext.D1 contradiction was insofar as the witness having seen the accused running with a dhoti around his neck, which she denied to have seen. She also denied having made a statement that the marital discord between the couple was regarding the illicit affair of the wife with the brother of the accused (Ext.D2). PW7 spoke of seeing a blood stained knife in the crime scene. PW15 also identified MO1-knife recovered from the scene of occurrence. He was the immediate neighbour who spoke of the marital discords between the couple. PW16 and PW17 Crl.Appeal No.830 of 2021 -9- spoke of the accused being rescued from the well and the scene mahazar, Ext.P5 was attested by PW17.

8. PW5, is the brother of the accused who saw the incident from the compound of his residence. He went with the accused, on the direction of the police and was with him for two days in the hospital. He admitted that the accused and his family were staying along with him; there arose some property disputes and later the accused moved to the nearby plot where he built a shed and started residing there with his family. PW5 denied any relationship with his brother's wife. PW8, another brother of the accused spoke of the family circumstances and received the body after postmortem examination. PW9 is the mother of the accused who did not make any significant statement. The children, the real victims of the crime were being looked after by the paternal grand mother (PW9). PW10 turned hostile, PW11, the Village Officer, prepared Ext.P2 scene plan and PW12, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat produced Ext.P3 communication. According to Ext.P3, the shed, which was the crime scene was not numbered by the Panchayat. PW13 Crl.Appeal No.830 of 2021 -10- and PW14 were witnesses to Ext.P4 inquest report. Though the ownership of the shed, existing in the crime scene is not proved; there is ample evidence, by way of testimony of the neighbours and the brother of the accused, that the accused and family were residing in that shed. PW16 only heard about the incident and PW17, was a witness to the scene mahazar, Ext.P5. PW18, deposed to have no acquaintance with the accused and the deceased. Though he accepted his signature in Ext.P5 seizure mahazar by which MO2-a torn piece of dhothi was seized from the scene of crime,; he testified that he was shown the same at the police station. PW19 was the Magistrate who recorded the S.164 statement; however, but for the omnibus marking of the statement made by PW2, nothing was elicited from the witness. It was elicited that the child was brought to the Magistrate by his Spectacle-Uncle; without the defence trying to bring out the identity of the said person, who brought the child to the Magistrate. He could very well have been PW8, the partly blind brother of the accused.

9. PW21 is the Superintendent of Medical Records Crl.Appeal No.830 of 2021 -11- of the MCH, Thiruvananthapuram, who produced Ext.P11 case sheet and PW22, the Casualty Doctor who produced, Ext.P12 Treatment Certificate; both of the accused. PW23 is the Sub Inspector who registered Ext.P1(a) FIR. PWs24 & 25 are the Investigating Officers who carried out the investigation. PW20 is the Doctor who carried out postmortem examination. She spoke of the accused having suffered two injuries; one an incised penetrating wound having the shape '[' and an incised punctured wound again with the same shape. The first injury was obliquely placed on the left side of front of chest, left of mid-line and below the collar. The said wound penetrated the chest cavity and the intercostal space. The wound had a depth of 9 cms and the victim's left lung had collapsed. The second wound was on the left of back of chest, outer to the mid-line and below the shoulder and the wound was directed downwards through the muscle plane and there was also an abrasion. Postmortem examination was carried out and cause of death was due to the penetrating injury sustained to the chest and the injury was also independently sufficient, Crl.Appeal No.830 of 2021 -12- in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The tapping knife was specifically shown to the Doctor who testified that the wound can be caused by the said weapon. In fact in cross-examination it was elicited that the wound is having the shape '[', which shape is possible with the tapping knife.

10. The eye-witness testimony is of the son and the same is believable. There is also no reason why the son should be disbelieved or be found as tutored. The testimony and the demeanour of the witness, seen by the trial judge was accepted in toto. We find no reason to differ from the said finding. The subsequent circumstances were spoken of by the immediate neighbours and many of the witnesses spoke of the children having attracted the attention of the neighbours and on reaching their residence, having seen the attempt of suicide by the accused. It was the locals who rescued the accused from the well and one or two witnesses also spoke of the children having specifically told them about the infliction of stab injury by the father, on their mother, with the rubber tapper's knife. The mother Crl.Appeal No.830 of 2021 -13- was found in the crime scene, supine bleeding. The knife was recovered from the scene of occurrence and was seen by the witnesses, near the bleeding woman; which fact was testified in Court.

11. The medical evidence is in consonance with the narration of the infliction of injury, by the eye witness. The tapping knife was recovered from the scene of occurrence and the further testimony of the Doctor that the injury was caused by the knife especially from the shape of the injury: '[' further fortifies the testimony of the eye witness. The accused stabbed himself and he suffered an injury as seen from the treatment certificate, Ext.P12. The diagnosis as revealed from Ext.P12 treatment certificate is a non penetrating injury of the abdominal wall and fracture, following respectively, the self inflicted stab and jump into the well. The eye witness testimony of PW2 is fully corroborated with other evidence, both medical and circumstantial. Testimonies regarding the prior conduct of the accused and the subsequent events reveal an attempt to commit suicide after committing the murder of Crl.Appeal No.830 of 2021 -14- his wife. The motive behind the murder is also the suspicion regarding her fidelity. The prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and we find no reason to interfere with the conviction or the sentence imposed by the trial Court.


     We    reject    the    appeal      upholding         the     impugned

judgment in every single aspect.                     We see that the

convict has been incarcerated for almost 15 years.                      The

Government         shall      consider            the      case         for

remission/commutation as provided under the Cr.P.C.                     The

convict is housed in the Central Prison and Correctional Home, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram. The Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Thiruvananthapuram, shall contact the Superintendent and take up the matter with the Government.

Sd/-

K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE Mrcs/uu

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court