Kerala High Court
Pandiraj vs State Of Kerala on 17 December, 2024
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023
: 1 :-
2024:KER:95532
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 17THDAY OF DECEMBER 2024/26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 1644 OF 2023
(CRIME NO.143/2018 OF Santhanpara Police Station, Idukki
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 30.04.2022 IN SC
NO.126 OF 2019 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT,
THODUPUZHA)
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
PANDIRAJ,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O JAYASEELAN C NO. 4979, CENTRAL PRISON &
CORRECTIIONAL HOME, POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- 695012 AND RESIDED AT HOUSE NO VI/447, NAMARI
BHAGAM, CHATHURANGAPPARA KARA, CHATHURANGAPPARA
VILLAGE THROUGH THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON
& CORRECTIONAL HOME, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695012
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023
: 2 :-
2024:KER:95532
PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERANAKULAM, PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT NEEMA T V, SR. PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
11.12.2024, THE COURT ON 17/12/2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023
: 3 :-
2024:KER:95532
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------.
Crl.A.1644 of 2023
---------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of December 2024
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This appeal is filed by the sole accused in S C.No.126/2019, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed upon him under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Court III, Thodupuzha.
Prosecution case
2. Due to enmity towards Ramar for not providing ganja beedi, the accused, with an intention to kill Ramar and with knowledge that by his act death would be caused, hit on the head and body of Ramar with a wild stick causing severe injuries, on 24/3/2018 at about 3.30 pm in the property of one Kombe Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 4 :-
2024:KER:95532 Ravi. It is alleged that, the said Ramar succumbed to his injuries on 26/3/2018 at 6.15 am while undergoing treatment in a hospital in Madurai.
The proceedings in the trial court
3. From the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW19 were examined and Exts.P1 to P23 documents and MO1 to MO8 were marked. On examining under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence and contended that he is innocent. He stated that Ramar made a quarrel with him after consuming liquor and in order to dissuade Ramar, he hit on the fence with a wooden piece and at the time, Ramar himself fell upon the fence and the wooden piece hit his head. Even though the accused was called upon to adduce defence evidence, no evidence was adduced. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, and after hearing both sides, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. The accused was sentenced to Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 5 :-
2024:KER:95532 undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 302 IPC. In case of default, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.
4. Heard Adv.Rajesh K.Raju (State Brief) and Adv.Neema.I.V. the learned senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. Perused the records.
5. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:
i) Whether the cause of death of Ramar is homicide?
ii) Whether the accused committed murder of Ramar?
iii) Whether the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the accused is correct and whether the same requires any interference?
Prosecution evidence
6. PW1 is the niece of the deceased Ramar. He deposed that he came to know that at about 3.15 pm - 3.30 pm on 24.3.2018, the accused had inflicted injuries upon Ramar by hitting him on Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 6 :-
2024:KER:95532 his head and body. On getting information, he went to the spot and came to know that Ramar was taken to the hospital. He identified his signature in Ext.P1 FIS and stated that he has only hearsay information about the incident.
7. PW2, deposed that he had witnessed the accused beating Ramar on 24/3/2018 at about 3.15pm. At about 2.45pm, he saw Ramar going into the house of the accused and at about 3.pm saw the father of the accused Jayasheelan running away from there. Thereafter, a fight took place between the accused and Ramar, and Ramar came near him. The accused followed him and took a log lying there and threatened to kill both of them. He ran outside the gate and locked the gate. Then the accused hit Ramar on his head repeatedly and Ramar fell down. Then the accused came to the gate and hit on it twice using the same weapon and since he could not open the gate, dropped the weapon and started shouting. At that time, Sankar, Manivel and others came there and the accused ran away. Thereafter, the Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 7 :-
2024:KER:95532 accused came back and he was tied up by Manivel and Manikumar(PW1). Subsequently, Ramar was taken to the hospital in a jeep and he did not accompany them. He identified the weapon used to attack Ramar and the same was marked as MO1. In his cross examination, he stated that from his house, he can clearly see the place of occurrence and the attack took place after he entered the house. He witnessed the incident from the sit-out of the house. He also stated that the police came immediately with the accused and took the weapon with them.
8. PW3 identified the signatures in Exts.P2 and P3 scene mahazars dated 25.3.18 and 20.4.18 respectively, and stated that while preparing Ext.P2 he witnessed the police seizing a stick and a black chappal. At that time, there were blood stains in the soil. He identified the stick and chappal and the same were marked as MO1 and MO2 respectively. In his cross examination, he stated that the two signatures were affixed by him on 20/4/2018 and that it was on the same day MO1 and MO2 were Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 8 :-
2024:KER:95532 recovered. He added that he had signed in the documents about two days after the incident.
9. PW4 is the other witness to Exts.P2 and P3 mahazars. He deposed that Ext.P2 was prepared on 25/3/2018 from the place of occurrence and he signed it on the day itself. At that time, the police recovered MO1 and MO2 from there. Later, on 20/4/2018, the police came and measured the property and at that time he signed in Ext.P3. In his cross examination, he stated that MO1 was recovered by the police on 25/3/2018 and not on 20/4/2018. He did not see the police seizing any articles on 20/4/2018.
10. PW5 is a witness to Ext.P4 inquest report.
11. PW6 deposed that he knew both the accused and the deceased and that on 24/3/2018, he saw the accused beating Ramar on his head and leg using a stick. Blood oozed from Ramar's body and he lost consciousness. On that day, at about 3.30 pm, he heard a shout threatening to kill someone from near Saran's house (PW2) and he went there and saw the incident. He Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 9 :-
2024:KER:95532 identified MO1 as the weapon used by the accused. Saran ran inside his house and the accused hit on the gate two to three times and thereafter, abandoned the weapon and left the place. Then, Saran came out of the house and he enquired about the incident with Saran. Later, Ramar was taken to a hospital in Nedumkandam, but he did not accompany them. On 25/3/2018, he pointed out the place of occurrence, the blood stains present there and the weapon to the police. In his cross examination, he stated that when he reached the place, he saw Ramar lying with his head broken and that he did not see how Ramar fell down. He did not see Ramar being beaten and he came to know about it from PW2. At that time, blood stains were there in MO1 and it was lying broken. In his re-examination, he turned turtle and stated that he had seen the accused beating Ramar and that during cross examination, he had answered without understanding the question. He also went on to say that it is when the accused hit the gate, MO1 broke. Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023
: 10 :-
2024:KER:95532
12. PW7 deposed that on getting information about the incident, he went to the spot and took Ramar in a jeep to Nedgumkandam Taluk hospital and from there to Karuna hospital and thereafter, to a hospital in Theni. When the wife and daughter of Ramar came there, Ramar was taken to the hospital in Madurai. At the time when he reached the spot, he saw Ramar with injuries on his head and he came to know about the incident from PW2, Saran. While taking Ramar to the hospital, his chappal and the stick which was used to attack him was lying there.
13. PW8 deposed that on getting information about the incident, he went to the spot and took Ramar to Taluk hospital, Nedgumkandam and from there to Karuna hospital. Later Ramar was taken to a hospital in Theni and he did not accompany him.
He stated that at the time when he reached the spot, he saw the accused standing far away.
14. PW9 is a witness to Ext.P4 inquest, PW10 is a witness to Ext.P7 seizure mahazar whereby the investigating officer seized Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 11 :-
2024:KER:95532 MO3 dhothi, MO4 shirt and MO5 towel worn by the accused at the relevant time, and PW11 is a witness to preparation of the inquest report.
15. PW12 deposed that he had accompanied Ramar while being taken to the hospital at Nedgumkandam. He stated that from Nedumkandam, Ramar was taken to the hospital in Theni and thereafter to the Medical College Hospital in Madurai. He did not accompany Ramar to Madurai and he went to Madurai only after his death.
16. PW13 is the scientific officer attached to the FSL, Thiruvananthapuram. She deposed that on 26/3/2018, she examined the place of occurrence and collected blood stained soil and control soil and packed and sealed them and handed it over to the Investigating officer along with Ext.P8 report . The packets containing the blood stained soil and control soil were identified and marked as Exhibits MO6 and MO7 respectively and the certificate issued by her at that time was marked as Ext.P9. She Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 12 :-
2024:KER:95532 also stated that at that time she had examined a wooden pole kept there which she identified as MO1 and on such examination, presence of blood was found in it. In her cross examination she stated that she cannot say whether the blood thus detected is human blood or not.
17. PW14 is the village officer through whom Ext.P10 scene plan was marked.
18. PW15 is the Assistant Chemical Examiner and he deposed that he had examined the seven items received from the Magistrate's court Nedumkandam and issued Ext.P11 report. Among the items, he could detect human blood in Item Nos. 1,3,5 & 7. He also identified the articles examined by him as MO3 to MO8 and the forwarding note as Ext.P9.
19. PW16 is the CMO of Karuna Hospital, Nedumkandam. He deposed that on 24/3/2018 he had examined Ramar, who was brought with injuries on his head and on examination, he found that Ramar is suffering from multiple skull fractures with intra Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 13 :-
2024:KER:95532 cranial bleeding. The certificate issued by him was marked as Ext.P12. He also stated that the injuries can be sustained by beating with MO1.
20. PW17, is the Associate Professor attached to Madurai MCH who conducted THE Postmortem examination of Ramar and issued Exhibit P14 certificate. She deposed that she conducted the Post Mortem examination at 3.20.pm on 26/3/2018 and on such examination found eight ante mortem injuries including depressed comminuted fracture of right temporal bone with subdural haematoma and fracture over left middle cranial fossa. She opined that Ramar had died of cranio cerebral injuries and stated that the injuries can be inflicted by using MO1. She further stated that the most fatal injury is injury No.8 and skull and brain were damaged in the attack.
21. PW18 is one of the investigating officers in this case. He deposed that he produced the scene plan and the chemical report received by him before the court and after verifying the records, Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 14 :-
2024:KER:95532 filed the final report.
22. PW19 deposed that on the basis of Ext.P1 FIS, he registered Ext.P15 FIR and thereafter on the same day at about
3.pm visited the scene and prepared Ext.P2 mahazar. At that time, MO1 and MO2 were seized. Later, he had accompanied the village officer, when he prepared the plan and at that time came to know that the directions had been wrongly stated in Ext.P2. Accordingly, another scene mahazar, Ext.P3 was prepared and Ext.P16 report was filed in the court. On the day itself, at about 9 pm, the accused was arrested by preparing Exts.P17 to P19 documents and the dresses worn by him, MO3 to MO5 were seized as per Ext.P7. Thereafter, on the death of Ramar, he conducted the inquest and prepared Ext.P4 report and filed Ext.P20 report before the court adding Section 302 IPC. The articles collected by the scientific experts and the sample handed over by the doctor during Post Mortem(MO8) were forwarded to the court as per Ext.P22 and the dresses of the accused seized Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 15 :-
2024:KER:95532 were forwarded to the court as per Ext.P23. The scientific expert inspected MO1 and on detection of blood in it, gave him Ext.P8 report. He also collected Ext.P14 Post Mortem certificate and Ext.P12 certificate issued from Karuna hospital. The contentions of the appellant
23. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the conviction arrived at by the trial court cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence on record. He argued that the evidence of PW2 and PW6, who are the alleged eye witnesses to the incident, are mired with contradictions amongst itself and against each other, and the trial court has erred in relying upon their evidence. He contended that the prosecution has not proved the identity of the weapon used in this crime and the evidence of the material witnesses regarding its description are inconsistent. He submitted that the evidence on record would reveal the existence of two scene mahazars, Exts.P2 and P3, prepared on two different days and it shows that the police have recovered the Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 16 :-
2024:KER:95532 alleged weapon on both these occasions. He also submitted that this fact is revealed from the evidence of PW3 and the same is fatal to the prosecution case. He further contended that the prosecution has suppressed the best evidence available by not examining Jayaseelan, the father of the accused, who was present at the scene during the relevant time and the same is also fatal to the prosecution case .
The contentions of the Public Prosecutor
24. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has reached a correct conclusion and no interference is required in the same. She argued that the evidence of PW2 and PW6, the eye witnesses to the incident, are credible and cogent and there are no reasons to disbelieve them. She contended that their evidence is supported by PW7 and PW8, who reached the spot within minutes and saw Ramar with serious injuries on his head.
She argued that PW1 and PW2 have also positively identified the Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 17 :-
2024:KER:95532 weapon as MO1 and the evidence of the doctors, PW16 and PW17 confirms the fact that the injuries sustained by Ramar can be caused by MO1. She also argued that the evidence of PW13, the scientific officer and PW15, the chemical examiner, coupled with Exts.P8, P9 and P11 reports will lend much credence and support to the prosecution case and will show that the dresses worn by the accused contained human blood, and that blood stains were found in the weapon and in the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident.
Appreciation of evidence
25. In the present case, there is no dispute regarding the fact that the death of Ramar was due to homicide. The evidence of PW17, the Doctor, coupled with Ext.P14 postmortem certificate would go to show that the deceased has suffered 8 antemortem injuries including depressed comminuted fracture of right temporal bone with SDH and fracture of left middle cranial fossa.
PW17 has opined that the cause of death is cranial cerebral injury Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 18 :-
2024:KER:95532 and injury number 8 which includes fracture right temporal bone is the most fatal one. He also stated that at least two blows must have been inflicted on the deceased with MO1 to cause the injuries.
26. Now, the question to be considered is whether it is the accused, who has committed the homicide of Ramar. While appreciating the evidence of this aspect, it is to be seen that the prosecution heavily relies upon the evidence of PW2 and PW6 who are alleged eye witnesses to the incident. The evidence of PW2 is to the effect that on 24.03.2018 at about 3.15 pm, he saw the deceased coming towards him and the accused following him. Thereafter, the accused, using a stick lying there, threatened to kill both of them and on hearing the same, he ran into his house. At that time, the accused beat Ramar on his head using the stick and he fell down. Thereafter, Ramar came to the gate and hit it using the stick and left the place after abandoning the stick. PW2 also positively identified MO1 as the weapon used Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 19 :-
2024:KER:95532 by the accused to attack Ramar.
27. It is also to be seen that the evidence of PW2 gets considerable support from the evidence of PW6, who reached the spot on hearing the noise. His evidence reveals that he heard the voice of Ramar threatening someone and when he reached the spot saw the accused beating Ramar with a stick. Thereafter, the accused hit the gate using the weapon causing it to break and left it there and went away. He also positively identified MO1 as the weapon used to attack Ramar.
28. It is to be taken note that even though PW2 has been cross examined in extenso, nothing has been brought out in material to disbelieve him. His evidence is categoric and shows that even though he ran away to his house, he has witnessed the incident from the sit out of his house. At this juncture we will also take note of the evidence of PW8 and PW9 which lends support to the evidence of PW2 and shows that there is no hindrance or obstruction for PW2 in witnessing the incident from the sit out of Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 20 :-
2024:KER:95532 his house. Now, coming to the evidence of PW6, it is true that during cross examination he deviated from his earlier version in chief and stated that he has not seen the incident and has come to know about it from the mouth of PW2. But in re-examination, he categorically stated that he had witnessed the incident and the answers given by him in the cross examination was due to the fact that he could not properly understand the questions. We find no reason to disbelieve PW6 on this aspect. This is so, considering the fact that even after laborious cross examination, his evidence regarding the crux of the events which took place on the fateful day remains un-shattered and also the fact that such aberrations are quite natural, during examination of a rustic uneducated villager like PW6.
29. Moving further, it is to be seen that the evidence of PW2 and PW6 regarding the events is also corroborated by the evidence of PW7, PW8 and PW12, the witnesses who reached the spot immediately after the incident and took Ramar to the Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 21 :-
2024:KER:95532 hospital. The evidence of PW7 would show that, on reaching the spot, he saw Ramar lying with injuries on his head and that he along with others took him to the Hospital in a Jeep. Similarly, the evidence of PW8 reveals that, on reaching the spot, he had seen Ramar lying in a pool of blood and that he along with others had taken him to the Hospital in Nedunkandam. Again, the evidence of PW12 also shows that he had joined Ramar and others to the Hospital from a place called Udumbanchola and thereafter, had taken Ramar to the Hospital in Theni. It can thus be seen that the evidence of these witnesses also lends considerable support to the prosecution case and shows that Ramar has sustained fatal injuries on the fateful day at the scene of occurrence,as alleged by the prosecution.
30. Moving further, it can be seen that the scientific evidence let in by the prosecution also speaks volumes in this case and gives considerable support to its case. It can be seen from the evidence of PW13 that, on 26.03.2018, when she Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 22 :-
2024:KER:95532 visited the place of occurrence, blood stains were found in the soil there. The samples collected by her were examined by PW15 and his evidence coupled with Ext.P11 report confirms the presence of human blood in it. It is also pertinent to note that PW13 has examined MO1 (which was identified by him positively in the dock) on that day from the place of occurrence and has noted the presence of blood in it. Apart from the above, the evidence of PW15 coupled with Ext.P11 report shows that, in the dhoti and towel worn by the accused at the relevant time, human blood was detected. At this juncture, we take note of the fact that the afore dress materials were seized by PW19 as per Ext.P7 Mahazar, from the accused when he was arrested at 9.00 pm on 25.03.2018. In the absence of any plausible explanation from the side of the accused, we are of the considered view that the afore scientific evidence impeccably shows the presence of the accused in the spot and his involvement in the crime.
31. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 23 :-
2024:KER:95532 appellant regarding the preparation of two scene Mahazars and the alleged recovery of two weapons on two different dates and that the same is fatal to the prosecution case, we are of the view that there is no merit in it. It is true that, in the present case, the evidence reveals preparation of two scene Mahazars which are Exts.P2 and P3 on 25.03.2018 and 20.04.2018 respectively. It is also true that both PW3 and PW4 have signed in these Mahazars as witnesses. PW19, the Investigating Officer, has also admitted the preparation of these two documents. But, it is to be taken note that PW19 has given an explanation for the same and has stated that it is only because of a mistake regarding directions which crept in while preparing Ext.P2, Ext.P3 came to be prepared on a subsequent date. According to him, after preparation of Ext.P2, the Village Officer went to the place to prepare a scene plan and it is then, the mistake in noting the directions in Ext.P2 came to fore. It is to be taken note that Ext.P16 report has also been filed by PW19 before the Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 24 :-
2024:KER:95532 Magistrate's Court pointing out the afore facts. A perusal of Exts.P2 and P3 would also support the version of PW19 and shows that Ext.P3 is a verbatim reproduction of Ext.P2 except, for the date and directions mentioned. In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that, even though there is some impropriety on the part of the prosecution in preparing Ext.P3, for that reason alone, the entire prosecution case need not be thrown overboard. It is true that PW3, during cross examination, has fumbled and has stated that he has affixed his signature in these documents on 20.04.2018 and that the material objects were also recovered on that date. But, PW4, in his evidence, has categorically stated that he has signed in Ext.P2 on 25.03.2018 on which day, MO1 and MO2 were seized by the Police. He also stated that subsequently on 20.04.2018, the Police had come to the place again, measured the property and had prepared Ext.P3 in which also he had signed. The afore evidence of PW4 corroborates with the evidence of PW19 regarding the reasons Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 25 :-
2024:KER:95532 for preparing Ext.P3. Further, the evidence of PW4 would show that no material objects have been taken by the Police on 20.04.2018. It is to be seen that, even though PW4 has been strenuously cross examined, nothing has been brought out to disbelieve his version. At this juncture, it would be apt to keep in mind the fact that MO1 has been identified by all the material witnesses without any shadow of doubt as the murder weapon.
Hence, considering all the afore facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to find that the contention of the appellant on this ground has no legs to stand.
32. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding suppression of material evidence, again we are of the view that there is no merit in it. It is true that the prosecution has not examined Sri.Jayaseelan, the father of the accused, who was present at the scene. But, it is to be taken note that admittedly Sri.Jayaseelan has left the place much before the incident took place and has not witnessed the crime. Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023
: 26 :-
2024:KER:95532 Moreover, it is the law that, if sufficient evidence is already available and the examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence already let in, non examination of such other witnesses may not be material (See Takhaji Hiraji vs. Thakore Kubersing, Chamansing (2001 (6) SCC 145) and Swarnamma vs. State of Kerala (2015 (3) KLJ 544). In the present case, as stated earlier, we have already found that the evidence of PW2 and PW6 regarding the incident are convincing. If so, in the light of the afore dictums, the non-examination of Sri.Jayaseelan is not all material in this case.
Conclusions and findings
33. The upshot of the afore discussions on evidence is that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused has committed murder of Ramar as alleged by the prosecution. The Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and it has arrived at a correct conclusion of Crl.A.No.1644 of 2023 : 27 :-
2024:KER:95532 guilt against the accused. The appellant could not bring out any material, which would enable this Court to interfere with the said conclusion. Ergo, we find that this appeal lacks merit and the same is only to be dismissed.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V Judge Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN Judge dpk/bng