Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2024

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Santhosh vs State Of Kerala on 4 January, 2024

This appeal is filed us 374(2) of Cr.P.C. by the accused in S.C. No. 394 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, challenging the conviction and the sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused suspected the fidelity of his wife and for the reason that she refused to give money for purchasing liquor, the accused, a habitual drunkard, caught hold of the neck of the deceased and hit her head on the wall of the hall room of the house bearing No.XII/452of Vadakkekara Grama Panchayat and when the victim fell down, he sat over her body and strangulated her and thereby, caused her death on 24.07.2016 in between 8 pm and 8.30 pm., and the accused is thereby alleged to have committed the offence as aforesaid.

3. On the basis of Exhibit P1 First Information Statement of PW1, Exhibit P16 FIR was registered on 25.07.2016. by PW24, Station House Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 :3: Officer of Vadakkekara Police Station and PW25, Circle Inspector of North Paravur, who was in additional charge of the Circle Inspector of Vadakkekkara, conducted the investigation from 25.07.2016 onwards and theareafter, PW26, Circle Inspector of Vadakkekkara completed the investigation and filed the final report. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I North Paravur committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam as per the order in C.P No. 64/2016 and in the Sessions Court, the case was numbered as S.C. No. 394 of 2017 and made over to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam for trial.

4. When the accused was produced before the trial court, after hearing both sides, charge was framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and when the charge was read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 26 and marked Exhibits P1 to P21 and Mos 1 and 2 to prove the charge against the accused. Since it is found that the accused is not entitled for an acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was called upon to enter on his defence; but no evidence was adduced from the side of the accused .

5. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 12/10/2018, convicted the accused Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 :4: and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to pay the fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

6. Heard Sri. Ramesh P., the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor Smt. S. Ambika Devi, and perused the records.

7. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the accused is legally sustainable.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution is of a circumstantial nature and the prosecution has not succeeded in fully establishing the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn and that the material witnesses, who supported the prosecution are highly interested witnesses and their exaggerated testimonies cannot be relied upon as the basis for the conviction and the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. But the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the deceased is the wife of the accused and the material witnesses are the son, daughter, relatives and neighbours and there is no reason for them to falsely depose against the accused in a serious case of murder and that the prosecution has Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 :5: established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime and proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

9. PW1 is the son of the accused and the deceased and his evidence shows that during the time of occurrence, he lived in a rented house at Moothakunnam, along with the accused and the deceased. According to PW1, his elder sister and her husband are residing near their house. PW1 cannot remember the month, but he would say that the incident occurred at about 8.30 p.m., on 24 th, in the year 2016 and while he was returning to the house, he saw the accused coming out of the house and then the accused told him that he killed his mother by strangulating the neck and the accused in an angry mood told him to go and look. When he reached the house, he saw his mother lying near the door of the hall and even though he had shaken, his mother had not moved and hence he asked his friend to call an ambulance and thereafter he proceeded to the nearby Bharath hospital in search of an ambulance; but he could not find an ambulance and hence, he returned and by that time, one ambulance had reached there and thereafter his mother was taken to the Government Hospital, Paravur. Evidence of PW1 shows that the neighbours and the police came there and thereafter, he went to the Police Station and then he got information from the hospital that his mother is no more. PW1 identified his signature in Ext. P1 First Information Statement and according to PW1, Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 :6: even though the accused is a Carpenter, he never goes to work and the accused is a chronic drunkard, who used to quarrel with his mother by demanding money for purchasing liquor and the accused used to cruelly manhandle his mother and because of fear, his mother used to go to the neighbouring house and when PW1 returns after work, mother used to accompany him to the house. According to PW1, even though the brothers of his mother discussed the matter with the accused, there was no change in his behaviour. The evidence of PW1 shows that he saw marks of violence on the neck of his mother.

10. In cross examination, PW1 stated that while he was sitting with his friends near a shrine, he received a call from his mother asking him to purchase something for preparing a dish and it was then he returned to the house. The evidence of PW1 shows that his sister and brother in law are residing about 1 km away from his house and that the shrine is near to their house and his friend Shinoj was also with him at that time. The evidence of PW1 shows that he has not proceeded to the hospital in the ambulance and it was his friend and others who took his mother in the ambulance to the hospital. In another part of the cross examination, PW1 stated that he told the Magistate and the police that he saw his father coming out of the house.

11. PW2 is the daughter of the deceased and the accused and she deposed that her father and mother along with PW1 was residing in a Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 :7: rented house and that she was residing with her husband in another house and on 24.07.2016 at about 8.30 pm., she came to know about the incident from the sister of the accused and by that time, her mother was taken to the hospital and on the next day afternoon, the body was brought after postmortem. According to PW2, her father is a chronic drunkard, who used to assault her mother frequently and after plus two, the elder sister of her mother took the witness to their house. PW2 further deposed that the accused had sold their house and property for consuming liquor and he also sold the ornaments of her mother and even though the brothers of her mother warned the accused several times, he never changed his behaviour.

12. The evidence of PW2 shows that while she was residing with her parents, her father used to push her mother towards the wall and hit her on the abdomen. The evidence of PW2 in cross examination shows that her mother was not ready to file complaint against the accused and that she visited her mother two weeks before the occurrence and she further deposed in re- examination that on the date of occurrence, her mother was in her house till 6.30 pm., and that her mother is working as a housemaid in a house adjacent to her house and therefore, her mother used to visit her house every day to see her daughter. According to PW2, on that day, she told her mother to stay in her house because of the problems in the family house; but, her mother told her that if there Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 :8: occurs any problem, she will come back to her house. According to PW2, she told the police that her mother was in her house till 6.30 pm on the date of occurrence and she has nothing to say, if the police has not recorded the same.

13. PW3 is the father in law of PW2, who reached the place of occurrence on getting information about the incident. According to PW3, when he reached there, the mother of PW2 was lying motionless inside the house and she was taken to hospital in an ambulance and thereafter when he reached the Police Station, the accused was there. PW3 also deposed that the deceased was manhandled by the accused every day and he told her to file a case and his evidence shows that the deceased came to his house in the evening and left at about 6.30 pm. The evidence of PW3 further shows that the accused is a chronic drunkard. However, he admitted in cross examination that he never witnessed the accused assaulting the deceaesed.

14. PW4 is the brother of the deceased, and his evidence shows that he saw the dead body of the deceased at Paravur Government Hospital at the time of inquest and he saw the black signs of violence on the neck. PW4 identified the dress of the deceased as MO1 series and he identified the accused as the husband of the deceased. According to PW4, the accused is a chronic drunkard who used to assault his sister. In Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 :9: cross examination, PW4 admitted that he has not filed any complaint against the accused, as his sister has not agreed for the same on the belief that the accused will change his behaviour .

15. PW5, is a friend of PW1, who is residing near to the place of occurrence. According to PW5, the mother of PW1 died on 24.07.2016 and on that day, at about 8 pm., he proceeded towards the house of PW1 in search of PW1 and when he reached near that house, he heard the quarrel between the accused and his wife and hence, he returned. In cross examination, PW5 stated that they used to sit near a shrine after work and on the date of occurrence, while they were sitting there, PW1 received a phone call from his mother and therafter, PW1 left that place and he also accompanied PW1. PW5 categorically denied the suggestion that he has not heard any quarrel in the house of PW1 between the accused and the deceased.

16. PW21, ASI, was on night duty at Vadakkekara Police Station on 24.07.2016. According to PW21, on that day at about 8.45pm., the accused came to the Police Station and told him that he strangulated the neck of his wife and left her in the house. PW21 deposed that after ascertaining the name of the accused he informed the Sub Inspector and when questioned by the Sub Inspector also, the accused has given the very same statement and therefore, after detaining the accused in the Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 10 : Police Station, the Sub Inspector proceeded to the spot and after some time, the Sub Inspector informed him through phone that what is stated by the accused is true and that the wife of the accused is lying dead and thereafter, as per the direction of the Sub Inspector, police officers were deputed for guard duty.

17. PW24 was in charge of the Station House Officer of Vadakkekkara Police Station on 24.07.2016. and he deposed that at about 8.45 p.m. on that day, the accused surrendered in the Police Station by saying that he strangulated the neck of his wife and left her in the house and accordingly, he proceeded to the house of the accused along with the neighbours and they saw the victim lying motionless and accordingly they took the victim in an ambulance to the hospital. The evidence of PW24 shows that subsequently, the son of the accused came to the Police Station and he recorded Exhibit P1 statemet of PW1 and registered Exhibit P16 FIR .

18. PW23 was the doctor who issued Exhibit P15 intimation to the police after examining the victim on 24.07.2016 at 9.15 p.m. at Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, North Paravur and on finding that the victim is dead. In cross examination, PW23 stated that the victim was brought dead in the hospital.

Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 11 :

19. PW7 is the husband of PW6 and their evidence shows that the accused and his family were residing in their house as tenants and the rent deed is marked as Ext.P2.

20. PW8 is conducting a tea shop near Vadakekkara Police Station and according to PW8, the accused is known to him. PW8 deposed that on 24-07-2016 at about 8.30 p.m., he saw the accused proceeding to the Police Station through the way in front of his shop and only subsequently he came to know that the accused went to the Police Station after murdering his wife. According to PW8, usually, the accused will enter his shop to have tea and he also used to talk to him. But on the date of occurrence, the accused proceeded to the Police Station without saying anything to him.

21. PW9 is the elder sister of the deceased. According to PW9, the accused is in the habit of quarrelling with his wife after consuming liquor and he will not allow the children to study and therefore, she took the daughter of the accused to her house as per the request of the deceased and PW2 stayed in her house for three years.

22. PW10 deposed that the deceased worked as a house-maid in her house for about five years and the deceased used to reach her house at 7.30 a.m., and will return by 4.00 p.m. On the date of occurrence also, the deceased came to her house as usual. PW10 stated that the Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 12 : deceased used to tell her about the problems in her life and that the accused used to beat her after consuming liquor.

23. PW11 is a witness to Ext.P3 scene mahazar. PW12 is a witness to Ext.P4 inquest report. PW13 is a witness to Ext.P5 seizure mahazar. PW14 is the Magistrate, who recorded Ext.P6 statement of PW1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 18-10-2016. The Village Officer, who prepared Ext.P8 scene plan is examined as PW16. PW17 was the Secretary of Vadakekkara Grama Panchayat, who issued Ext.P9 ownership certificate of house bearing No.12/452 of Vadakekkara Grama Panchayat. The evidence of PW18, Civil Police Officer shows that he signed Exts.P10, P11 and P12 seizure mahazar as a witness and he identified his signature in the said seizure mahazars. The Scientific Assistant, who examined the scene of occurrence in this case on 25-07- 2016 is examined as PW19 and his evidence shows that he collected three items for examination and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer and a report filed by him in this regard is marked as Ext.P13.

24. PW22 was the Doctor at Government Taluk Hospital, North Paravur, who collected the nail clippings of the accused and handed over the same to the police.

25. PW15 was the Police Surgeon, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased on 25-07-2016 and issued Ext.P7 Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 13 : certificate. The evidence of PW15 and Ext.P7 shows that the following anti-mortem injuries are noted :

"1. On reflection of scalp, contusion of size 3cm x 4cm over right temporaris muscle and adjoining scalp. Contusion 2cm x 2cm at the scalp adjoining the occiput. Brain showed diffuse subarachnoid bleed and oedema.

2. Superficial laceration 0.2cm x 0.2cm at the inner aspect of lower lip, left sided, corresponding to lower lateral incisor.

3. Abraded contusion, vertical, 0.5cm x 0.2cm at the middle 1/3rd of left jaw bone.

4. Multimple linear scratches on right side of neck of varying length (0.5cm to 3.5cm); 4 in number.

5. Multiple linear scratches at midline of neck, 0.2cm x 0.1cm; 5 in number.

6. Mulitiple linear scratches at left side of neck, varying sizes (0.2cm x 0.2cm x 1.5cm x 1.5cm); 8 in number.

Flap dissection of the neck was done under boodless field. All midline and bony structures were normal and devoid of injuries.

7. Linear abrasion, obliquely placed, just below and to the right of right knee."

The opinion of PW15 as to the cause of death is that the victim died due to severe head injury involving the brain. According to PW15, the injury Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 14 : Nos.3 to 6 can be caused if forcibly pressed on the neck and injury No.1 is possible, if the head is forced to hit on a wall by pressing on the neck. The witness also stated that injury No.1 is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

26. In cross-examination, PW15 stated that the age of the injuries is not mentioned in Ext.P7 and according to PW15, if the age of the injuries is not mentioned in the report, it is to be presumed that it is a fresh injury. PW15 denied the suggestion that the death of the victim was not due to a traumatic head injury.

27. PW25 was the Circle Inspector of North Paravur, who conducted the investigation in this case from 25-07-2016 onwards while he was in additional charge of the Circle Inspector of Vadakekkara. According to PW25, he prepared Ext.P4 inquest report and also Ext.P3 scene mahazar. PW25 identified MO1 series dress of the deceased recovered at the time of inquest and his evidence shows that he arrested the accused on 25-07-2016. PW25 also collected the nail clippings of the accused as per Ext.P5 mahazar and the dress worn by the accused as per Ext.P12 mahazar, Ext.P18 is a report filed by PW25 regarding the correct name and address of the accused. PW25 also collected the nail clippings and blood samples of the deceased produced by PW15 by preparing Ext.P11 mahazar. The evidence of PW25 shows that he prepared the forwarding note for chemical examination of the samples Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 15 : and the copy of the forwarding note is marked as Ext.P19. In cross- examination, PW25 deposed that at the time of preparing Ext.P3 scene mahazar, the Fingerprint Expert was present, but they were not able to collect any fingerprints from the place of occurrence. In another part of the cross examination, PW25 admitted that no foreign body was detected in item Nos. 2 to 6 and that blood was also not detected in item Nos. 2 and 4 to 9 as per Ext.P20 report from the Forensic Science Laboratory.

28. PW25 admitted in cross-examination that PW1 had not stated to him that he saw his father coming out of the house. However, PW25 would say that the witness had told him that he saw his father coming through the way in hurry while the witness was proceeding to the house. PW26 was the Circle Inspector of Vadakekkara Police Station, who completed the investigation and filed the final report.

29. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that even though the dress and nail clippings of the accused were sent for scientific examination along with the materials collected from the scene of occurrence, the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory marked as Exhibit P21 would show that there is no scientific evidence to connect the accused with the alleged occurrence and that it is clear from Exhibit P21 report that blood is not detected on items 2 and 4 to 9 and that no foreign materials detected on item Nos. 2 and 6. The learned counsel Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 16 : for the appellant argued that the prosecution has not adduced satisfactory evidence to prove that the death of the wife of the accused is a homicide.

30. In State of Andra Pradesh v. Rayavarpu Punnayya {AIR 1977 SC 45} it was held as follows:-

"When the Court is confronted with the question whether the offence is "murder" or "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", the problem is to be approached in three stages. The question to be considered at first stage is whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another person. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death leads to the 2nd stage for consideration whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable homicide" as defined in section 299. If the answer of this question is prima facie found in the affirmative the stage is reached for considering the operation of section 300, I.P.C. This is the stage at which the Court should determine whether the acts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of "murder" contained in section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under the first or the 2 nd part of section 304, depending respectively on whether the 2 nd or the 3rd clause of section 299 is applicable. If the question is found to be positive, but comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in section 300, the offence would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under the first part of section 304. But sometimes the facts are so intertwined and the 2nd and 3rd stages are so telescoped into each other that it may not be convenient to give a separate treatment to the matters involved in the 2 nd and the 3rd stages."

31. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that PW15, District Police Surgeon, who conducted the postmortem on the body of the Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 17 : deceased has categorically denied the suggestion of the defence that the death was not due to traumatic head injury and the doctor has recorded his specific opinion in Exhibit P4 that the death was due to severe head injury involving the brain.

32. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that considering the nature of the injuries, the injured could have been saved, if she was immediately taken to the hospital. But the evidence of PW15 clearly shows that injury no. 1 is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

33. It is well settled that even when the life of the victim could have been saved by giving proper treatment, the case would attract clause thirdly to Section 300 of I.P.C., if the medical evidence clearly indicates that the injuries sustained by the deceased was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

34. The 2nd part of Section 299 I.P.C. shows that if death is caused by doing an act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the offence of culpable homicide is committed. The 3rd clause of Section 300 I.P.C. shows that if the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the offence is murder.

Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 18 :

35. The intention to cause death is not an essential requirement of Part-II of Section 299 I.P.C. and only the intention of causing bodily injury coupled with the offenders knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of a particular victim is sufficient.

36. The distinction between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is one of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. Clause thirdly of Section 300 I.P.C. mean that death will be the most probable result of the injury having regard to the ordinary course of nature and a mere possibility is not sufficient as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andra Pradesh v. Rayavarpu Punnayya [AIR 1977 SC 45].

37. PW15 has specifically stated that injury No.1 noted in Exhibit P7 postmortem certificate is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. We find that the medical evidence in this case fully corroborates the prosecution case that the death was due to severe head injury sustained by the deceased and the said injury can be caused, if the head is forcibly caused to hit on the wall by holding on the neck, and in the absence of any other evidence to prove any other possibility of the death of the deceased, we find that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that it is a homicide.

Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 19 :

38. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there are serious omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of PW1 before the court and that PW25 has admitted in cross examination that PW1 has not stated to him that he saw his father coming out of the house and according to PW25, PW1 only told him that while he was proceeding through the way towards the house, he saw his father coming from the opposite side. It is also pointed out that the evidence of PW25 in cross examination would show that PW10 has not stated to the police that the deceased came to her house for work on the date of occurrence.

39. It is well settled that normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observations and normal errors of memory due to lapse of time and such discrepancies and errors will always be there, however honest and truthful a witness may be. It cannot be disputed that material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person.

40. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. M.K. Anthony [AIR 1983 SC 48], the Honourable Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 20 : ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. It is well settled that when material witness is examined at length it is possible for him to make some discrepancies and no true witness can possibly escape from making some discrepant details.

41. It is pertinent to note that the material witnesses, who supported the prosecution case are the son, daughter, relatives and neighbours of the accused and the previous and subsequent conduct of the accused are clearly disclosed in their evidence. Even though, PWs 1 to 4 were seriously cross examined, nothing material was brought out to discredit their evidence in chief examination regarding the occurrence and the fact that the accused was in the habit of quarreling with his wife after consuming liquor and that he used to manhandle her by demanding money for purchasing liquor.

42. The evidence of PW5, who is a neighbour and friend of PW1, clearly shows that prior to the occurrence at about 8 p.m., he heard the quarrel between the accused and his wife, when he reached near their house in search of PW1. The fact that the sound of accused and his wife are familiar to PW5, is not seriously challenged in cross examination.

43. The evidence of PW8, who is conducting a tea shop near Vadakkekara Police Station shows that he saw the accused proceeding to the Police Station immediately after the occurrence and PW8 also Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 21 : deposed regarding the unusual conduct of the accused in not entering his shop and not talking to him at that time. Further, it is clearly deposed by PW8 that usually the accused will enter his shop to have a tea and he also used to talk to him while passing through that way. But, on the date of occurrence, the accused proceeded to the Police Station without entering his shop or talking to him.

44. It is well settled that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, may not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. Further, irrelevant details which do not, in any way, corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions. Even if there is some difference in some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of the prosecution case, the same cannot be accepted as a ground to reject otherwise reliable evidence by giving undue importance to minor omissions and exaggerations which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness.

45. Therefore, we find that the discrepancies, omissions and exaggerations highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant will not, in any way, corrode the credibility of the said witnesses. It is pertinent to note that there is nothing in evidence to indicate any enmity Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 22 : or serious grudge for PWs 1 to 10 to falsely depose against the accused in a serious case of murder. When the accused is examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he only denied the incriminating evidence against him and has not given any explanation as to how his wife sustained the injuries which caused her death .

46. The accused has also no case that he was not there in the house at the time of occurrence. It is well settled that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him and considering the fact that the deceased is the wife of the accused and she sustained the injuries while she was in her house along with the accused, we find that the accused has failed to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

47. In Zahira Habibullah H. Sheikh V. State Of Gujarat 2004 (4) SCC 158, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:

"A criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues in the case and its purpose is to arrive at a judgment on an issue as a fact or relevant facts which may lead to the discovery of the fact issue and obtain proof of such facts at which the prosecution and the accused have arrived by their pleadings; the controlling question being the guilt or innocence of the accused. Since the object is to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities, and must be conducted under such rules as will protect the innocent, and punish the guilty. The proof of charge which has Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 23 : to be beyond reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality of the evidence, oral and circumstantial, and not by an isolated scrutiny."

48. In this case, the prosecution is also relying on the extra judicial confession made by the accused to his son immediately after the occurrence. The evidence of PW1 shows that at about 8.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence while he was returning to the house, the accused was coming out of the house and on seeing the witness, the accused told him that he had killed his mother by strangulating the neck and the accused also told him in an angry mood to go and look. In this connection, the subsequent conduct of the accused as deposed by PW8, who saw the accused passing through the way in front of his tea shop and the subsequent surrender of the accused in the Police Station are also relevant. It is true that an extra judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. But, in this case, it is in evidence that the accused made the extra judicial confession to his son while the accused was coming out of the house immediately after the occurrence and when he suddenly saw his son coming to the house and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, we find that the evidence of PW1 regarding the extra judicial confession of his father is voluntary, truthful and reliable.

Crl. Appeal No. 770/2019 : 24 :

49. Therefore, on a careful reappreciation of the entire evidence, we find that the trial court was right in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and in view of the fact that the court below has awarded the minimum sentence of imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of imprisonment for six months, we find no reason to interfere with the sentence imposed on the accused by the trial court.

In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction entered and the sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C No. 394 of 2017. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

sd/-

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

sd/-

JOHNSON JOHN, JUDGE.

Rv/amk

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court