Kerala High Court
Koshy Varghese @ Babu vs State Of Kerala on 6 September, 2010
Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose, P.S.Gopinathan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 31 of 2007()
1. KOSHY VARGHESE @ BABU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE &
P. S. GOPINATHAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of September, 2010
JUDGMENT
Gopinathan, J The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III), Palakkad for uxoricide and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC. Assailing the above conviction and sentence, this appeal was preferred.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the appellant married Thankamma Varghese. Matrimony was blessed with two sons and one daughter. Despite that, there arose disharmony in matrimony and as a result they had been residing separate since 1987. While so, two of the sons Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007 -2- were got married by the deceased Thankamma Varghese even without informing the appellant. There was proposal for giving the daughter in marriage to a person belonging to another religion. According to the prosecution, the appellant was antagonised by this. However, it is revealed that by the course of time the rigour of the disharmony was diluted and deceased Thankamma Varghese used to visit the appellant. On 19/10/02, deceased Thankamma Varghese went to the house where the appellant was residing as a tenant under PW4 and lived together for two days. On 21/10/02 the appellant who is a Jeep Driver along with the deceased proceeded from the house witnessed by PW4 and his wife PW5. Thereafter, at 12.30 p.m., the appellant reported before PW1, the Additional Sub Inspector Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007 -3- of Police Mannarkkad Police Station along with MO2 Plastic Cover containing MO1 knife alleged to be blood stained and MOs.3 to 5 clothings and stated before PW1 that the appellant committed murder of his wife Thankamma Varghese at 11.15 a.m. and that the murder was committed with MO1 knife and that the dress contained in MO2 Plastic Cover were the dresses that the appellant were wearing at the time of the occurrence. On the basis of the statement given by the appellant a case was registered as Crime No.460/02 of Mannarkkad Police Station for offence under Section 302 IPC. Express message was conveyed to the Circle Inspector of Police who took over the investigation. The Circle Inspector of Police went to the spot of occurrence and prepared Ext.P14 inquest report and the dead body was sent for Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007 -4- postmortem examination which was conducted by PW10. The Circle Inspector proceeded with the investigation. While so, he was transferred and PW29, another Circle Inspector took over the investigation who after completing the investigation laid the charge sheet alleging offence under Section 302 IPC before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mannarkkad. The learned Magistrate on finding that the offence alleged was triable by a court of sessions, after completing the requisite procedures committed the case to the court of Sessions, Palakkad. From there, it was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-III).
3. After hearing the prosecution and the appellant, on finding that there are materials to send the appellant for trial for the offence alleged, Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007 -5- a charge for offence under Section 302 IPC was framed. When read over and explained, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Hence, he was sent for trial. On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 29 were examined and Exts.P1 to P21 were marked. In the judgment impugned, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was marked as Ext.P22. During the course of cross examination of PW6 Ext.D1 was marked. On the side of the prosecution, material objects, MO1 to MO8 were also marked. After closing the evidence for the prosecution, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied the incriminating evidence. No defence evidence was let in. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on appraisal of the evidence arrived at a conclusion Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007 -6- of guilt. Consequently, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as above, assailing which this appeal was filed. We heard Sri.K.Abdul Jawad, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.S.U.Nazar, the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. There is no direct evidence to implicate the appellant with the offence alleged. The prosecution would rely on the circumstantial evidence to implicate the appellant. One of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is the fact that the appellant reported before PW1 along with MO1 knife said to have been stained with blood. The evidence on record would show that all the material objects including the dress worn by the appellant at the time of occurrence were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and obtained Ext.P22 report. Ext.P22 report was Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007 -7- signed by the Scientific Assistant of the Forensic Science Laboratory. One of the arguments that was advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that Ext.P22 was marked ignoring the objections raised by the defence counsel that the document should not be marked without examining the scientific expert. According to the learned counsel, the scientific expert who had signed Ext.P22 is not an expert mentioned under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and so without examining the scientific expert who issued the same, the document should not have been marked. For better appreciation, we find that a reading of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be relevant:- Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007 -8-
S.293 - Reports of certain Government Scientific Experts - (1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject- matter of his report.
(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf.
(4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:-
(a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;
(b) the Chief Controller of Explosives;
(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;
(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;
(e) the Director [Deputy Director or Assistant Director] of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;
(f) the Serologist to the Government.
(g) any other Government Scientific Expert specified by notification by the Central Government for this purpose.
5. Going by Section 293, we find that Scientific Assistant would not come within the Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007 -9- category of officers mentioned in Section 293(4). We find merit in the argument.
6. It was further argued that the evidence was closed without marking Ext.P22 and no question was put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C regarding Ext.P22 report. According to the learned counsel, thus the appellant was denied the opportunity to explain Ext.P22. It was further argued that for that reason, the trial is vitiated. It is the further argument that Ext.P22 is inadmissible in evidence as it was not marked through the scientific expert and hence, one of the chain in the circumstances connecting the appellant with the crime is broken and the conviction is not sustainable.
7. We have gone through the order sheet of the trial court and notice that the Investigating Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007 -10- Officer who was examined as PW29 had only deposed that he had forwarded the material object to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion. Ext.P22 report obtained from the Laboratory was not seen put to PW29 and not marked. As argued by the learned counsel, without any mention regarding the marking of the document Ext.P22 is appended along with the judgment. We also notice that Ext.P22 was not put to the appellant while he was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So the argument that the appellant was denied opportunity to explain Ext.P22 prima facie appears to be correct. Going by the impugned judgment, we notice that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had mentioned that the presence of blood stain in MO1 knife is also a Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007 -11- circumstance against the appellant and that to arrive at a conclusion that MO1 contained blood stains, he had given reliance to Ext.P22 report. In paragraph 29 of the judgment, it is mentioned that Ext.P22 was marked as it is a document coming under 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the reason we stated in pre-para, Ext.P22 would not come within the purview of 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the above circumstances, we find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge went wrong in marking Ext.P22 without examining the scientific expert who issued the same. The result is that opportunity was denied to the appellant to assail Ext.P22. According to the learned Public Prosecutor even if the expert was examined, nothing would be revealed to support the defence and the appellant Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007 -12- would not have anything to explain about Ext.P22 and even if Ext.P22 is ignored, there is chain of circumstances against the appellant to sustain conviction. That is entirely a different aspect. We feel, in the interest of justice it is just and appropriate to give an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine the maker of Ext.P22 and explain Ext.P22. It is not in the best interest of justice to deny opportunity to the appellant. If any material is disclosed in favour of the appellant, by cross examining the expert, the appellant is entitled to avail that benefit. So we find that it would be just and appropriate to give an opportunity to the appellant to assail Ext.P22 and for that purpose, we cannot avoid a remand for the limited purpose of examining the scientific expert who issued Ext.P22 and to allow the Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007 -13- appellant to cross examine the scientific expert and also for putting Ext.P22 to the appellant during the questioning under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Unless it is so done there is every likelihood of causing prejudice to the appellant. In the above circumstances, we do not propose to go into the merits of the other evidence on record at this stage.
8. For the reasons stated above, we set aside the conviction and sentence under challenge and the matter is remanded back to the trial court for examining the scientific expert who issued Ext.P22 and providing an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine him and also to explain Ext.P22 during questioning under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. We clarify that the remand is only for the above purpose. It goes without saying that the Crl. Appeal No.31 of 2007 -14- appellant would be entitled to an opportunity to adduce defence evidence if he so proposes. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant sought for an order to release the appellant on bail. The appellant is at liberty to move the trial court and to get appropriate orders. The case being an old one, we are sure that the trial court shall give top priority.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE P. S. GOPINATHAN JUDGE kns/-