Kerala High Court
Reghu vs State Of Kerala on 25 October, 2018
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
THURSDAY,THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018/3RD KARTHIKA, 1940
CRL.A.No.794 of 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC NO.1766/2011 of II
ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM, DATED 13-02-2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP NO.84/2011 of J.M.F.C.-
II,KOTTARAKKARA
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
REGHU,C.NO.7779,
CENTRAL PRISON,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. M.M.DEEPA (STATE BRIEF)
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
OTHER PRESENT:
SPL PP(WOMEN AND CHILDREN SMT.S.AMBIKADEVI
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.09.2018, THE COURT ON 25.10.2018 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. Appeal No.794 of 2013
:: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
Somarajan, J.
The accused came up with this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in S.C.No.1766 of 2011, dated 13.2.2013, of Additional Sessions Court No.II, Kollam.
2. The victim is one Sobhana @ Usha, the wife of accused. The alleged incident happened while they were residing along with their children in their dwelling house. PW2 and PW6 are the star witnesses examined by the prosecution, who are none else the two daughters of the accused, aged 17 and 15 at the time of examination. They had Crl. Appeal No.794 of 2013 :: 3 ::
given a vivid picture as to what actually happened in their house on the ill fated day. According to PW2, on the alleged day of incident, her mother who was a cashew worker came back to her house from the cashew factory by 6.30 p.m. The accused who was very much there in the house, questioned the victim and picked up quarrel on the reason that she came back to the house from the cashew factory only by 6.30 p.m. She was manhandled and beaten up. He slapped on her cheek. The quarrel and the attack continued upto 10 p.m. on that night. PW2, who was a minor girl, along with her younger minor siblings remained in the house, frightened by the quarrel between her parents. By 10'o clock, the accused made a declaration that he would kill her mother. Her mother retaliated asking him to do it now itself. Furiated by the said answer, he took an axe from the kitchen and attempted to hit on her which was resisted by the victim and caught hold on the axe. The accused Crl. Appeal No.794 of 2013 :: 4 ::
thereon took an iron plate kept in the house lying behind the bed and inflicted two blows on her head and thereby she fell down. Seeing it, PW2 and her siblings cried aloud. By that time, the accused ran away from the house through the kitchen with the iron plate. He was wearing only a dothi (kaily) at that time. They had seen the incident from the electric light. The motive behind the crime is also deposed by PW2. The accused doubted the chastity of her mother and used to pick up quarrel. Further, it was also spoken by her that on one night the accused attempted to sexually assault her by lying down over her body. She cried aloud and resisted. It was noticed by her mother and prevented him from further sexual attack. It was also came to the notice of the Panchayat Member and the neighbours. She had also spoken about the sexual lust of her father who used to bring bad cassettes and VCD to his house.
It was his usual practice to play the same in Crl. Appeal No.794 of 2013 :: 5 ::
front of PW2 and her mother. The objection raised by her mother fell in deaf ears. The alleged incident had happened in the middle room. It could be possible for her and her siblings to see what is going on in the middle room by sitting in their room. MO1 iron plate used for inflicting blows on the victim was also identified by her besides MO2 axe taken by the accused to attack the victim. No material contradiction or omission was brought out during her cross examination. The fact that she was aged only 15 at the time of incident and only 17 at the time of examination is so relevant as she is a rustic witness came from a hamlet. Nothing was brought out to shake the credibility of the oral evidence tendered by her.
3. PW6 is the younger daughter of both the victim and accused. She was aged 15 years at the time of examination and would be 13 years as on the date of commission of offence. She had given Crl. Appeal No.794 of 2013 :: 6 ::
sufficient corroboration to the oral evidence tendered by PW2. On one occasion the accused pressed on her chest and lower abdomen. According to her, her father attempted to sexually assault her on several occasions. She had also deposed in tune with what is spoken by PW2 regarding the genesis of the alleged incident and the manner in which injuries were inflicted on the victim.
4. PW7 is the minor son of accused and the victim who was aged only 16 years on the date of examination and would be 14 years on the date of alleged incident. He had also given the very same version as spoken by PW2 and PW6. Nothing was brought out to discredit the oral evidence of PW2, PW6 and PW7, the occurrence witnesses. They are in full agreement with the manner in which the alleged incident had happened.
5. The medical evidence adduced through PW15 Crl. Appeal No.794 of 2013 :: 7 ::
also supports and gives corroboration to the ocular testimony of PW2. The Doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased had noted the following antemortem injuries.
"(i) Lacerated wound 7x0.6 cm, bone deep sagittal, on the left side of head, the front end 8 cm above eyebrow and 5.3 cm outer to midline.
(ii) Lacerated wound 4.5x2.2 cm with a skin tag of 3x0.7 cm in between margins obliquely placed on the left side of head, the upper inner end 1.5 cm outer to midline and 5 cm below occipit.
(iii) Contusion 9.5x2.5x0.5 cm, on the left side of back of head extending outwards from the back of head to root of ear.
(iv) Contusion 2.5x1.5x0.5 cm, on the right side of head 2.5 cm outer to midline and 5 cm above eyebrow.
Occipital bone and adjoining
temporal bone just above mastoid
process on the right side showed
fracture fragmentation over an area of 3x2 cm extending to petrous part and Crl. Appeal No.794 of 2013 :: 8 ::
extending upwards as fissured fracture for a length of 4.7 cm on the left side 3.5 cm outer to midline.
Fracture of cribriform plate of
ethmoid extending to sphenoid and
pituitary fossa. Brain showed
bilateral subdural and subarachnoid
bleeding. Multiple small contusions
were seen on the under aspect of
frontal lobe and 5.5x3x0.5 cm, 2 cm behind the tip. Clotted blood present in the ventricle. Sulci of brain narrowed and gyri flattened.
(v) Contusion 1.5x0.5x5 cm, along the right margin of tongue 2.5 cm above the tip.
(vi) Contusion 2.5x1.4x0.8 cm , along the left greater horn of hyoid bone.
(vii) Contusion 3x2x2 cm, across the front of chest, 6 cm below the top of breast bone.
(viii)Contusion 1.5x1.5x0.3 cm, on the inner aspect of right arm, 13 cm above elbow."
6. The cause of death is stated to be due to Crl. Appeal No.794 of 2013 :: 9 ::
the head injuries. Ext.P15 is the postmortem examination report. PW15 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. She had also ruled out all other possibilities for causing injury Nos.2 and 3 which are fatal either by a fall from a cot or while standing or from a fall backward. The position of injury also detailed by her ruling out all these possibilities. She has also detailed the cause of each and every injury sustained noted as antemortem injuries. It could be possible to produce injury Nos.1 and 4 besides injury No.2 and 3 by hitting with MO1.
7. The weapon used for inflicting injury, a heavy metal piece used as shock absorber in motor vehicles, would itself show the intention on the part of accused to inflict injury of such a nature so as to cause her death. There are two independent blows causing antemortem injuries 2 Crl. Appeal No.794 of 2013 :: 10 ::
and 3, which, according to the Doctor, are possible by the impact of MO1 iron plate. These injuries are so fatal, sufficient to cause death in its ordinary course. The injuries sustained, the number of blows and the weapon used would sufficiently bring the matter within the sweep of S.300 IPC as there was an intentional killing with full knowledge and none of the exceptions to S.300 IPC is brought out. Hence the finding of guilt of accused under S.302 IPC and the conviction thereunder deserves no interference by this Court. The sentence awarded being the lesser one also deserves no interference.
Appeal fails. Hence dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE ahz/ Crl. Appeal No.794 of 2013 :: 11 ::