Kerala High Court
Kunjiraman vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2012
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/17TH ASWINA, 1939
CRL.A.No. 1258 of 2012 (B)
---------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 30/2011 of ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS
COURT, VADAKARA DATED 17/03/2012
APPELLANT(S):
------------
KUNJIRAMAN, C.NO.385
S/O. APPUKUTTY, KATTILATH HOUSE,
MOONNAMKAL, KAVILUMPARA (PO)
KAVILAMPARA (PS),KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. K.P.SHANTHI(STATE BRIEF)
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY ADV. SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SPL.GP
ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN & CHILDREN;
WELFARE OF W & C
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
27/09/2017, THE COURT ON 09-10-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J
&
P.SOMARAJAN, J
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Crl.Appeal.No.1258 of 2012
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of October 2017
J U D G M E N T
Shaffique, J The accused in Sessions Case No.30/2011 of the Additional District & Sessions Court, Vadakara is the appellant. He challenges the judgment dated 17/03/2012 by which he was found guilty for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.). He is convicted to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of which to undergo imprisonment for six months.
2. The Station House Officer, Ottappalam police station registered Crime No.59/2010 on the basis of a statement given by PW1. Ext.P1 is the First Information Statement and Ext.P19 is the First Information Report.
3. The prosecution case is that on 16/10/2010, at 12.15 p.m., the accused committed murder of his wife, Baby, in the courtyard of the house by cutting her neck with a chopper. The accused was arrested on the same day. Investigation was Crl.A.No.1258/2012 2 completed by PW15, Circle Inspector of Police and final report was filed before Court by PW16, Circle Inspector of Police.
4. The Court framed charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. Accused pleaded that he was not guilty of the charges levelled against him.
5. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 17 and placed reliance upon Exts.P1 to P19. The material objects were marked as MO1 to MO5.
6. The Sessions Court found the accused guilty on the basis of the deposition of the eye witness PW1 and other materials which were placed on record.
7. The accused had preferred this appeal from prison. Since no counsel was appearing on behalf of the accused, the case was entrusted as a State Brief to Adv.K.P.Santi who argued the appeal on behalf of the accused.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.
9. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the evidence of PW1. PW1 is a coconut climber. He was engaged for plucking coconuts from the garden of the accused. He deposed Crl.A.No.1258/2012 3 that he knew the accused and he used to go to his property for plucking coconuts. On the fateful day he had gone to the house of the accused. There were five coconut trees in the property. After finishing plucking coconuts from the said five trees, he sat on the veranda of the house of the accused. He asked for water and the deceased went into the house for fetching water. At that time, the accused took PW1's chopper and was cutting the coconuts from its bunch. The deceased brought water and requested the accused to give her half of the coconuts to purchase rice. She was near a water tap in the courtyard. The accused in anger replied that he would give the whole coconuts and saying so, he inflicted a cut at the neck of the deceased with the chopper. Her neck immediately hung down and she fell near the water tap and blood shot out of the neck and spilled over her cloths. The accused kept the chopper on the stem of a cut coconut tree and ran away. He further deposed that he cried aloud calling the neighbouring people. Only women came up. He ran to the bazar and informed the incident to one Hameed, Kuruppettan and others and asked them to come to save her. The accused boarded a jeep at the bazar to go to the police station. Crl.A.No.1258/2012 4 The people in the locality restrained the accused. Thereafter, one Rajesh, Priyesh, Umesh and certain others brought a jeep and took the deceased to the hospital. PW1 went to the police station in an autorickshaw and even before leaving to the police station he got information that she died. The incident was about 12.15 noon. Police recorded his statement which is identified as Ext.P1. According to him, the accused had some enmity since the deceased asked for half of the coconuts. He also identified the chopper MO1 and the shirt and lungi, Mos 2 and 3 worn by the accused and MOs 4 and 5 blouse and lungi, which the deceased was wearing at the time of incident. Though PW1 was cross examined at length, there was nothing to indicate that he was deposing a false story.
10. PW2 is the neighbour who had taken the deceased to the hospital. He had stated that he had given evidence stating that hearing a hue and cry from the house of the accused, he along with few others went to the house of the accused and brought the victim to the road, stopped a jeep and she was taken to the hospital. Doctors who treated the deceased declared her to be dead.
Crl.A.No.1258/2012 5
11. PW3 is the daughter of the accused and deceased. She deposed that her father had left the family while she was four years of age and he deserted them. Thereafter it was the mother who had taken care of the family. However, at the time of her marriage in the year 2004, the people in the locality got back him to perform certain rituals in connection with the marriage ceremony that prevailed upon in the community. After participating in the marriage, he left. However, he used to come to the house occasionally and used to treat her mother cruelly. Three months before the incident, the accused started residing in the house permanently as he fell ill and the people in the locality advised him to remain in the house. The house and the property was in the name of the accused. He wanted to sell the property, but her mother did not agree to the same. She had come to know about the incident on 16/02/2010. She went to the hospital, but on the way she was told that her mother was taken to the Medical College hospital kozhikode and on that night, she came to know that her mother was no more.
12. PW4 is an attestor to the inquest report. Ext.P2 is the inquest report. PW5 is a person who knew the accused and his Crl.A.No.1258/2012 6 wife. He is a witness to the seizure mahazar prepared by the police which is marked as Ext.A3. He also identified the material objects. PW6 is a witness to the scene mahazer. He had attested Ext.P4. PW7 is the Doctor who had conducted post mortem. Ext.P5 is the post mortem certificate. Three ante-mortem injuries noted were as under:
"B. Injuries (Ante-Mortem)
1. Incised wound on the left side of neck 10 x 2 cm oblique, the lower front end 5 cm below angle of mouth. The front end was sharp cut and the back end was blunt with contusion. The back half was deep cutting the carotids just above its bifurcation and reached up to the vertebral column cutting the inter vertebral disc between 3 and 4. The muscles including the clavicular head of sternocleidomastoid and other vessels and nerves in between were also found cut. There was blood infiltration over an area 4 x 3 cm on the outer aspect of (left side) thyroid cartilage. The front half was tissue deep.
2. Contusion 2 x 1 cm right frontal eminence scalp underneath also showed contusion.
3. Abraded contusion 3 x 2 cm inner aspect of upper part of right leg & adjoining knee, tissue deep."
Crl.A.No.1258/2012 7
13. PW7 deposed that death was caused with a weapon like MO1 and as per his opinion, death was due to the cut injury to the left side of the neck. PW8 is the Secretary of the concerned Panchayat who had issued the ownership certificate of the building NO.K.P.VIII/444 which he had identified as Ext.P6. PW9 is a Constable who is a witness to the Circle Inspector of Police taking material objects, blood stained soil etc. from the place of incident. PW10 is a photographer who had taken photographs of the dead body. Exts.P7 series are the photographs and Exts.P8 series are the negatives. PW11 is also a photographer, who had taken photographs of the place of incident, Ext.P9. The compact disc of Ext.P9 was produced as Ext.P10. PW12 had deposed that he had seen PW11 handing over the photographs and compact disc to the police. He is an attestor to Ext.P11 seizure mahazar. PW13 is the Village Officer who had issued possession certificate Ext.P12 with reference to the property in Re.Sy.No.122 which is in the possession of one Kunjiraman. PW14 is the Village Assistant who had prepared a sketch plan Ext.P13 in relation to the scene of occurrence. PW15 is the Circle Inspector of Police who had conducted investigation of the crime. He deposed that he had Crl.A.No.1258/2012 8 arrested the accused on 17/02/2010 at 8.30 a.m. The accused until such time was in the police station under observation. Ext.P14 is the arrest memo. He deposed in regard to the entire investigation done in the matter. PW16 is the Circle Inspector of Police who had taken up investigation from PW15. He completed the investigation and submitted the charge sheet before the Court. PW17 is the Sub Inspector of Police who had taken the statement from PW1 and prepared Ext.P1. He registered the crime which is marked at Ext.P19.
14. Perusal of the evidence would show that the deceased suffered serious injuries on her neck, which is the cause of death. The Doctor PW7 had clearly stated that the death of the deceased was due to injury No.1 and it was caused by MO1 chopper.
15. PW1 is an eye witness. There is nothing to discredit his evidence. PW3, the daughter of the accused, has clearly stated about the fact of desertion and that thereafter the accused was residing in their house. She also deposed to the effect that the property in which they were residing belonged to the accused and he wanted to sell the same, but the deceased/her mother was not permitting it to be sold.
Crl.A.No.1258/2012 9
16. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to emphasize the point that there was no motive for the accused to commit such a murder. In an instance where eye witness had seen the incident and his evidence cannot be shaken, motive is not at all a factor which is required to be proved by the police. In Saddik v. State of Gujarat, [(2016) 10 SCC 663] the Apex Court held as under:
It is settled legal position that even if the absence of motive, as alleged, is accepted, that is of no consequence and pales into insignificance when direct evidence establishes the crime. Therefore, in case there is direct trustworthy evidence of witnesses as to commission of an offence, the motive part loses its significance. Therefore, if the genesis of the motive of the occurrence is not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to the occurrence cannot be discarded only on the ground of absence of motive, if otherwise the evidence is worthy of reliance. (See Hari Shanker v. State of U.P.(1996) 9 SCC 40); Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar (2003) 12 SCC 616); Abu Thakir v. State of T.N.(2010) 5 SCC 91); State of U.P. v. Kishanpal [(2008) 16 SCC 73] and Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of W.B.(2010) Crl.A.No.1258/2012 10 12 SCC 91))
17. Even otherwise, PW3's evidence would show that there was conflict between the couple. His unwillingness to give half of the coconuts that were plucked, for purchasing rice, itself would show that the relationship between them was not cordial.
18. All the other witnesses had supported the factum of the crime at the relevant time. The accused was even apprehended by the people in the locality and he was taken to the police station. In 313 Cr.P.C examination, the accused had no specific contention. He only denied the incriminating evidence against him. There is no lacuna in the investigation conducted by PWs 15 and 16.
19. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances in the matter, the evidence of PW1 is unimpeachable and he had clearly spoken to the manner in which the crime had been committed and nothing has been brought out in the cross examination to discredit the said evidence. Coupled with the conduct of the accused which had been spoken to by the other witnesses, the evidence clearly points out to the guilt of the accused. We are of the view that the Court below had correctly Crl.A.No.1258/2012 11 appreciated the evidence in the case and had arrived at a finding. No grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment. Therefore, we are of the view that the Court below was justified in convicting the accused in the light of the nature of crime he had committed. Having regard to the nature of crime and manner of commission of offence, the sentence awarded by the Court below is proper.
There is no merit in the above appeal and therefore the same is dismissed.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) (sd/-) (P.SOMARAJAN, JUDGE) jsr True Copy P.S to Judge