Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sunil vs State Of Kerala on 3 November, 2015
Bench: Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, S.A. Bobde
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.604 OF 2009
SUNIL APPELLANT (S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. RESPONDENT (S)
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave is directed against the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 7.12.2007 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2120 of 2004 in and by which the Division Bench confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
According to the prosecution, on 27.8.1999 at about 7.30 P.M. at dam site in Aruvikkara in the open ground where the Onam Celebrations was taking place in a part of which a drama was Signature Not Verified also staged, the appellant assaulted the Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2015.11.07 11:32:06 IST deceased/Samkutty in the presence of PWs.2, 3 Reason: and 4 with M.O.1/knife and that because of the 1 grievous injuries sustained by the deceased on his chest, the deceased died on the same day. PW.1, father of the deceased, who reached the hospital at around 8.20 P.M. after getting information about the assault made by the appellant on the deceased, lodged the FIR on the same day at about 11.30 P.M. under Exhibit P1. Crime was registered by PW.12, PW.13 thereafter proceeded to the mortuary of the Medical College Hospital conducted inquest and prepared Exhibit P-4 inquest report at 9.00 A.M. on 28.8.1999. PW.13 also visited the place of occurrence by 3.30 P.M. and prepared Exhibit P.9/Scene Mahazar. In the 313 questioning the appellant totally denied his involvement in the offence. According to him, he had no enmity with the deceased and that in fact he was a friend of the deceased and he also pleaded alibi stating that he did not visit the ground where drama was to be staged. On his side DWs.1 and 2 were examined to state that people who were against conducting Onam Celebrations created a melee at the place of occurrence and the deceased might have 2 sustained injuries from some of those assailants.
Before the Trial Court PW.2 to 4 were examined as eye witnesses. Though PW.2 supported the case of the prosecution, PWs.3 and 4 did not support their version made before the police. In fact, the knife/M.O.1 was recovered based on the admissible portion of the confessional statement of the appellant after his arrest on 30.8.1999. The said knife was sent for chemical examination and as per Exhibit P.12 Forensic Report, human blood was found on M.O.1/knife. The Doctor/PW.8, who conducted the post mortem issued exhibit P.5 post mortem certificate and deposed about the injuries referred to in his Report and as per his opinion the injury on the chest of the deceased, namely, injury No.1 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. It was also stated that injury Nos. 2 to 6, noted in the Exhibit P.5 could have been caused while warding off a stab attack aimed at the chest. PW.8 further confirmed that the injuries noted in Exhibit P5 could be caused 3 with M.O.1/knife. It is based on the above evidence placed before the Trial Court, the appellant was convicted which conviction has now been confirmed by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment.
We perused the impugned judgment of the High Court and we find that the High Court has taken pains to redo the very same exercise which the Trial Court did by analysing the evidence of eye witnesses PW.2, the hearsey version of PW.1, the father of the deceased, the medical evidence, the Forensic Report and also the nature of evidence let in on the side of the appellant and has found that the conclusion reached by the Trial Court finding the appellant guilty of the alleged offence against him was perfectly justified.
We find that the nature of analysis made by the High Court, while examining the correctness of the finding of the Trial Court, was cogent and convincing and we do not find any scope to take a different view than what has been taken by the Trial Court as affirmed by the High Court.
4 We find no merits in this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
................................J. [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA] ................................J. [S.A. BOBDE] NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 03, 2015.
5
ITEM NO.105 COURT NO.7 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 604/2009
SUNIL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for bail and office report) Date : 03/11/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE For Appellant(s) Mr. T. N. Singh,Adv. (SCLSC) (Not Present) For Respondent(s) Ms. Liz Mathew,AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (SHARDA KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file) 6