Ashley Soman @ Monichan vs State Of Kerala on 10 January, 2025

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Ashley Soman @ Monichan vs State Of Kerala on 10 January, 2025

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the sole accused in S.C. No.71/2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kottayam, for offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code are under challenge in this appeal.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

The accused was naturing animosity with the husband of CW1 named Kumar. Due to the said animosity, on 24.07.2011 at 2.30 p.m., the accused trespassed into the sit-out of the unnumbered house of CW1 situated in Ward No. IX of Panachikkad Grama Panchayat and stabbed on the chest of Kumar with a knife, who was sitting in a chair in the sit out reading a newspaper. Immediately after the incident, though the injured Kumar was taken to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. Hence the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.


      3.      On completion of the investigation, the final report was
                                                           2025:KER:1598

Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018             3




submitted   before    the     Judicial       First       Class   Magistrate   Court-I,

Changanassery. As the case was one triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities committed the case to the Court of Session, Kottayam. After taking cognizance, the learned Sessions Judge made over the case for trial and disposal to Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kottayam.

4. The prosecution, in its bid to prove the charge levelled against the accused had examined 25 witnesses as PW1 to PW25. Exts.P1 to P26 were exhibited and marked and MO1 to MO7 were produced and identified. A contradiction in the previous statement of a prosecution witness was marked as Ext. D1 from the side of the defence. After completion of prosecution evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating materials brought out against him in evidence. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., he was called upon to enter his evidence. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined.

5. After trial, the accused was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302 of the IPC. Under Section 302 of the IPC, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 4 imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. For an offence punishable under Section 449 of the IPC the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default of payment of the fine the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, the substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is under challenge in this appeal.

6. The FIR in this case was registered based on the statement given by the wife of the deceased to the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Chingavanam Police Station, (PW23). When the wife of the deceased, the first informant was examined as PW1, she vividly portrayed the incident that led to her husband's death. According to PW1, on 24.07.2011 at 2.30 p.m., while she was washing the clothes by standing in the south-eastern corner of the courtyard of her house, the accused rushed to her house through the courtyard of one Thankamma, situated on the southern side of her house, after jumping over a water channel. The accused was then holding a knife in his hand. At that time, her 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 5 daughter was inside the kitchen. On seeing the accused with a weapon, she raised an alarm and warned her husband that the accused is coming. She rushed into her house through the kitchen. Her husband was then making a phone call by sitting in the sit-out of the said house. Then she saw the accused stabbing her husband with a knife and pulling out the said knife. Then blood was found oozing through the knife. On seeing her, the accused ran away from the spot to the public road. Then she caught hold of her husband and took him inside the house. Blood was then oozing from her husband's chest. Then she caused him to lie on a cot. Her husband then asked for water and her daughter gave him water. Then she cried aloud. In the meantime, her daughter brought 3 or 4 people, and those who reached there took him to the District Hospital, Kottayam. The accused was wearing a saffron-coloured dhoti at the time of the commission of offence and MO1 is the said dhothi. PW1 identified the knife used by the accused in the commission of offence and the same was marked as MO2. After examining her husband in the hospital, the Doctor confirmed the death of her husband. PW1 further deposed that, since they started residing at the said place, the accused had been on inimical terms with her husband. Prior to the incident in this case, the accused filed a 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 6 complaint at Chingavanam Police Station alleging that PW1's son took photos of the accused's daughter in his mobile phone. But after verifying the mobile phone, the police got convinced that no such photos were taken by her son. Prior to the above incident there occurred a quarrel between the accused and her husband, the deceased in this case, and she filed a complaint against the accused. But no action was taken by the police. Instead of taking any action, the police summoned her husband and the accused to the police station and attempted to settle the issue. In front of the police, the accused threatened to kill her husband by stabbing him. As no action was taken by the police, she filed a complaint before the District Collector and it was thereafter the incident in this case occurred. With respect to the incident, she gave a statement to the police and Ext.P1 is the said statement.

7. When the daughter of the deceased was examined as PW2 she deposed that during the period of occurrence in this case she was a VIIth standard student and was residing with her father, mother, and brother. At the time of the occurrence, her brother was not in the house as he went to a place called Samkrathi. According to PW2, the incident in this case occurred on 24.07.2011 at 2.30 p.m., and at that time, her father 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 7 was sitting in the sit-out of the house, talking over phone and her mother was washing clothes by standing on the south-eastern corner of the courtyard of her house. At that time PW2 was washing plates inside the kitchen. While so, she heard her mother uttering that Monichan (the accused) is coming. On hearing the alarm raised by her mother, she looked towards the sit-out and saw the accused stabbing on the chest of her father and pulling out the knife. Her mother(PW1) also rushed to the spot from outside the house. Subsequently, the accused proceeded to the public road. Her father entered into the hall room of the house by clutching at his chest. Blood was oozing from his chest. Thereafter, her father asked to give him some water and she took water and her mother gave water. Then her father collapsed down with his head upwards. Then her mother cried aloud and neighbours intervened. When PW2 came out of her house to call other neighbours for help, the accused came back with the knife and threatened those who rushed to the spot. Thereafter, she along with her mother and neighbours took her father to the District Hospital, Kottayam. After examining her father, the doctor confirmed her father's death. According to PW2, the accused used to make quarrel with her father and mother on a misconception that her brother took photos of 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 8 the accused's daughter using mobile phone. The accused also filed a complaint before the police raising such an allegation. But when the police verified the mobile phone of her brother, no such photos were found. Thereafter, the accused filed a case against her father alleging that her father assaulted him. Her mother also filed a complaint against the accused. The police did not take any action. Hence her mother approached the District Collector with a complaint. PW2 identified MO2 as the weapon of offence. She also identified MO1 as the dhothi worn by the accused at the time of the commission of offence. In connection with the complaint filed against her brother, the police summoned her father and mother to the police station and a settlement was arrived between the accused and her father. The accused, however, raised a threat at the police station that he would stab her father to death.

8. When an independent witness was examined as PW3, he testified that he is having acquaintance with the accused and the deceased in this case as both of them are his neighbours. On the alleged date of occurrence, he heard a huge cry of the deceased and upon hearing the same, he came out of his house and saw the deceased entering the house by clutching at his chest. PW3 further explained that what he saw was the 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 9 deceased entering into the room from the sit-out of the house. Thereafter, he along with other neighbours took the deceased and brought him to the road, and from there, he was taken to the District Hospital in a vehicle. According to PW3 prior to the incident in this case, the son of the deceased had told something to the daughter of the accused, and with respect to the same, there occurred a quarrel and the deceased assaulted the accused. According to PW3, it was because of the said animosity the present offence is alleged to have been committed.

9. PW4, an independent witness, deposed that he did not witness the incident in this case. However, PW4 admitted that after the incident, he also went to the house of PW1 and thereafter, took the deceased to the hospital. He further admitted that somebody told him that the accused stabbed Kumar, the deceased in this case. However, PW4 deposed that he did not witness the exact incident in which the deceased sustained the stab injury.

10. Another crucial witness examined in this case is PW12, who is none other than the son of the deceased. PW12 deposed that he was not in his house when the incident in this case occurred. According to him, on knowing about the incident, he rushed to the hospital and when reached 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 10 there, he came to know that his father had died. When the incident in this case occurred, his mother and sister were in the house. According to PW12 prior to the incident in this case, the accused attempted to assault him alleging that he took photographs of the accused's daughter using mobile phone. According to PW12, the accused also filed a complaint against him before the police. He further deposed that the accused threatened his father at the police station.

11. When an attestor to recovery mahazar was examined as PW14, he deposed that he is having acquaintance with the accused and his house is situated within a raduis of 300 metres from the place of occurrence in this case. According to PW14, on 25.07.2011, between 3.00 p.m. and 3.30 p.m., he saw police party reaching an uninhibited property situated on the southern side of the accused's property. Thereafter, he saw the accused taking a knife from a bushy area of the said property and handing it over the same to the Circle Inspector of Police. PW14 identified MO2 as the said knife. According to him, he is also a signatory to Ext.P13 recovery mahazar.

12. The Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Chingavanam who recorded the FIS given by PW1 was examined as PW23. According to 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 11 PW23 on 24.07.2011, at around 6.00 p.m., as directed by the Principal Sub Inspector, Chingavanam Police Station, he recorded the statement of PW1 from her house. Thereafter, on the same day, at 7.30 p.m., he booked the present case by registering Ext.P21 FIR.

13. The Circle Inspector of Police, Changanassery who conducted the initial and major part of the investigation was examined as PW24. On examination before the Court, PW24 deposed that on 24.07.2011, while he was working as Circle Inspector of Police, Changanassery, he took over the investigation in this case. On the same day at 9.30 p.m., he conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased Kumar, in the presence of independent witnesses. Ext.P11 is the inquest report prepared by him. As part of the investigation, he visited the scene of the occurrence accompanied by a scientific assistant. After reaching the crime scene, he prepared Ext.P12 scene mahazar in the presence of independent witnesses. The scene of occurrence in this case, is the sit-out of a house named 'Thadathil Shivashylam', situated in Ward No. IX of Panachikkad Grama Panchayat, which belongs to PW1. According to PW24, a wooden table and a plastic chair were found in the said sit-out. On the backrest of the said chair blood was found. The blood samples collected 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 12 from the crime scene by the scientific assistant were seized by him after describing the same in Ext.P17 mahazar. The blood samples collected on cotton gauze were forwarded for FSL examination through court. Thereafter, on 25.07.2011, at 07.00 am, he effected the arrest of the accused from Sub Jail premises, Kottayam. On interrogation, the accused gave a confession statement and on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused and as led by the accused, he along with the police party reached an uninhibited property. Thereafter, the accused took a knife from a bushy area of the said property and handed over the same to PW24. The knife so taken and produced by the accused was taken into custody by him by describing it in Ext.P13 recovery mahazar. The relevant portion of the statement of the accused which led to the recovery of the knife and recorded in Ext.P13 and proved through PW24 is separately marked as Ext.P13(a). PW24 identified MO2 as the knife so recovered.

14. According to PW24 on 25.07.2011, at 4.15 p.m., he seized the dhothi worn by the accused at the time of the commission of the offence from the accused's house. The said dhothi was recovered after describing it in Ext.P16 mahazar. PW24 has identified MO1 as the said dhothi. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the doctor who conducted the 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 13 postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. He produced the thondi articles seized in this case before the Court after describing it in Exts.P24 and P24(a) property lists along with a forwarding note. Ext.P25 is the forwarding note prepared and produced before the court for sending thondi articles seized in this case for scientific examination.

15. To prove the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution predominantly relies on the compelling ocular testimony of PW1 and PW2. PW1 is none other than the wife of the deceased and PW2 is the deceased's daughter. The evidence tendered by PW1 and PW2 has been assailed by the counsel for the appellant mainly on the ground that, as relatives of the deceased, they are inherently interested witnesses, rendering their testimony suspect and unreliable. However, while considering the appellant's contention in the above regard, it should not be forgotten that there is no rigid or inflexible rule that the evidence of a related witness shall be viewed with suspicion under all circumstances. Nevertheless, while acting on the evidence of a relative witness, the court must act with discerning circumspection and utmost prudence. Therefore, we are of the strong view that the contention of the appellant that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is liable to be discarded at the threshold solely 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 14 on the ground that they are relatives of the deceased cannot be accepted.

16. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Rayappa and others [(2006) 4 SCC 512], the Supreme Court observed as under:

"Testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons. On the contrary, it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the court especially in criminal cases because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging on for years to come and the witnesses are harassed a lot. They have been threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In such a situation the only natural witness available to the prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The only requirement is that the testimony of the relative witness should be examined cautiously."

17. In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar [(1996) 1 SCC 614], it was observed that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term "interested" postulates that the witness must have some interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animosity or for some other reasons.

18. Keeping in mind the above-mentioned principles enumerated 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 15 by a series of judicial pronouncements, while analyzing the evidence of PW1 and PW2, it is significant to note that they testified about an incident in which their close relative had tragically lost his life allegedly at the hands of the accused. Even the accused did not have a case that PW1 and PW2 had any animosity or grudge of such a nature towards the accused to falsely implicate him in a grave and gruesome murder case like this. Therefore, it defies common sense to categorize PW1 and PW2 as interested witnesses and to doubt their testimony solely on the basis of their relationship with the deceased. As observed in Rayappa's case (supra) it could not be believed that PW1 and PW2 would falsely implicate innocent individuals, thereby shielding the true perpetrators who took the life of their close relative, and allowing them to escape unpunished.

19. While evaluating the testimony of PW1 and PW2, the primary considerations are whether their presence at the scene of occurrence is plausible and reasonably probable and whether they had an opportunity to witness the incident. In assessing their presence, it is notable that PW1 and PW2 are, respectively, the wife and daughter of the deceased. As inmates of the house, their presence at the crime scene is certainly 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 16 natural. Unlike the testimony of a chance witness, their evidence carries significant weight.

20. The unequivocal testimony of PW1, the wife of the deceased, is that on the alleged date of the incident, while she was washing clothes by standing on the south-eastern corner of the courtyard of her house, she saw the accused rushing towards her house with a knife. PW1 further stated that the accused jumped over a small water channel located on the southern side of her house and then entered her courtyard through the adjacent property of one Thankamma.

21. The evidence of the Village Officer, who is examined as PW16 and Ext.P15 scene plan prepared by him corroborates PW1's account that the water channel and the property of Thankamma were indeed situated in the southern side of PW1's house. Furthermore, Ext.15 scene plan corroborates PW1's evidence that there is a washing stone on the southern side of her house. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW1 and Ext. P15 scene plan clearly demonstrates that PW1 had got sufficient opportunity to witness the accused rushing towards her house holding a knife in his hand. Therefore, the testimony of PW1 that she saw the accused rushing 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 17 towards her house from the southern side of her house with a knife in hand need not be doubted.

22. The learned counsel for the appellant vigorously assailed the testimony of PW1 that she witnessed the accused stabbing the deceased. According to the counsel, the evidence of PW1 itself suggests that upon seeing the accused she rushed into her house from the spot where she was washing clothes. Consequently, counsel argued, the entire incident would have unfolded and concluded within the time taken by PW1 to reach inside her house. According to the counsel for the appellant, therefore, the assertion of PW1 that she witnessed the accused stabbing her husband is implausible and not believable.

23. But we cannot concur with the above contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Because, the evidence of PW1 shows that upon seeing the accused rushing towards her house with a knife, PW1 also rushed into her house by raising an alarm from the place where she was washing clothes. Notably, the washing stone is situated inside PW1's courtyard, not in a distant area. Therefore, it cannot automatically be inferred that she could not have arrived inside her house by the time when 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 18 the accused reached at the sit-out of the said house, especially when PW1 is consistent on the stand that that she witnessed the accused stabbing her husband with a knife. For the sake of argument, even if it is assumed that PW1 did not witness the entire incident, it cannot be disputed that she saw the accused rushing to her house with a knife and later leaving the sit-out with a blood-stained knife. Similarly, PW1's testimony that she immediately saw her husband with a serious stab wound on his chest should not be doubted.

24. The evidence of PW2, the daughter of the deceased reveals that, when PW1, her mother, raised the alarm, PW2 was washing plates inside the kitchen. According to PW2, upon hearing her mother's alarm, she looked towards the sit-out, and witnessed the accused stabbing her father and pulling out the knife. The evidence of PW2 that she witnessed the incident remains unchallenged in the cross-examination. Moreover, PW1 and PW2, the occurrence witnesses successfully withstood the piercing cross-examination done by the learned defense counsel. Both of them had given consistent accounts of the occurrence which led to the death of the deceased. Therefore, we find no reason to suspect their 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 19 evidence.

25. The doctor who conducted autopsy examination on the body of the deceased was examined as PW15. He deposed that while he was working as an Additional Professor and Police Surgeon, Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, he conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. The postmortem certificate issued by him is marked as Ext. P14. Referring to Ext.P14, PW15 deposed of having noted the following antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased:-

"1. Abraded contusion on the tip of right shoulder 0.5 x 0.3 cm

2. Abraded contusion on left frontal region 4 x 0.5 cm transverse 2 cm above eye brow.

3. Abraded contusion on outer aspect of outer angle of left eye 2 x 2 cm

4. Abraded contusion on outer aspect of left ala of nose 0.5 x 0.5 cm

5. An abraded contusion on bridge of nose 1 x 1 cm

6. Stab wound left side of front of chest 2 x 0.8 cm, transverse, 3.5 cm below middle of left collar bone. The outer end pointed and the inner end blunt situated, 7 cm outer to front midline, entered the chest cavity through second intercostal space (1.8 cm), made a cut over an area of 2.5 x 2 cm, vertically for a depth of 0.5 cm, and entered the mediastinum cut the underlying mediastinal 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 20 artery with infiltration of blood at the entire thickness of mediastinum over an area of 15 x 10 cm the left chest cavity contained 100 ml of blood. The wound directed backwards and downwards for a total minimum depth of 8.5 cm."

PW15 opined that the death was due to the stab injury sustained on the chest. According to PW15 the stab injury shown as injury No.6 is grave in nature and is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. When the doctor was confronted with MO2 knife, he opined that injury No.6 could be inflicted by using a weapon like MO2. Of course, a conjoint reading of the evidence of PW15 and Ext.P14 postmortem certificate reveals that the death of Kumar, the deceased in this case was certainly and undoubtedly a homicidal one.

26. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that though six ante-mortem injuries were noted in the postmortem examination, the prosecution failed to explain the cause of five of those injuries. The counsel pointed out that PW1 and PW2, the occurrence witnesses, only deposed about the overt act that led to injury No.6. We do agree that during the examination before the court, the occurrence witnesses did not mention any overt acts that resulted in injury Nos.1 to 5. However, it is noteworthy that injury Nos.1 to 5 are very minor and trivial in nature. The 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 21 evidence of PW2 shows that when water was given, her father collapsed down. Therefore, the chance of sustaining minor injuries in the said fall cannot be ruled out. Similarly, there is ample evidence to show that after the incident, the neighbours who gathered there took the injured to the public road by carrying him in their hands, and from there he was taken to a hospital in a vehicle. It is reasonable to infer that while carrying an injured person to a considerable distance, in a state of confused and perplexed mood, by using hands, minor injuries might have been inadvertently inflicted on the injured's body. Therefore, we are of the view that the non-mentioning of the overt acts which led to injury No.1 to 5, which are trivial in nature need not influence the mind of this court to throw away the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that they saw the accused stabbing on the deceased's chest and inflicting injury No.6, the fatal injury which led to his death.

27. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the incident in this case did not occur as narrated by PW1 and PW2. The counsel drew our attention to the accused's version of events, as recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein the accused alleged that on 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 22 the date of the incident, the deceased, Kumar, wrongfully restrained him in a public place leading to a scuffle between them. The accused claimed that the deceased then squeezed on his testicles causing fear of death. According to the accused, he somehow managed to escape from the clutches of the deceased. Emphasizing the above-said version of the accused, the learned counsel submitted that the death of the deceased was caused accidentally during the scuffle that occurred between the accused and the deceased and not as alleged by the prosecution. Though a case as stated above was canvassed from the accused's side, there is no convincing material to prove the same. Absolutely, there is no medical evidence in support of it.

28. We are not unmindful of the fact that in order to prove the case of the accused in the above regard, a witness was examined as DW1. On examination, before court, DW1 deposed that on the alleged date of the incident between 1.00 p.m., and 2.00 p.m., he saw the accused and the deceased engaging in a scuffle and assaulting each other. According to DW1, he told about the said incident to Thomas(PW3). While analysing the evidence of DW1, in the above regard, it is to be noted that, though 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 23 he had narrated an incident as stated above, nothing was deposed by him to show how the fatal injury which resulted in death was sustained to the deceased in this case. Moreover, though DW1 had a case that, he had told about the scuffle that occurred between the accused and the deceased in this case to PW3, on examination before court, PW3 did not depose that DW1 had told about such an incident to him. Therefore, the above-discussed feeble evidence of DW1 is not at all sufficient to prove the case of the accused that the injury was sustained accidentally during a scuffle.

29. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that close scrutiny of the evidence of PW3, an independent witness, reveals that the incident occurred not inside the sit-out of the house of PW1, but, outside the house. It is true that when PW3 was examined he deposed that upon hearing a hue and cry, when he watched, "സംഭവ സമയം കുമാറിന്റെ കരച്ചിൽ കേട്ടു. ഞാൻ വെളിയിൽ വന്നു നോക്കിയപ്പോൾ കുമാർ ഒരു കൈ ചങ്കത്തു പൊത്തിപ്പിടിച്ചു ഓടി വീട്ടിലേക്കു കയറുന്നത് കണ്ടു. അതായത് സിറ്റ്-ഔട്ട് ൻറെ അകത്തെ മുറിയിലേക്ക് കയറി". According to the learned counsel for the accused, the said version of PW3, itself shows that the incident occurred outside the house of PW1. But we cannot agree with 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 24 the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in the above regard. Though PW3 testified that upon hearing the hue and cry, he saw Kumar, the deceased in this case rushing inside his house, he immediately clarified that what he meant was that the injured entered inside the room situating on the backside of the sit-out. Therefore, the contention of the learned appellant's counsel that the injury was sustained from somewhere outside the house and not from the sit-out of PW1's house is not sustainable.

30. At this juncture, it is noteworthy that, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 reveals that the accused stabbed the deceased while the latter was sitting on a chair in the sit-out of the house, and after the incident, the deceased entered inside the hall room of the said house by clutching on his chest. Moreover, the evidence of the Scientific Assistant (PW22) shows that she collected blood samples from the sit-out of PW1's house and also from the hall room of the said house. Similarly, the evidence of PW24, the investigating officer, who prepared Ext.P17 scene mahazar also shows that when he visited the crime scene, he found a wooden table and a plastic chair in the sit-out of the house of PW1, and blood was found on the backrest portion of the said chair. The evidence of PW22 that she 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 25 collected blood samples from the sit-out of the said house and the evidence of PW24, the investigating officer, that he saw blood stains on the chair found on the sit-out of the said house corroborates the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the incident, in this case, occurred while the deceased was sitting on a chair in the sit-out of the house of PW1.

31. As already discussed the evidence of PW24, the investigating officer shows that MO2 knife, the weapon of offence, was recovered solely on the strength of the disclosure statement given by the accused. According to PW24, on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the accused and as led by the accused, he along with the police party reached an uninhibited property and the accused took and handed over a knife from inside a bushy area of that property. The relevant portion of the statement of the accused which led to the recovery of MO2 knife and recorded in Ext.P13 recovery mahazar and proved through PW24 is separately marked as Ext.P13(a). PW14, an attester to the recovery mahazar also supported the case of the prosecution regarding the recovery of MO2 knife. During examination before court, PW14 testified that he saw the accused taking and handing over a knife from a bushy 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 26 area of an uninhibited property to the Police. He also identified MO2 as the knife taken and handed over by the accused to the Police. PW1 and PW2, the occurrence witnesses also duly identified MO2 as the knife used by the accused in the perpetration of the offence. The recovery of the weapon of offence on the strength of the disclosure statement made by the accused will go a long way in proving the charge levelled against him.

32. The investigating officer who conducted the final part of the investigation in this case and laid the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate was examined as PW25. The FSL report received after the examination of the thondi articles seized in this case was marked through him, as Ext.P26. A perusal of Ext.P26 FSL report shows that the knife (MO2) sent for examination to FSL is shown as item No.5 in the said report. In the result portion of the Ext.P26 FSL report, it is mentioned that blood was detected on item No.5. However, the origin of the blood could not be determined as the blood contained in item No.5 was insufficient for determining the origin. We are of the view that the above-mentioned scientific evidence also will lend support to the prosecution case.

33. The upshot of the above discussion is that, the evidence of 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 27 PW1 and PW2 regarding the incident is convincing and reliable. Their evidence is mutually corroborative and remains unshaken despite rigorous cross-examination by the defence counsel. Although this is a case resting on direct ocular evidence, where proof of motive holds little significance, the fact that the prosecution has successfully proved the motive behind the alleged offence lends considerable weight in establishing the guilt of the accused. A perusal of the postmortem examination report reveals that the deceased sustained a fatal injury on his chest which ultimately led to his death due to its severity. The accused who inflicted such a grievous injury using a dangerous weapon could not be heard to say that he was not conceiving an intention to murder the deceased in this case. The part of the body where the injury inflicted, the nature of the injury inflicted, and the nature of the weapon used etc., are self-speaking regarding the intention of the accused. The act of the accused will not come under any of the exceptions provided under Section 300 of the IPC.

34. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution had succeeded in proving the commission of offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302 IPC by the accused. The 2025:KER:1598 Crl. A. No.1215 of 2018 28 sentences imposed in this case for the said offences also commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offence committed.

Resultantly, we confirm the finding, conviction, and sentence passed by the learned Session Judge in SC No.S.C. No.71/2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kottayam for the offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302 IPC and hence, the appeal stands dismissed. Sd/-

                                       P.B. SURESH KUMAR
                                                JUDGE




                                           Sd/-
                                         JOBIN SEBASTIAN
                                                   JUDGE
ncd/DCS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court