Kerala High Court
Viswanathan vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2010
Bench: R.Basant, M.C.Hari Rani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 1067 of 2006(A)
1. VISWANATHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :APPELLANT IN PRISON
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :17/03/2010
O R D E R
R.BASANT & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ
==============================
CRL.A. NO. 1067 OF 2006
============================
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF MARCH 2010
JUDGMENT
Hari Rani,J.
The appellant, a convict in custody, in this appeal, assails the impugned verdict of guilt, conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 201 I.P.C. The appeal is preferred through prison authorities. The appellant was not defended before this court by a counsel of his choice. For assistance, the services of a State Brief counsel has been made available to the appellant.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Ms.Sherlymol Thomas and Sri.Noble Mathew, the learned Public Prosecutor. The prosecution case can be summarised as follows:-
3.The accused is the son of Manu, the elder brother of deceased Narayanan. Kalliani was the wife of Manu and the CRA.1067/2006 -2- mother of the accused. Deceased Narayanan also cohabited with the mother of the accused, Kalliani. Manu agreed to give 50 cents of property to deceased Narayanan. Manu died and Kallyani, pre-deceased Manu. Thereafter, the accused, his wife and child and deceased Narayanan have been residing in the same house at Kalladikode. The deceased was doing tailoring work at Coimbatore. He occasionally returned to the above-said house and resided with the accused. Since the property as agreed was not given to the deceased, there was some dispute between the accused and deceased Narayanan regarding the said property. The accused attempted to sell a tree from that property. Due to that enmity, the accused on 2/6/1993 at about 2.30 p.m.with the intention to commit murder of deceased Narayanan inflicted cut injuries on his head and other parts of the body with a chopper ( ) inside the room of the said house and thereafter the accused put the body of deceased Narayanan, after his death, into the well situated in the premises of the house. He then washed and cleaned the place of occurrence with the intention to cause disappearance of CRA.1067/2006 -3- evidence of the offence of murder committed by him. Thus the prosecution alleged the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. against the accused. F.I.R.,Ext.P18
(a) was registered by PW17 on the basis of Ext.P18 F.I.statement lodged by one Achuthan (who is no more now), a neighbour and a friend of the deceased. That statement was recorded by PW17 on 3/6/1993 at 11 a.m. Ext.P18(a)F.I.R.reached the court at 8.15 p.m.on 3/6/1993. Investigation commenced by PW15. During investigation, the accused was arrested on 4-6-1993 and produced before court on 5-6-1993. He was remanded to judicial custody and continues to be in custody. After completing the investigation, PW15 filed the final report against the accused before the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad.
4. Meanwhile, the Superintendent, Sub Jail filed report dated 4-1-1994 that the accused was showing abnormal behaviour and to refer him to Mental Health Centre. Accordingly, he was referred to Mental Hospital, Kozhikode and was in that hospital from 6-1-1994. It was reported that the accused was not fit to stand trial and make his defence. Then on CRA.1067/2006 -4- 14-1-2005, it was reported that the accused "does not require institutional care and the accused is fit to stand trial". The learned Magistrate on being satisfied that the accused is fit to stand trial, committed the case to the court of Session and the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offence.
5. The appellant/accused denied the offences alleged against him. Thereupon,the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 17 and marked Exts.P1 to P18(a). MOs.1 to 7 material objects were also marked.
6. The accused denied all circumstances which appeared in evidence against him. He stated during 313 Cr.P.C. examination that he did not know how the deceased died and that when the deceased returned from Coimbatore, he used to reside along with him. He did not examine any defence witness. Exts.D1(a) to D1(c), the case diary contradictions were marked when PW1 was examined.
7. The court below on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all ingredients of the CRA.1067/2006 -5- offence of murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant/accused. The court further found that the accused has intentionally caused disappearance of evidence of commission of murder and committed the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Judge proceeded to pass the impugned judgment imposing the sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 201 I.P.C.
8. Before us, arguments have been advanced. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence on the following grounds.
i) The death of deceased Narayanan could have been either accidental or suicidal. That it was a homicidal death has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
ii) There is no evidence to show that the deceased was seen alive with the accused or at his house at any time prior to the alleged incident by any of the witnesses.
CRA.1067/2006 -6-
iii) The case of the prosecution that the father of the accused promised to give 50 cents of property to the deceased is not proved.
iv) The alleged motive of the incident that there was dispute between the accused and the deceased with regard to selling of a tree by the accused to PW8 from the disputed land has not been proved.
v) PW12, the F.S.L expert claimed the collection of blood stains from the house of the accused but not conducted any test to verify whether it was human blood or animal blood.
vi) No blood was found on the side of the well.
vii) The accused has been undergoing treatment for mental retardness; he never attempted to flee from the scene of occurrence immediately after the incident and he was arrested by the police on 4-6-1993 at 5.30 p.m.from his house. The appellant is a mentally ill person and he had not CRA.1067/2006 -7- been properly defended during investigation and while filing the final report by the investigating officer.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the contrary, asserted that there is satisfactory proof beyond doubt to support the verdict of guilty and conviction of the appellant. Deceased had met with his death resulting from homicidal injuries and his dead body was found inside the well situated on the north western side of the house of the accused. So, the burden on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act has not been discharged, argued the learned Public Prosecutor.
10. We shall now proceed to consider the contentions. At the outset, we must mention that an appellate judgment is and must be read in continuation of the judgment of the trial court. It has to be read and understood in that manner. The court below has narrated oral and documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution and the defence in detail. It is unnecessary for us to attempt to re-narrate all the relevant pieces of evidence afresh in this appellate judgment. We may CRA.1067/2006 -8- observe that the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 17 has been read to us in detail by the learned counsel for the appellant. Exts.P1 to P18(a) and Exts. D1 to D1(c) have also been read over to us in detail. We have anxiously considered all these relevant pieces of evidence. The same have been discussed at the Bar. We shall, though we are not re-narrating the relevant pieces of evidence, advert to the relevant pieces of evidence as and when necessary in the course of discussions in this appellate judgment.
11. The prosecution relies only on circumstantial evidence. It is too trite to require reference of any precedents, but we shall remind ourselves that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the burden is heavy on the prosecution to prove all circumstances satisfactorily by cogent evidence. Such circumstances must form strong links which together must constitute a strong chain of circumstances, which can point unerringly to the guilt of the accused. It must also be ensured that such chain of circumstances effectively excludes and rules out the possibility of any hypothesis of innocence of the accused.
CRA.1067/2006 -9-
12. Regarding the first contention raised by the appellant's counsel of the cause of death of deceased Narayanan, there is sufficient and satisfactory evidence that it could not have been accidental or suicidal. That the deceased had met with homicidal death on 2/6/1993 is proved by the evidence of PW9 and Ext.P9, postmortem certificate. Postmortem examination was conducted by PW9 on 4/6/1993 at about 10 a.m. On examination, it was found that the deceased sustained 21 injuries as deposed by PW9 from the witness box and as noted in Ext.P9. The opinion as to cause of death was noted by PW9 in Ext.P9 as "deceased died due to multiple injuries on the head and injury on the neck". According to PW9, all the incised wounds found on the body of the deceased could be caused by the sharp edge of the weapon, MO.3 shown to him. Contusion and lacerated wound could be caused by forceful contact of the blunt side of the weapon. Application of a ligature on the neck was ruled out. Thyroid cartilage was found fractured into multiple pieces which according to PW9 could be caused with the blunt side of MO.3. All injuries found on the body of the deceased were fresh CRA.1067/2006 -10- and could not be produced by a fall into the well, according to PW9. Thus from the oral evidence of PW9 and from Ext.P9 postmortem certificate, cause of death as accidental or suicidal has been ruled out. The fact that Kalliani, the wife of deceased Narayanan who is the mother of the accused had committed suicide in that well cannot be held to be sufficient to presume that deceased Narayanan had also committed suicide as argued by the learned counsel for the appellant. That the deceased had met with homicidal death on 2/6/1993 is thus clearly established by the prosecution beyond doubt.
13. The next argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances for the reason that no blood was found on the side of the well. If the body with so many multiple injuries was taken by the accused from the house to the well, definitely there would have been blood at the premises, it is argued by the learned counsel. PW1 is the neighbour and a witness in the inquest report,Ext.P1. Dead body of deceased Narayanan was taken out by the police from the well situated near the CRA.1067/2006 -11- residential house of the accused and conducted the inquest on 3- 6-1993 by PW16. PW1 signed as the witness in inquest report, Ext.P1. This is not challenged. It is the admitted case that deceased Narayanan was residing with the accused. The case of the prosecution that there was some dispute between the accused and the deceased with regard to the sale of tree from the property is denied by the accused.
14. PWs. 2 and 3 who are the near relatives of the accused and the deceased also stated regarding the dispute between the accused and the deceased in respect of sale of a tree in the property. PW2 is the son of another brother of the father of accused, Manu and deceased Narayanan. He also deposed that there was property dispute between the deceased Narayanan and the accused. PW3 is the son of another brother of Manu and deceased Narayanan. Both PWs.2 and 3 have deposed that accused is the son of Manu in Kalliani. Deceased Narayanan is the brother of Manu. Kalliani also cohabited with the deceased. Manu and Kalliani died. Deceased Narayanan used to reside in the house wherein the accused has been residing with his CRA.1067/2006 -12- wife and child whenever he returned to that place from Coimbatore where he was doing tailoring work. These versions of PW2 and PW3 were not disputed and has been admitted by the accused during 313 examination and also by PW14, the wife of the accused. It is then deposed by PW3 that Manu agreed to give 50 cents of property to deceased Narayanan and he had right over the house wherein the accused, his wife and child were residing. PW.2 and PW3 have also stated that deceased Narayanan died of homicidal injuries and his body was found in the well situated in the residential compound of the accused. According to PW3, when he entered into the house of the accused on that night, the accused was lying there and there was smell of blood inside the house and he noticed the foot print on the wall near the door of that house. Apart from the property dispute there was no other dispute between the accused and the deceased. There is no reason to disbelieve PWs.2 and 3, who are the relatives of the accused and also the deceased.
15. PW8 examined on the side of the prosecution to prove the motive for the incident has deposed that he was a timber CRA.1067/2006 -13- merchant and knew the accused and the deceased and that he went to purchase the tree from the property situated on the eastern side of the house of the accused, but due to some dispute between the deceased and the accused, it was not sold to him that there was enmity for the accused towards the deceased is thus proved.
16. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution relied on Ext.P10, the statement of PW14, the wife of the accused which was recorded by PW10, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkkad under Section 164 Cr.P.C. According to PW10, Ext.P10 statement was recorded by him on 7/7/1993. This statement is not substantive evidence. It can only be relied on to the extent, it is admitted before court by the witness, PW14.
17. PW14, the wife of the accused when examined before the lower court has admitted Ext.P10 and deposed that she has given statement before the Magistrate and affixed her signature therein and she has given correct statements but she did not remember the same due to elapse of 10 to 13 years. In the cross CRA.1067/2006 -14- examination made by the learned counsel for the accused, it was deposed by PW14 that demand was made by deceased Narayanan for the property. But for that dispute, there was no other enmity between her husband and the deceased. She denied the specific question put to her by the learned counsel for the accused that she has given statement before the Magistrate due to the influence of police and others. She has deposed that nobody has influenced her and she has disclosed the matters, which were known to her in Ext.P10. PW14 has also deposed before the court below that till the date of the incident she was residing together with her daughter along with the accused. Deceased Narayanan, the paternal uncle ( ) who was doing tailoring work at Thirupur and Coimbatore also was residing with them occasionally in the same house. According to her on that particular day in the afternoon, she went along with her daughter to the house of her sister-in-law and when returned at 4 p.m.on that day, the accused, her husband was there in the house and as demanded by the accused, she brought water from the neighbouring house and given coffee to him. The CRA.1067/2006 -15- accused did not allow her to go and purchase medicine to the daughter who was ill. After some time the accused went out and she along with her daughter went to the house of her uncle. On the next day she came to know about the death of Narayanan. The presence of the accused in that house on 2/6/1993 at the time and place of the incident has thus been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
18. PW12 Scientific Assistant of Forensic Science Laboratory, Mobile court, Trichur, who inspected the house of the accused on 18-6-1993 found some dark brown spots on the verandah on the left side and also near the door leading to the inner room and in the inner room also. She has collected blood stained cement portion from the floor and handed over to the investigating officer, PW16 which was seized by him as per Ext.P15 seizure mahazar. MO. 7 is the cement block which was sent for chemical examination at the F.S.L. Ext.P17 is the chemical analysis report received from the F.S.L.wherein MO.7 was referred as item 13 and human blood was detected in MO.7 cement block. This also establishes the prosecution case that the CRA.1067/2006 -16- incident occurred inside the house of the accused. The testimony of PW3 before court is also relevant at this juncture. According to PW3 immediately after he saw the dead body of deceased Narayanan in the well situated in that premises, he went to the house of the accused and searched inside that house. At that time accused was lying there and he felt smell of blood inside the house of the accused and noticed foot print on the wall also.
19. PW16 arrested the accused on 4-6-1993 at 5.30 p.m. and as per Ext.P6 seizure mahazar he recovered the 'kallimundu' and uderwear, MOs.1 and 2 worn by the accused at that time. PW7 is the attestor to that mahazar and also admitted that he was present while PW16 recovered the same. MOs.1 and 2 contained human blood as stated in Ext.P17 chemical analysis report. Ext.P11 is the wound certificate issued by PW11 on examination of the accused on 5-6-1993 wherein it was noted that no external injuries on the body of the accused. So the presence of human blood in the dresses worn by the accused at the time of his arrest also is a strong circumstance against the CRA.1067/2006 -17- accused regarding commission of offence as alleged by the prosecution. Ext.P14 is proved as the relevant portion of the confession statement given by the accused to PW16 as per which MO.3 chopper, MO.4 towel, MO.5 lunki used to wipe off blood in the place of incident were recovered under the seizure mahazars, Exts.P7 and P8. Ext.P14 is the relevant statement admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and there is no reason to discard the same. PW7 admitted his signature in Exts.P7 and P8 and also that he was present when those material objects were seized by the police.
20. MO.3, the weapon used by the accused for the commission of offence was recovered from among the bushes at the south eastern corner of the compound of the house of the accused. MOs.4 and 5 were recovered in a pit dug near the latrine of that house situated near the eastern boundary of that compound as pointed out by the accused. On MOs.4 and 5 on chemical analysis, blood stains were detected as revealed from Ext.P17 and was of 'A' group. MO.3 was also found blood stained but the origin of blood was not detected for want of CRA.1067/2006 -18- sufficient quantity. PW16 prepared Ext.P5 scene mahazar on 5/6/1993 wherein it was noted that he found blood spots on many places in the cemented floor of the room in that house from where the incident occurred and also noticed blood stains in the floor in the passage at the northern side of the room. So also blood was clotted on the shutter of the door which opens to the northern courtyard. PW16 prepared Ext.P5 scene mahazar in the presence of PW6 who admitted his signature therein as an attesting witness. All the above circumstances evidently support the version of the prosecution eminently.
21. The learned Public Prosecutor rightly relies on the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act as explained in the decision in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [2006(4)KLT 638 SC] to contend that in such circumstances as are available in the instant case, the appellant has the burden to explain how, inside the house where he and the deceased alone were there, the deceased suffered injuries. No explanation has been advanced by the appellant to discharge the burden. CRA.1067/2006 -19- His plea is that he did not know how the deceased died. The dead body was found inside the well situated in his residential premises, for which also no explanation has been offered by the appellant.
22. The following circumstances according to us are sufficient to enter a safe conclusion of guilt against the accused.
1.The deceased, an uncle of the appellant was residing along with the appellant, his wife and minor child on the relevant day.
2.There was animosity between the appellant and deceased on account of property dispute.
3.The deceased died of multiple homicidal injuries found on his person.
4.There was unexplained presence of human blood and smell of human blood inside the residential building occupied by the appellant and family.
5.The dead body of the deceased was found in the well in the residential property of the appellant.
6.The weapon MO.1 and blood stained clothes were CRA.1067/2006 -20- recovered by the investigating officer on the basis of the disclosure statement of the appellant.
7.The oral evidence of PW14, the wife of the accused suggests that the deceased and the accused were available in the house prior to the death of deceased Narayanan.
8.The accused offers no explanation for the presence of blood marks in his house and the presence of the dead body of the deceased with homicidal injuries in the well in his residential property.
23. It is then argued by the learned counsel that the appellant was a mentally ill person and was not defended properly during investigation and while filing the final report. The accused never attempted to flee from the scene of occurrence after the incident and he was arrested by the police on 4-6-1993 at 5.30 p.m. from his house, it is submitted. No such defence has been taken before the court below. On a perusal of the records, it is evident that the accused was in judicial custody after his arrest on 4-6-1993. While he was in custody, a report CRA.1067/2006 -21- has been filed on 4-1-1994 that the accused was showing abnormal behaviour and he was referred to Mental Health Centre, Kozhikode. Thereafter, on 14-1-2005 it was reported that the accused is fit to stand trial. The incident in this case happened on 2-6-1993. Long after the incident, there are indications to suggest that he has shown abnormal behaviour and was referred to Mental Hospital, Kozhikode on 6-1-1994. No evidence whatsoever has been adduced on the defence side to prove that the accused was having any mental abnormality at the time of the commission of offence or immediately thereafter. In the absence of such evidence the accused cannot be heard to say that he was, on the date of the incident, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. PW14 was examined. In the course of her cross examination nothing is elicited to even remotely suggest that on the date of the incident or earlier the accused was having/showing any symptom of mental illness. The subsequent mental aberration even if accepted cannot justify a claim for protection under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. If the CRA.1067/2006 -22- trauma of the incident leads to mental illness subsequently that is no reason in the absence of better materials to concede the benefit of Section 84 I.P.C. to the indictee. There is absolutely no material to show that there was any unsoundness of mind for the appellant on the date of the incident. Under Section 105 of the Evidence Act, absence of circumstances to bring the case within any of the exceptions to criminality have to be presumed by the court. So, this argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused is only to be rejected. We do so.
24. We do, in these circumstances, find it absolutely safe to concur with the conclusion of the court below that the injuries on the deceased were suffered by him at the hands of the accused with MO.3 and that the accused inflicted multiple injuries on the head and injury on the neck of the deceased which are described in Ext.P9, postmortem certificate. Those injuries, it is proved were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Under Clause No.3 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, culpable homicide amounting to murder must be held to have been committed. The injury was sufficient in the ordinary CRA.1067/2006 -23- course of nature to cause death. Those were intentional injuries inflicted. There is nothing to assume that the intention was to inflict any injury other than the injuries which actually resulted or that the injuries which actually resulted were not intended. The case does not obviously fall under any of the five exceptions under Section 300 I.P.C. In these circumstances, we concur with the court below that the offence proved against the accused is murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
25. Next contention of the learned counsel is regarding the conviction of the accused under Section 201 I.P.C. It is submitted that after conviction of the accused under Section 302 I.P.C., a further conviction against under Section 201 I.P.C. for disappearance of evidence of commission of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is unnecessary and may be vacated. This question has been elaborately dealt with by us in the judgment dated 23/2/2010 in D.S.R.No.2/2008 & connected cases [State of Kerala v. Amalraj [2010(1)KLD 411(DB)]. After considering different views on the question and following the binding precedent of the Constitution Bench in Kalawati v. CRA.1067/2006 -24- Him.Pra.State[A.I.R.1953 S.C.131), we have taken the view that a further conviction under Section 201 I.P.C.after having entered conviction for the principal offence under Section 302 I.P.C.is unnecessary and is not justified at least as a matter of practice.
26. Following the decision Amalraj (Supra), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the court below under Section 201 I.P.C. in the present case, can be vacated.
27. In the result,
a) this appeal is allowed in part.
b)The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on appellant under Section 201 I.P.C.is set aside. Consistent with the practice mentioned in Kalawati v. Him.Pra.State (supra), we find it unnecessary to impose any sentence under Section 201 I.P.C.on the appellant.
CRA.1067/2006 -25-
c)The impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C to undergo imprisonment for life are upheld.
28. The Registry shall communicate this judgment to the appellant/convict forthwith.
R. BASANT, JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE ks.