Kerala High Court
Ratheesh vs State Of Kerala on 6 March, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:18936
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 1811 OF 2023
CRIME NO.630/2018 OF Anthikad Police Station, Thrissur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN SC NO.235 OF 2019
OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
RATHEESH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O KOCHUMON,
MUTTISSERY HOUSE, PARAKKAD VILLAGE,
KAYAL ROAD DESOM, SHANTHI NAGAR, PIN - 680012
BY ADV K.V.SABU
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
ADV. SRI. ALEX M THOBRA, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.02.2025, THE COURT ON 06.03.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 2 2025:KER:18936
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The sole accused in S.C. No.235/2019 on the file of Additional
Sessions Court-I, Thrissur, has preferred this appeal challenging the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him for
offences punishable under Sections 452 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:
The accused and the deceased Kalesh were friends. The accused
harbored a suspicion that his wife was having an illicit relationship with
Kalesh. Driven by this animosity, on 24.09.2018 in the night, the accused
attacked his wife Jyothi with a sword at their residence, but she managed
to escape by fleeing the scene. Later on the same day night, at 11.15
p.m., the accused searching for his wife, trespassed into the house of
CW1, where Kalesh was residing. When CW1, the brother of Kalesh
questioned the same, the accused attempted to hack Kalesh with a sword.
However, Kalesh evaded the said attack and tried to escape by running
along the road after exiting the house. However, the accused chased
Kalesh and hacked on the back of his head with the sword. Due to the
said blow, when Kalesh fell down, the accused incessantly hacked at his
head and neck and murdered him. Moreover, the accused threatened the
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 3 2025:KER:18936
local people who came to the crime scene by brandishing the sword.
Hence the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable
under Sections 452 and 302 IPC.
3. On completion of the investigation, the final report was
submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur. As
the case was one triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the learned
Magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities committed
the case to the Court of Session, Thrissur. After taking cognizance, the
learned Sessions Judge made over the case for trial and disposal to
Additional Sessions Court-I, Thrissur. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge heard both sides under Section 227 Cr.P.C. and as the case was not
a fit one to discharge the accused, a written charge was framed against
the accused for offences punishable under Sections 452 and 302 IPC.
When the charge was read over and explained to the accused in
Malayalam, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the
prosecution has altogether examined 15 witnesses as PW1 to PW15.
Exts.P1 to P25(a) were exhibited and marked, and MO1 to MO4 were
produced and identified. A contradiction in the 161 statement of a
prosecution witness, brought out by the defence, was marked as Ext.D1.
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 4 2025:KER:18936
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 defence. From the side of the accused no evidence,
whatsoever, was produced.
5. After trial, the accused was found guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 452 and 302 IPC and convicted. The accused
was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) for offence punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. For offence
punishable under Section 452 IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- with
a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Aggrieved by the finding of guilt, conviction, and sentence passed by the
trial court, the accused has come up with this appeal.
6. The FIR in this case was lodged based on the statement given
by the brother of the deceased (PW1) to the SHO, Circle Inspector,
Anthikad Police Station. When the brother of the deceased was examined
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 5 2025:KER:18936
as PW1, he vividly recounted the incident that led to his brother’s death.
According to PW1, during the period of occurrence in this case, he along
with his wife, mother, and two children were residing in their family house
at Parakkad Santhi Nagar Colony. His brother Kalesh, the deceased in this
case, was also residing with him. His brother was a bachelor. On
24.09.2018, at about 11 p.m., the accused came to his house searching
for the accused’s wife, claiming that she is missing. The accused got entry
into the house when PW1 opened the door in response to the accused’s
knock on the door. After entering the house, the accused barged into the
room of Kalesh. The accused then brandished a sword and asked Kalesh
whether the accused’s wife is there. Then Kalesh evaded the attack and
escaped by running through the road after exiting from the house.
However, the accused chased Kalesh and hacked at his head and neck
incessantly. According to PW1, he witnessed the incident in the
background of the street light as well as in the light that emanated from a
nearby workshop. Moreover, there was also sufficient light from the
nearby houses. After the incident, on hearing the sound of a police jeep,
the accused fled from the scene. According to PW1, he as well as those
who gathered at the scene could not restrain the accused as he
brandished the sword towards them. Apart from PW1, his friends named
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 6 2025:KER:18936
Babu, Subin, and Subash (PW2) also witnessed the incident. PW1 further
testified that the accused was doubtful about the chastity of his wife and
two years prior to the incident in this case, the accused entered into a
quarrel with his brother Kalesh by saying the name of Jyothi, the accused’s
wife. Thereafter, the said issue was settled. According to PW1, it may be
due to the said feud, the accused attacked Kalesh. PW1 identified the
sword allegedly used by the accused to hack his brother and the same is
marked as MO1. According to PW1, his brother was wearing a dhoti at the
time of the commission of offence. The said dhoti was identified by PW1
and marked as MO2. PW1 further deposed that the accused was wearing
a trouser and shirt at the time of the commission of the offence. The said
trousers and shirt were also identified by PW1 and were marked as MO3
and MO4 respectively. According to PW1, Ext.P1 is the statement given by
him to the police.
7. An independent witness cited by the prosecution to prove the
occurrence was examined as PW2. PW2 deposed that he is residing at
Santhi Nagar Colony. Both the accused and the deceased in this case
were his friends and neighbours. His house is situated on the opposite side
of the deceased’s house. On 24.09.2018, between 11.00 p.m. and 11.15
p.m., while he was sitting in his house, he heard the accused making a
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 7 2025:KER:18936
commotion and searching for the accused’s wife in the nearby houses. The
accused also came to his house in search of his wife. Thereafter, the
accused went to the house of Kalesh. After a short while, he saw Kalesh
running away after exiting his house through the road and the accused
following him with a sword. On seeing the same, PW2 also followed the
accused. Apart from him one Sabu, Subin and the brother of the deceased
followed the accused. Then the accused hacked at the back of the head
and neck of Kalesh with the sword. Though PW2 along with the others
approached near the accused, he threatened them by brandishing the
sword. Scared by the same, none of them approached the accused. He
witnessed the incident under the street light, and the lights turned on in
the nearby workshop as well as in the nearby houses. After a short while,
on hearing the sound of a police jeep, the accused fled from the spot.
PW2 further testified that the accused doubted that his wife was having an
illicit relationship with Kalesh and that is why the accused attacked Kalesh.
PW2 identified MO1 as the sword used by the accused to hack the
deceased.
8. When another independent witness was examined as PW3, he
deposed that he is a carpenter and also a social worker. Both the accused
and the deceased in this case are familiar to him and they were his
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 8 2025:KER:18936
friends. On 24.09.2018, at around 11.00 p.m., a resident of Santhi Nagar
Colony informed him over the phone about the incident in this case. Then
he immediately informed the matter to the police over the phone.
According to PW3, thereafter, he went to the scene of the occurrence on
his bike. When he reached there, he saw the accused standing there,
holding a sword. Immediately, a police vehicle came and the accused fled
from the spot. Then Kalesh, the deceased in this case was found lying on
the road. As called by the police, an ambulance came and PW3 along with
the others took Kalesh to the District Hospital in the said ambulance. After
examining Kalesh, the doctor reported that Kalesh is no more. He
witnessed the inquest and is a signatory in the inquest report(Ext.P2)
prepared in this case. After the incident, the police came with the accused
in a jeep and he saw the accused taking a sword from an uninhibited
property situated on the northern side of the property of one Manesh and
handing over the same to the police. The police recovered the said sword
after describing it in a mahazar and he is also a signatory in the said
mahazar. Ext.P3 is the said mahazar.
9. The wife of the accused was examined as PW4. According to
PW4, during the period of occurrence in this case she along with her
husband, two children, and her husband’s parents were residing together
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 9 2025:KER:18936
in a house at Santhi Nagar Colony. On 24.09.2018, the accused picked up
a quarrel with her, and during the said quarrel she fell down to the floor
and sustained injuries. Anyhow, PW4 denied the suggestion put by the
Public Prosecutor that the accused hacked her with a sword. According to
PW4, after the quarrel, she went out of the house along with her elder
child and hid inside a firewood shed. The accused used to quarrel with her
frequently as he doubted her fidelity.
10. When the doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination
on the body of the deceased was examined as PW9, he deposed as
follows:-
On 25.09.2018, while he was working as an Assistant Professor at
Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, he conducted the autopsy of the
deceased in this case and issued a postmortem certificate. Ext.P13 is the
postmortem certificate so issued. According to PW9, 31 antemortem
injuries were noted by him in the postmortem examination. Referring to
Ext.P13 postmortem certificate, PW9 opined that the death was due to the
multiple incised wounds sustained to the neck and head. When PW9 was
confronted with MO1 sword, he deposed that the incised wounds noted in
the postmortem examination could have been produced by a weapon like
MO1. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW9 and the postmortem
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 10 2025:KER:18936certificate issued by him reveals that the death of Kalesh was certainly and
undoubtedly homicidal in nature.
11. A Civil Police Officer attached to Anthikkad police station was
examined as PW10. According to PW10, on 25.09.2018, at 4.00 a.m., as
directed by the Inspector of Police, Anthikkad, he recorded the FIS given
by PW1 and Ext. P1 is the FIS so recorded by him.
12. The Circle Inspector of Police, Anthikkad who registered the
case and conducted the investigation was examined as PW15. According
to PW15 on 25.09.2018, on the strength of the Ext. P1 FIS, he registered
the present case, and Ext.P17 is the FIR registered. Thereafter, he reached
the General Hospital, Thrissur, and conducted inquest. Ext.P2 is the
inquest report prepared by him. Thereafter at 12.40 p.m., he visited the
crime scene and prepared Ext. P8 scene mahazar in the presence of
independent witnesses. The scientific officer, who accompanied him had
collected some items from the crime scene and handed over the same to
him. According to PW15, those items were taken into custody as per
Ext.P11 seizure mahazar. Thereafter, he effected the arrest of the accused
at 6.00 p.m., at a place called Pazhamkol at Marady. The trousers and
shirt, worn by the accused at the time of his arrest were also taken into
custody after describing in Ext.P19 mahazar. On interrogation, the accused
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 11 2025:KER:18936
gave a confession statement, and on the strength of the disclosure
statement given by the accused and as led by the accused PW15 reached
at an uninhibited property situated on the backside of the house of one
Mahesh. Thereafter, the accused took a sword from the said property and
handed over the same to PW15. According to PW15, the said weapon was
recovered as per Ext.P3 mahazar. The sword so recovered was identified
by PW15 as MO1. According to PW15, the thondi articles recovered in this
case were produced before the court after describing in a property list.
PW15 identified the property list by which MO1 sword was produced
before the court and the said property list was marked as Ext.P21. PW15
also identified MO2, the dhoti worn by the deceased at the time of the
commission of offence. According to PW15, Ext.P23 is the forwarding note
prepared by him and produced before the Court for sending the thondi
articles in this case for scientific examination. The FSL report received
after the examination of the thondi article in this case was marked as
Ext.P24. According to PW15 as part of the investigation, he interrogated
the witnesses and recorded their statements. It was PW15, who
completed the entire investigation in this case and laid the final report
before the court.
13. To prove the charge levelled against the accused, the
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 12 2025:KER:18936
prosecution predominantly relies on the compelling ocular testimony of
PW1 and PW2. As noted, PW1 is none other than the brother of the
deceased and PW2 is a common neighbour of the deceased and the
accused. The evidence tendered by PW1 has been assailed by the counsel
for the appellant mainly on the ground that, as a close relative of the
deceased, PW1 is inherently an interested witness, rendering his
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 learned counsel for the appellant
that the evidence of PW1 is liable to be discarded at the threshold, solely
on the ground that he is the brother of the deceased, cannot be accepted.
14. 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
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 13 2025:KER:18936accused 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.”
15. 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.
16. Keeping in mind the above-mentioned principles enumerated
by a series of judicial pronouncements, while analyzing the evidence of
PW1, it is crucial to note that, he testified about an incident in which his
brother had tragically lost his life allegedly at the hands of the accused.
There is nothing to indicate that PW1 had any previous score to settle
against the accused. Even the accused did not have a case that PW1 had
any animosity or grudge towards the accused that would motivate him to
falsely implicate the accused in a murder case like this. Therefore, it
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 14 2025:KER:18936
defies common sense to categorize PW1 as an interested witness and to
doubt his testimony solely on the basis of his relationship with the
deceased. As observed in Rayappa‘s case (supra) it could not be
believed that PW1 would falsely implicate innocent individuals, thereby
shielding the true perpetrators who took the life of his brother and
allowing them to escape unpunished.
17. While evaluating the testimony of PW1, the initial
consideration is whether the presence of PW1 at the crime scene at the
time of offence is plausible and reasonably probable. The evidence of
PW1 that he and his deceased brother Kalesh were residing in their family
house at Parakkad Santhi Nagar Colony at the time of occurrence remains
unchallenged. The incident in this case allegedly occurred at 11.15 p.m.
According to PW1, at around 11.00 p.m., the accused knocked at the door
of their house and when he opened the door, the accused barged into the
room of Kalesh, asking whether the accused’s wife was there. According to
PW1, thereafter the accused brandished the sword towards Kalesh, who
evaded the attack and managed to escape by running along the road after
exiting the house. However, the evidence of PW1 shows that the accused
who was not ready to spare the deceased, followed him with a sword and
hacked him incessantly. Of course, the incident occurred on the late night
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 15 2025:KER:18936
of 24.09.2018. Given that the incident occurred late at night, PW1’s
presence at his house at that time is quite natural. As PW1 is a natural
witness his evidence cannot be disregarded merely because he is the
brother of the deceased.
18. Moreover, this is not a case in which the prosecution relies
solely on the testimony of PW1 to prove the occurrence. On the contrary,
the evidence of PW2, a neighbour of both the deceased and the accused
will prove the occurrence convincingly. On examination before the court,
PW2 categorically deposed that on 24.09.2018 between 11.00 p.m. and
11.15 p.m., while he was sitting in his house, he found the accused
searching for his wife in the neighbouring houses, creating a commotion.
PW2 further stated that the accused also came to his house in search of
his wife. Thereafter, the accused went to PW1’s house where Kalesh, the
deceased in this case was residing. After a short while, PW2 saw Kalesh,
running out of his house along the road. Then the accused followed
Kalesh with a sword and hacked at the head and the backside of the neck
of Kalesh with the sword. We find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of
PW2. The evidence of PW2 vouches the fact that PW1, the brother of the
deceased, was also at the crime scene at the time of the occurrence. The
fact that PW2 is residing near the place of occurrence remains undisputed
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 16 2025:KER:18936
in this case. PW2 being a resident near to the crime scene, his evidence
that he witnessed the incident need not be doubted as he is also a natural
witness. Moreover, the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the occurrence
witnesses is mutually corroborative. Notably the accused is not having a
case that PW2 has any sort of animosity or grudge that would motivate
him to falsely implicate the accused in a case of this nature. Therefore,
we find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW2 particularly since he
has no axe to grind against the accused. Though PW2 was subjected to
roving cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he
withstood the same successfully. His evidence is free from contradictions
and improvements of even a minor nature. Therefore, he can be treated
as a wholly reliable witness and his evidence is of sterling quality.
19. The evidence of PW3, another independent witness also will
lend some support to the case of the prosecution although he did not
witness the entire incident in this case. The evidence of PW3 shows that
he is also a resident at Santhi Nagar Colony where the accused and
deceased resided. According to him, on the alleged date of the incident at
around 11 p.m., he received a phone call from a fellow resident informing
him about the incident in this case. According to PW3 on getting the said
information he immediately informed the matter to the police over phone
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 17 2025:KER:18936
and rushed to the crime scene on his bike. PW3 further deposed that
when he reached the scene of the crime, he saw the accused standing
there holding a sword. PW3 further deposed that immediately then, Police
came, and on hearing the sound of the police vehicle the accused fled
from the scene. The testimony of PW3 that the accused was found
standing at the crime scene immediately after the incident with the sword
speaks volumes about his involvement in the commission of the offence.
20. Another material relied upon by the prosecution to prove the
complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence is the recovery
of MO1 sword, the weapon of offence, allegedly effected on the strength
of the disclosure statement given by the accused. When PW15, the
investigating officer, was examined, he deposed that after arresting the
accused and on interrogation, the accused made a confession statement,
and in the said statement, the accused disclosed that “എന്നെ കൂട്ടിക്കൊണ്ടു
പോയാൽ ആയുധം വലിച്ചെറിഞ്ഞ സ്ഥലവും ആയുധവും കാണിച്ചു തരാം.” According to PW15,
on the strength of the said disclosure statement and as led by the accused
he reached at an uninhibited property situated on the backside of the
house of one Mahesh, and the accused took and produced a sword from
inside the compound wall of the said property and the sword so produced
and handed over to him by the accused was taken into custody by
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 18 2025:KER:18936
describing in Ext.P3 recovery mahazar. At this juncture, it is apposite to
note that the relevant portion of the statement that led to the recovery of
MO1 sword, which finds a place in Ext.P3 recovery mahazar after
excluding the inculpatory portion reads as follows:
“ഞാൻ ഓടിപ്പോകുന്ന വഴി, ചാലാടി പഴങ്കോൽ ഭാഗത്തേക്ക്
പോകുന്ന വഴിയിലെ ഒഴിഞ്ഞ പറമ്പിലേക്ക് ഇട്ടിട്ടുണ്ട്. എന്നെ കൂട്ടിക്കൊണ്ടു
പോയാൽ ആയുധം വലിച്ചെറിഞ്ഞ സ്ഥലവും ആയുധവും കാണിച്ചുതരാം.”
21. It is apparent that the exact statement given by the accused
recorded in Ext.P3 mahazar, which led to the alleged recovery, was not
deposed by the investigating officer before the court. If the evidence of
PW15, the investigating officer is believed, the weapon was recovered
from the property situated on the backside of the house of one Mahesh.
In the cross-examination, PW15, the investigating officer admitted that
though in Ext.P3 recovery mahazar, it is stated that the accused made a
statement that the weapon was thrown to a vacant land on the side of the
way which leads to Chaladi Pazhamkol padam, MO1 sword was actually
seized from the property of Mahesh as led by the accused. Therefore, it is
not prudent to conclude that the recovery was effected on the strength of
the disclosure statement given by the accused. It is trite that what the
prosecution can prove is the information given by the accused which
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 19 2025:KER:18936
distinctively leads to recovery of a fact alone. The said information gets
conformity by the subsequent recovery of a fact. In the case at hand, the
exact information given by the accused which led to the alleged recovery
is not deposed by the investigating officer, and hence the said disclosure
statement stands not proved. Therefore, we are of the view that the
recovery of MO1 sword will not come within the ambit of Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act and the recovery evidence adduced by the
prosecution cannot be used against the accused.
22. The prosecution alleged that the motive behind the
commission of the offence was the accused’s suspicion that the deceased
had an illicit relationship with his wife prompting him to attack the
deceased. PW1 and PW2 testified before the Court that the accused
harbored doubts about his wife’s fidelity suspecting that she had an illicit
relationship with the deceased. Both the said witnesses further deposed
that it may be due to the said animosity the accused attacked the
deceased. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the motive for the
commission of offence remains unchallenged in the cross-examination.
Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution
succeeded in proving the motive for the commission of the offence.
However, we are cognizant that this is a case built upon direct ocular
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 20 2025:KER:18936
evidence, rendering proof of motive relatively less significant. Nonetheless,
the proven motive lends support to the prosecution’s case.
23. Before analysing the scientific evidence adduced in the case,
it is to be noted that when the brother of the deceased, who was an eye
witness to the occurrence was examined as PW1, he categorically deposed
that the accused was wearing a trouser and a shirt at the time of the
commission of the offence. During the trial, PW1 identified the said
trousers and shirt before the court and marked as MO3 and MO4
respectively. The evidence of PW15, the Investigating Officer shows that
he effected the arrest of the accused on 25.09.2018, and the trousers and
shirt worn by the accused at the time of the arrest were taken into
custody after describing in Ext. P19 Mahazar. PW15 identified MO3 and
MO4 as the said trousers and shirt. The FSL Report received after
examination of the thondi articles sent for chemical examination is marked
in evidence as Ext. P24 through PW15. In Ext.P24 report, it is specifically
mentioned that the trousers (MO3) and the shirt (MO4) which are shown
as item No. 10 and 9 respectively in the said report were subjected to
chemical examination, and on examination, human blood was detected in
both the said items. In Ext. P24 report, it is further mentioned that on
grouping, the blood contained in Item No. 9 shirt and Item No.10 trousers
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 21 2025:KER:18936
were found to be of Group ‘B’ which is determined to be the blood group
of the deceased. Therefore, the above discussed scientific evidence also
will lend some support to the case of the prosecution.
24. The upshot of the above discussion is that the evidence of
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. Though PW1 is a close
relative, it is established from the evidence that his presence at the crime
scene is natural. Ordinarily, it is unlikely that a relative of the deceased
would falsely implicate an innocent person in a murder case, thereby
sparing the actual perpetrator. Similarly, PW2 who is residing near the
place of occurrence provided a vivid account of the matters that transpired
in this case. He meticulously testified about the overt acts committed by
the accused. His presence at the crime scene is not challenged from the
side of the defence. Moreover, PW2’s evidence confirms the presence of
PW1, at the time of the commission of offence. The evidence of PW3 that
on knowing about the incident, when he went to the scene, he saw the
accused standing at the place of occurrence holding a sword in his hand
also will help the prosecution to a large extent in proving that the accused
is the perpetrator of this offence. Pertinently, even the defence is not
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 22 2025:KER:18936
having a case that any of the eyewitnesses have any ill will towards the
accused, which would motivate them to falsely implicate him in this case.
Therefore, we find that there is nothing to doubt the credibility of PW1 to
PW3, the eyewitnesses in this case. Consequently, their evidence can be
safely relied upon. 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 a link in establishing the guilt of the accused.
25. A perusal of the postmortem examination report reveals that
the deceased sustained fatal injuries on his neck and head 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, the number of injuries inflicted, and the nature of the
weapon used 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 rather the same will constitute an offence of
murder which is punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 23 2025:KER:18936
26. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the
prosecution had succeeded in proving the commission of offences
punishable under Sections 452 and 302 of the IPC by the accused. The
sentences imposed in this case for the said offences are also
commensurate with the nature and gravity of the offence committed.
Resultantly, we confirm the finding, conviction, and sentence passed
by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No.235/2019 on the file of the
Additional Sessions Court-I, Thrissur for the offences punishable under
Sections 452 and 302 IPC, and hence, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd/DCS
Crl. A. No.1811 of 2023 24 2025:KER:18936
APPENDIX OF CRL.A 1811/2023
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE
PETITIONER'S FATHER DT.2.6.2023
Annexure A2 A COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM
GURUKULAM VAIDIKA SANGAM DT.6.3.2024
[ad_1]
Source link