KERALA HIGH COURT
A. Badharudeen, J.
Saju – Appellant
versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.A.No.331 of 2007
Decided on 3.8.2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 – Attempt to murder – Conviction and sentence – To justify conviction under Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that fatal injury capable of causing death should have been caused – Prosecution is duty bound to examine all material witnesses, particularly, investigating officer to prove prosecution case – But such examination is possible in relation to witnesses whose presence could be secured by means known to law – If a crucial witness or investigating officer dies or their presence could not be secured for valid reasons, non-examination of crucial witnesses or investigating officer by itself is not a ground to disbelieve prosecution case in toto, if evidence adduced otherwise emphatically established prosecution case – When plea of alibi is raised, it is bounden duty of accused to prove the same in a convincing manner and on failure to do so, plea of alibi shall be negatived – Prosecution successfully established ingredients to attract offence under Section 307 of IPC – Conviction does not require any interference – Conviction imposed against accused under Section 307 of IPC stands confirmed and sentence stands modified. (Paras 20, 27, 31, 33, 34 and 36)
Result: Appeal allowed in part.
JUDGMENT
The sole accused in S.C.No.353/2004 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-II, Thodupuzha has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. assailing conviction and sentence imposed against him in the above case as per judgment dated 22.01.2007. The respondent herein is the State of Kerala.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Adv. Ramesh Chander and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
3. Shown off unnecessary details, the prosecution case is as under:
It is alleged by the prosecution that on 16.12.2002 at about 7.30 p.m., the accused herein, with intention to do away the defacto complainant, stabbed him with a knife, on the left side of his abdomen and thereby caused grievous injury and consequential removal of his kidney. On the above facts, crime No.171/2002 was registered by Kaliyar Police and the matter was investigated. Finally, charge alleging commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC by the accused was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thodupuzha. The jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the court of Sessions, Thodupuzha and in turn, the case was made over to the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha for trial and disposal.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the accused and the prosecution, framed charge alleging commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC and proceeded with trial.
5. During trial, PW1 to PW13 were examined and Exts.P1 to P14 and MO1 to MO4 were marked on the side of the prosecution.
6. On close of prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence against him and he filed a written statement to the effect that the accused was not present at the spot of occurrence at the time of occurrence.
7. Thereafter, DW1 and DW2 examined and Ext.D1 marked on the side of the defence.
8. The learned Sessions Judge appraised the evidence and found that the accused committed offence under Section 307 of IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/-. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year also was imposed with direction to pay the same as compensation to the injured/PW1.
9. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the learned Sessions Judge relied on feeble evidence to convict and sentence the accused in this matter, where the prosecution miserably failed to prove commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC by the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. He had given emphasis to the deposition of PW1, whereby PW1 deposed during cross-examination that he had disclosed the name of the assailant before the doctor with submission that the said portion of evidence is a contradiction, since PW1 not given any such statement before the defence. Apart from that, the learned counsel placed plea of alibi relying on the evidence of DW1 and DW2 and Ext.D1 positing that the accused was not present at the time of occurrence in the place of occurrence.
10. Dispelling this argument, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently supported the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, pointing out the fact that PW1, the injured/defacto complainant and two independent witnesses, viz., PW2 and PW6 supported the occurrence in a convincing manner though PW7, another occurrence witness, did not support the prosecution fully. The learned Public Prosecutor also highlighted medical evidence in this case in support of the conviction and sentence. Accordingly, it is submitted that the conviction and sentence do not require any interference.
11. In this case, the prosecution allegation is that the accused caused stab injury on the left side of the abdomen of PW1 on 16.12.2002 at Vellamohira in Kodikulam – Vellamchira road at 7.30 p.m., by using a knife with intention to do aw
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mohan and Others
Sagayam vs. State of Karnataka
R. Prakash vs. State of Karnataka
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kanha
When plea of alibi is raised, it is bounden duty of accused to prove the same in a convincing manner and on failure to do so, plea of alibi shall be negatived.
The judgment established that the evidence must prove the accused's intention or knowledge to commit murder for a conviction under Section 307 of I.P.C.
The judgment establishes the importance of eyewitness testimony and the requirement of proving common intention under Sec. 34 of IPC. It also emphasizes the need for clear evidence to establish the g....
The court upheld the conviction for attempted murder but granted probation instead of imprisonment, emphasizing rehabilitation over punishment due to the appellant's age and reformation.
The judgment emphasizes the admissibility of hearsay evidence under the principle of res gestae and the significance of prompt FIR in establishing the truth of the incident.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the evidence of eyewitnesses, the injured witness, and the medical evidence played a crucial role in establishing the guilt of the accused bey....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.