SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Ker) 494

Judges : J B KOSHY,KRISHNAN NAIR
Balachandran and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 1998(C)
Decided On : 11/08/2000
Advocates Appeared :
Mathew John (K), S. U. Nazar, Advocates

The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing shared common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the need for reliable evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code - Offences - Sections 302, 324, 447, 506(ii) read with Section 34 - The judgment discusses the evidence and the court's decision on the charges against the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The court found the 1st accused guilty of the offences and convicted them, while the 2nd and 3rd accused were acquitted due to lack of evidence of shared common intention.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the accused being charged with offences under Sections 302, 324, 447, and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for an incident resulting in the death of the victim, Sam. The prosecution's case was based on the evidence of witnesses and the autopsy report.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the 1st accused guilty of the offences and convicted them, while the 2nd and 3rd accused were acquitted due to lack of evidence of shared common intention.

Issues: The main issue was whether there was reliable evidence to connect the accused with the crime, and whether the 2nd and 3rd accused shared a common intention to murder the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was overwhelming evidence to show that the 1st accused was the author of the injuries found on the deceased, resulting in his death. However, the evidence did not establish that the 2nd and 3rd accused shared a common intention to murder the deceased.

Final Decision: The order of conviction and sentence against the 1st accused was confirmed, while the 2nd and 3rd accused were acquitted and found not guilty of the offences.

Judgment :-

KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

The accused in S.C. No. 21/95 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam, are the appellants. They were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324, 323, 447, and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 324, 447 and 506(ii) read with Section 34, I.P.C. and convicted them thereunder. Each of the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C. rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 324, I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 447, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 506(ii) read with Section 34, I.P.C. The sentences were allowed to run concurrently. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused are seriously challenged in this appeal.

2. The unfortunate victim in this case is one Sam, who was the son of P.W. 2 Kunjumol and P.W. 3 Baby. The deceased along with his parents, brother and younger sister was residing in house No. 361 of ward No. XII of Panachikkadu Panchayat. P.W. 1, Manoj, the brother of the deceased was an autorickshaw driver. The occurrence took place in the Court yard of the house of the deceased on the night of 26-6-1994. The genesis of the occurrence was a petty quarrel which took place between the 1st and 2nd accused on the one hand and P.W. 3 Baby on the other. On the date of occurrence at about 6 p.m. while P.W. 3 was standing near a shop at Kollad, accused 1 and 2 approached him and picked up a quarrel with him. The 1st accused beat P.W. 3 with his hands at the instigation of the 2nd accused. P.W. 3 went to Kanjikuzhy autorickshaw stand and informed P.W. 1 about it. P.W. 1 took P.W. 3 in his autorickshaw to their house and left the house saying that a complaint could be lodged before the police on the next day. After some time the deceased reached the house and P.W. 3 narrated the incident to him also. Thereafter the deceased went to the house of John, the brother of P.W. 2. After some time the 2nd accused came near the house and called P.W. 3 to come out. Sensing danger P.W. 3 did not respond. When the deceased came back to the house from the house of John, the 2nd accused called him and took him towards the house of 3rd accused. P.Ws. 2 and 4 followed him with lighted kerosene lamps up to the boundary of their property. On seeing the deceased, the 3rd accused took out a sword stick and brandished it against the deceased saying that he was waiting for him. The deceased ran back to his house. The accused chased him and when he reached the Court yard of his house, the 1st accused with a chisel stabbed the deceased on his chest felling him to the Court yard. Thereafter the 1st accused stabbed the deceased on his back. When P.W. 2 intervened, the 1st accused stabbed her on her chest with the Chiest. The 3rd accused showing the sword stick threatened others from approaching near them. The 2nd accused beat P.W. 3 with his hands. When P.Ws. 2 and 3 cried aloud the neighbours gathered at the scene and the accused ran away with the weapons.

3. The injured were taken in an autorickshaw to the District Hospital, Kottayam. On the way to the hospital, Sam succumbed to his injuries. P.W. 8 examined P.W. 2 and referred her to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam.

4. On 27-6-1994 P.W. 1 proceeded to the Kottayam Police Station and lodged Ext. P1 statement. On the basis of Ext. P1, P.W. 11, the then Sub-Inspector of Police registered Crime No. 240/94 under Ext. P1(a) F.I.R. P.W. 12, the Circle Inspector of Police took up the investigation in the case. He conducted the inquest on the dead body and prepared Ext. P8 inquest report. Dr. Radhakrishnan, Professor of Forensic Medicine, (P.W. 7) performed autopsy on the dead body of Sam. Ext. P4 is the post mortem certificate. P.W. 12 went to the scene of occurrence an
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top