1964 Supreme(Ker) 132
Kerala High Court
ANNA CHANDY,P.GOVINDA MENON
Raghava Kurup, Accused - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Complainant - Respondent
Decided On : 07/02/1964
S. Govinda Pillai and M. Krishnan Nair, for Appellant; State Prosecutor for Respondent.
The duty of the prosecution to present all material witnesses and the need to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
murder - Conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302, Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) - The court analyzed the evidence of the witnesses, the motive, and the circumstances of the case. The key legal provisions of self-defense and the duty of the prosecution to present all material witnesses were discussed. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302, I.P.C. for stabbing the deceased. The prosecution alleged motives related to illicit intimacy and obscene words exchanged between the accused and the deceased's relations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The witnesses' testimonies were doubted, and the non-examination of a material witness was considered prejudicial to the accused. The court concluded that the accused's plea of self-defense was probable and true.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witnesses, the motive for the alleged murder, and the duty of the prosecution to present all material witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The duty of the prosecution to present all material witnesses, the importance of the origin of the trouble in self-defense cases, and the need to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt were the key legal principles influencing the court's decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.
GOVINDA MENON, J. :- The appellant has been convicted by the second Additional Sessions Judge of Trivandrum for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. The case against him was that he stabbed to death Sukumara Kurup at about 12 noon on 24-8-63.
2. The accused and the deceased are relations and the deceased was for some time staying with the father of the accused. Close to the accused's house there lived a harijan family including P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 examined in the case. The accused it is stated was having illicit intimacy with one of the girls P.W. 4. About two years before the occurrence he gave up the relationship, married and had a child. After the accused ceased to have any connection with P.W. 4 deceased Sukumara Kurup became intimate with her. It is the prosecution case that because of this the accused and deceased were on inimical terms. The prosecution also suggested another motive. It is stated that the accused used obscene words against P.W. 5 Kamalakshi who mentioned about it to P.W. 4 and P.W. 4 complained to the brother P.W. 6. The witnesses would have it that a few days before the occurrence P.W. 6 questioned the accused about his misbehaviour when he was beaten by the accused.
3. The deceased had no house of his own-and he used to give his earnings to P.W. 4 and he used to take food in her house. P.W. 10 is a teacher employed in the Government Primary School, Thottakkadu and at the relevant time deceased Sukumara Kurup was his servant attending to his cultivation work. On 24-8-63 early morning the deceased went to the house of P.W. 10 took his buffalos and the uzhavukol (stick) and went out for ploughing the field. After finishing the ploughing he took the cattle to the nearby canal (polakkalthodu) for washing them. P.W. 1 is the younger brother of the deceased who was working under one Govbada Kurup. On that day he was grazing his cattle on the western side of the canal. To the east of the canal is Thottakkad market and to go to the market people have to cross the canal. At about 12 noon the accused was returning from the market. Coming along the paddy field he got into the canal which is on a lower level. P.W. 1 saw the accused proceeding towards the canal and soon after he heard him asking the deceased " " and to which the deceased replied " " .
Immediately thereafter he says when he looked he saw the accused inflicting a stab injury on the deceased and running away from the scene. P.Ws. 2 and 3 who were returning from the market were following the accused and a little after the accused stepped down into the water channel they saw the accused stabbing the deceased on his left chest and the deceased falling down. Hearing the alarm many persons gathered and one among them P.W. 8 lifted the injured and placed him on a rock a few yards away. Life was extinct and he had an injury on the chest. P.W. 9 who reached the place questioned P.W. 1 and he told him that the accused stabbed the deceased. Thereafter P.Ws. 1 and 9 went to the Kadakkavoor police station. P.W. 17 the head constable recorded the complaint Ex. P-1 from P.W. 1 and registered a case. P.W. 20 the Sub Inspector proceeded to the scene the same evening but he was not able to question the witnesses as it was late.
Next morning he held the inquest and took into custody an Uzhavukol (stick) found at the scene. Enquiries were made of the accused but he was not available. Suspecting that he would have gone to his mother's sister's house at Palode within the limits of Vithura police station the Circle Inspector sent a memo to P.W. 19 the Sub Inspector Vithura, P.W. 19 arrested the accused on 28-8-63 from a field near the house of his mother's sister. At that time the accused had a knife with him and it was taken into custody under Ex. P-4. After completing the investigation the accused was charge-sheeted.
4. When questioned on the evidence in the committing magistrate's Court the