Back
High Court of Kerala
Jacob Benjamin Koshy, T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ.
V Venugopal - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 1468 of 2006
Decided On : 11-04-2007
MURDER - Dispute over water distribution in paddy fields - Indian Penal Code S.302 - S.27 of the Evidence Act - Recovery of weapon and blood-stained shirt - Conviction under S.304 Part I
Fact of the Case:
A 60-year-old agriculturist was murdered, and the accused, his brother-in-law, was convicted under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution established a motive for the accused due to disputes over water distribution and property shares. The only eyewitness turned hostile, and the evidence relied on the recovery of a blood-stained knife and shirt belonging to the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while there was clear evidence to connect the accused with the crime, the lack of direct evidence on the manner of the offense and the sudden quarrel led to the conclusion that the accused could only be convicted under S.304 Part I for causing injuries likely to cause death in the ordinary course, without evidence of premeditation.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the eyewitness, the admissibility of the recovery of the weapon and blood-stained shirt, and the absence of direct evidence on the manner of the offense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on S.27 of the Evidence Act to admit the recovery of the weapon as incriminating evidence against the accused. It also considered the lack of direct evidence and the sudden quarrel in reaching the decision to convict the accused under S.304 Part I instead of S.302.
Final Decision: The accused's conviction under S.302 IPC was set aside, and he was convicted under S.304 Part I, sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. If the fine is not paid, an additional six months of imprisonment is imposed.
J.B. Koshy, J.
1. A 60 year old Agriculturist called Kesavan was murdered on 26/04/2004 at about 7.30 p.m. and accused who is his brother in law was convicted for offence punishable under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased Kesavan is the husband of PW 4 Nachikutty, sister of the accused. The paddy fields of the accused is lying adjoining to the paddy field of Nachikutty and is lying in a higher level. Water for cultivation in the paddy fields of the wife of the deceased has to be taken through the field of the accused and there has been disputes between the accused and deceased with regard to the diversion of water for cultivation. On 26/04/2004 at about 7.30 p.m. when the deceased Kesavan and PW 1 Sivaswamy Gaundar were walking through Kanakkampara Themparamada road, the accused stopped the deceased and made an attempt to stab him with MO 1 knife. The deceased prevented the same and ran away from there. The accused followed him and again stopped him, stabbed at his chest, neck and left hand with MO 1 knife and thereby inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased. The deceased succumbed to the injuries.
2. PW 1 is a neighbour who knows the accused and deceased well. He is aseventy five year old labourer doing the work of maintaining cows. He gave the First Information Statement in terms of the prosecution case. It was marked as Ext. P1. However, during oral evidence he gave a different version. According to him, the incident occurred on the road in the evening and he was coming from Kanakkampara to Themparamada. He further deposed that nobody was with him at that time. Deceased Kesavan was walking ahead and at that time the incident occurred. He further stated that he is not aware who killed him. He has not seen the accused stabbing the deceased. He further stated that lot of people were standing at the place where body of Kesavan was lying and he was also standing there. Then Police arrived there and he gave statement to the police at that time. He also stated that he never went to police station and Ext. P1 is not given by him at the police station. Since he has stated contrary to Ext. P1 statement, he was declared hostile and he was cross examined. Then he admitted that he has stated to the police what he has seen and whatever he stated was written down by the police. The police read it out to him and then only he signed it. He also stated that contents of Ext. P1 are true. He deposed as follows:
He further stated that immediately after his arrival, his employer (PW 6) reached there and he told him what he has seen there. Later he stated that after seeing the incident, he ran away with fear. He deposed as follows:
In cross examination by accused he stated that he cannot read and write and he is not aware what is written in Ext. P1. Nobody has read it out to him. He has signed the same at the Themparamada road at 9-9.30 a.m. He has not stated anything at the time of signing the same. He was asked to sign and he signed it. At the time when signature was put in Ext. P1, many others were present in the road. There is no other eye witness to the incident.
3. PW 2, brother of the deceased, PW 3, son of the deceased, PW 4, wife of the deceased were examined to prove the motive. On going through the evidence, it can be very clearly stated that there was dispute regarding the distribution of water and it is also stated by many witnesses that earlier the accused stabbed son of the deceased and after that incident they were not in talking terms. PW 4 also stated that there were disputes regarding share in the property and her deceased father promised her to give her share and she had seen accused stabbing her son. She further stated that accused and deceased used to drink liquor and deceased used to beat her after drinking. From the evidence adduced in this case, it is very clear that prosecution was able to prove motive on the part of the accused. Existence of strong motive on the part of the accused is not enough to p
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
