Important Points:
• Motive for the attack on the deceased can be traced from the evidence produced by the prosecution- The deceased an octogenarian on the fateful day was simply sitting in the sit-out of the house- As an elderly person he had interfered in the family partition of property of the appellant being the brother of his son in-law and that too with the genuine intention to protect the property of the appellant from being sold for his welfare alone as he was spendthrift-
• The granite stone of 71 cm circumference and 22cm length used as weapon of offence was recovered on the next day of the incident from the front courtyard of the house by the police while preparing the scene mahazar-
• PW3 deposed that he got the information that the appellant attacked the deceased from CW3 (who is no more) through a phone call and he reached the house immediately and they together with the help of PW4 rushed the deceased to the hospital- PW4 also corroborates the evidence PW3-
• When direct and reliable evidence are available, motive loses its importance-The motive was properly proved and it would in fact strengthen the prosecution case

Shircy V., J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.09.2015 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kottayam in S.C. No.357 of 2013, whereby, the accused (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 449 of IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts, as culled out from the prosecution case are that the appellant was entertaining enmity towards the deceased, the father of PW1, namely, Devasya (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), on a wrong notion that the deceased was causing hindrance/obstruction to him in disposing of his property having an extent of 1 and ¾ cents which he received as share in partition of his family property. Due to his enmity towards the deceased, on 02/09/2012 at about 04.00 p.m. with the intention to commit murder of the deceased, trespassed into his residential house bearing Door No.232 in Ward No. I of Ettumanoor Grama Panchayath, Pattithanam Bhagom, Ettumanoor Village, Kizhakkumbhagom Kara, and attacked the deceased who was sitting on a chair in the sit-out of the house facing north. The appellant with a granite stone piece hit the deceased on his forehead, head, face and chest, and inflicted grievous injuries to him, and as a result the deceased fell down on the floor. While so, the appellant stamped over his chest using his feet and thereafter fled away from the place of occurrence. The injured Devasya was immediately taken to a private hospital and from there he was shifted to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Though he was provided with proper treatment, his health deteriorated and on 07/09/2012 at 10.45 p.m. he succumbed to the injuries.

3. PW1, the son of the deceased informed the police about the incident. PW14 recorded Ext.P1 FIS and accordingly, FIR No.1131/12 was registered against the appellant for the offences under sections 451 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. PW15, the Sub Inspector of Police registered Ext.P11 FIR and he seized MO.1 chair and MO4 granite stone from the place of occurrence. PW16 seized the treatment records of the deceased. PW11 conducted the autopsy and prepared Ext.P9 post mortem certificate. PW17 conducted major part of the investigation. He seized MO2 and MO3 by Ext.P10 mahazar. He arrested the appellant on 05/09/2012 from the bus stand at Ettumanoor. Ext.P14 is the arrest memo. Ext.P2 is the seizure mahazar prepared at the time of seizing MO5 and MO6. He also proved Ext.P15 report, Ext.P16 property list and Ext.P20 FSL report. He completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet. As the injuries resulted in the death of Devasya, charge against the appellant was altered. Ext.P13 report was submitted by the investigating officer for incorporating Sections 449 ad 302 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly charge sheet was laid against the appellant.

4. Charges were framed against the appellant under the above sections of law to which he pleaded not guilty. At the trial, in its endeavour to prove the guilt against the appellant the prosecution had examined PWs.1 to 19 as witnesses, and also tendered documentary evidence as Exts.P1 to P22. Mos.1 to 6 were also produced and identified. During 313 examination, the appellant submitted that he was falsely implicated but, did not adduce any evidence, to support his contention. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant under the above sections of law as mentioned above. Assailing the conviction and sentence passed against him, he preferred this appeal.

5. We hav