IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.HARIPRASAD, N.ANIL KUMAR, J.
Jomon @ Kava S/o. Devasia – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.A.No.1276 of 2016
Decided on : 31-10-2019
Indian Penal Code-Section 302, Section 304- The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987-The Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulation, 1998-The appellant is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under Section 304 Part II of IPC- The oral and medical evidence available in this case would prompt us to alter the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part II of IPC-There are provisions in the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the Kerala State Legal Services Authority Regulation, 1998, their implementation falls short of the expected standard- - Section 13 of the Said Act says that persons who satisfy all or any of the criteria specified in Section 12 shall be entitled to receive legal services provided the concerned Authority is satisfied that such person has a prima facie case to prosecute or to defend.
Statement of facts:
Appeal is at the instance of the accused in S.C.No.148 of 2010 before the court of Session, Kottayam who was convicted under Section 302 of IPC -Commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Paninjon@Mohanan S/o.Nanu, Mohanavilasom Puthenchantha, Vallikunnam Village, Alappuzha and thereby committed offence punishable under S.302 of IPC and within my cognizance.
Finding of the court:
Without mechanically appointing a legal aid counsel from the panel of legal aid lawyers, the Chairman, District Legal Services Authority shall apply his mind to the facts and circumstances in each Sessions Case and appoint a competent person for defending the accused who has no means to engage a counsel of his choice.
Result: Criminal Appeal is disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
A.Hariprasad, J.
This appeal is at the instance of the accused in S.C.No.148 of 2010 before the court of Session, Kottayam who was convicted under Section 302 of IPC. The charge framed by the learned Sessions Judge against the accused reads as follows:-
“I, Jose Thomas, Additional Sessions Judge, (Adhoc)-II Kottayam do hereby charge you.
Kava@Jomon,
S/o.Devasia,
Kalluvettathu House,
Pizhaku Kara,
Ramapuram Village.
as follows:
That you on or about 7th day of September 2009 at about 10.30 p.m. in the waiting shed situated on the west of Thodupuzha-Pala Road in Pizhaku Palam Junction, Pizhaku, Kadanadu Village did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of Paninjon@Mohanan S/o.Nanu, Mohanavilasom Puthenchantha, Vallikunnam Village, Alappuzha and thereby committed offence punishable under S.302 of IPC and within my cognizance.
And I hereby direct that you be tried on the said charge.
Dated this the 1st day of November, 2011.
Sd/-Jose Thomas,
Addl.Sessions Judge,
(Adhoc)-II, Kottayam”
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Mohanan @ Paninjon originally belonged to a Village in Alappuzha, but he migrated to and was engaged in manual labour at Palam Junction in Pizhaku Kara of Ramapuram Village for a long period. He used to sleep in the veranda of closed shop rooms and in bus waiting sheds. The allegation is that the appellant had enmity towards Mohanan and with an intention to commit murder, on 07.09.2009 at 10.30 pm., he physically assaulted the deceased by hitting and kicking on vital parts of body from a bus waiting shed on the side of a public road. Due to the multiple injuries sustained to the internal organs, the victim died after a short while. Ext.P2 is the First Information Statement. PW7 is the informer. As per Ext.P2 FIS, PW7 received a phone call on 07.09.2009 at about 10'o clock in the night from a person by name Dominic and he informed that Mohanan @ Paninjon was found lying unconscious in a bus waiting shed. PW7 along with Dominic, Shinto and Ratheesh went to the bus waiting shed. At that time, they found Mohanan in a critical condition. Immediately, PW7 telephoned to Ramapuram Police Station. After a short while, police party came to the place of occurrence and the victim was taken to a hospital at about 11.30 hours in the night. He was declared dead from the casualty of the hospital. PW7 had been informed by the witnesses that there was a wordy duel between the deceased and appellant. It is also seen that both the deceased and appellant used to stay either in the bus waiting shed or in the veranda of nearby shops closed during night. The deceased and appellant were in the habit of drinking.
3. Heard Sri.Renjith.B.Marar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Alex M.Thombra, learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
4. PW7, who when examined, substantially supported the versions in Ext.P2 FIS. Even though Sri.Renjith.B.Marar, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out some aspects in PW7's evidence deviating from his First Information Statement, we find no serious incongruity to disbelieve his version that he along with other prosecution witnesses found the deceased in a state of unconsciousness in the bus waiting shed. However, we shall look for collaboration from other witnesses also. PW1-Nishadh Joseph was working as a Constable in the Railway Protection Force, Madras Division. According to him, he used to come to his native place on leave every month. He knew the appellant and deceased. The appellant is a native of PW1's locality. He deposed that on 07.09.2009 he was supposed to return to Madras for joining duty next day. He was expected to entrain Thiruvananthapuram-Chennai express at 8.30 pm. But he missed the train and therefore he decided to go back home. He boarded a KSRTC bus and reached at about 10.00 hours in the night near the bus waiting shed where the incident had happened. At that time, he heard noise emanating from the bus waiting shed as if two persons wer
SupremeToday
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.