IMPORTANT POINT
The appellant had the right of private defence - Section 97 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant has the right of private defence subject to the restriction contained in Section 91 of the IPC to defend his own person. Section 100 of IPC make it clear that even if there is a reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt, the right of private defence of person extends to causing death. So long as the force used to prevent the aggression is not excessive, it would not be proper to hold that the right of private defence of the accused has been exceeded. The unexplained injuries on the appellant is an inbuilt guarantee to infer that the accused might have acted in exercise of right of private defence of his person.

JUDGMENT :

N.Anil Kumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Manjeri in Sessions Case 420/2012, arising out of Crime No.7/2011 of Edakkara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 11.11.2016, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of four months for committing the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for committing the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are stated as hereunder:-

One Abdul Sammad (PW13) was the owner and in possession of 33 rubber trees at Palemad comprised in Sy.No.980/1 of Edakkara Village. On 5.1.2011, PW13 executed Ext.P2 agreement in favour of PW1-Rasheed. The accused had made an unsuccessful attempt to take the aforesaid rubber trees for slaughter tapping. The accused had earlier taken the rubber trees standing in his adjacent properties for slaughter tapping and ever since then he had an eye on the aforesaid 33 rubber trees as well for slaughter tapping.

3. On 5.1.2011 at about 4 pm on account of the previous enmity, the accused had stabbed Ibrahim, one of the close friends of PW1, on his chest, by means of MO1 chisel and when PW1 tried to intervene, the accused had inflicted stab injuries on his right abdomen and left underarm by using the very same weapon. Ibrahim succumbed to the injuries and PW1 was taken to the hospital for treatment.

4. PW20 the then Sub Inspector of Police, Edakkara Police Station registered Ext.P13 FIR on the strength of Ext.P1 FIS given by PW1. PW22 had taken over the investigation and as part of investigation, he had conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ext.P8 inquest report. He had conducted visit to the crime scene and prepared Ext.P5 seizure mahazar and collected material objects from the scene of occurrence. The deadbody was sent for postmortem examination. PW15 conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and issued Ext.P9 Postmortem Certificate. PW20 arrested the accused, recorded the confession statement of the accused while in custody, effected recovery of material objects, and the material objects recovered were sent for chemical examination. On completion of investigation, PW22 filed final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC.

5. The learned Magistrate numbered the final report as CP No.74/2011 and committed the case to the Court of Session, Manjeri Division. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and numbered the case as S.C.No.420/2012 and made over the case to the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Manjeri.

6. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 24 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P26 on the side of the prosecution. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. His defence is one of total denial.

7. The learned sessions Judge did not deem it fit and proper to acquit the accused under S.232 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the accused was called upon to enter on his defence. DW1 was examined and marked Exts.D1 to D4 on the side of the accused.

8. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in paragraph 1 of the judgment. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this appeal.

9. Heard Sri.Babu.S.Nair, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Alex M.Thombra, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the Stat