IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.HARIPRASAD, N.ANIL KUMAR, JJ.
Antoney @ Kuttiyachan, S/o. Varkey – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
CRL.A.No.47 of 2016
Decided on : 15-06-2020
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 449, 302 and 307- Where a person causes the death of another person, it is for him to show that his act has been removed from the category of murder by one of the Exceptions to the section, for which the accused should place before the court such materials justifying the plea. The law is that the burden of proving Exception I is on the accused. But, the mere fact that the accused adopted another alternative defence without strictly adhering to Exception I to Section 300 of IPC is not enough to deny him of the benefit of Exception, if the court can cull out materials from the evidence pointing to the existence of circumstances leading to the exception.
Statement of facts:
appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C.No.5/2015 dated 31.12.2015, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pala, for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offences under various spells including life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. The appellant assails his conviction and sentence passed by the trial court for the aforesaid offences, rejecting his defence that the investigating officers have manipulated the entire case out of sheer anxiety to punish the appellant/accused.
Finding of the court:
All the acts of the accused would squarely fall within the Third clause of Section 300 IPC as these acts were done with the intention to cause the death -No valid grounds to alter the conviction of the appellant from the one under Section 302 to that under Section 304 Part I or under Part II of IPC.
Result: Criminal Appeal Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
N.ANIL KUMAR, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment in S.C.No.5/2015 dated 31.12.2015, passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pala, for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC'), convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offences under various spells including life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. The appellant assails his conviction and sentence passed by the trial court for the aforesaid offences, rejecting his defence that the investigating officers have manipulated the entire case out of sheer anxiety to punish the appellant/accused.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as hereunder:-
The deceased Joseph.J.Njavallil was a businessman and an agriculturist. He was residing along with his wife and two children in House No.507 in Ward No.9 of Thidanadu Grama Panchayat. The deceased had entered into an agreement with the accused for slaughter tapping in respect of 1500 rubber trees standing in his estate for an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The agreement period was three years starting from December, 2012. Initially, the accused had paid an amount of Rs.60,00,000/-as advance. Later, due to unforeseen circumstances, some rubber trees had fallen down and the price of latex had come down sharply in the world market. The accused had nursed a feeling that the fall in the price of latex and the destruction of the rubber trees due to rough wind would render the contract impossible to perform. Thereupon, a mediation talk and a new agreement was executed on 07.06.2013. Still, the accused had a feeling that the contract would cause total loss to him. Out of this frustration, the accused came to the house of the deceased on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KL/05-1053 at 9.30 am on 16.04.2014. Thereafter, he had committed criminal house trespass and called the deceased to come outside near the car porch of the house. A wordy altercation took place between the accused and the deceased. Feeling agitated, the accused stabbed the victim with MO1 dagger which he had kept in his loin. The accused had stabbed on the left side of the chest of the deceased and on the back twice, causing grievous injuries to the deceased. When the wife and children of the deceased along with one of his workers went to rescue the deceased, the accused stabbed them. The accused stabbed on the left side of the chest of PW2-Appu Jose and caused grievous hurt to him. The accused also stabbed PW7-Rijo on the left part of his chest, on the left hand muscle and on the left forearm. When PW3-Usha, the wife of the victim went to his rescue, the accused stabbed on the left side of her chest causing grievous injuries. When PW4-Biju went to the rescue of the deceased, the accused stabbed him with MO1.
Thereafter, the accused dragged the deceased to the courtyard and inflicted stab injury on the left side of his chest and ensured his death. The accused had attempted to murder PW2-Appu Jose, PW3-Usha, PW4-Biju and PW7-Rijo during the very same transaction.
3. PW1 lodged Ext.P1 First Information Statement before PW30 the Sub Inspector of Police, Thidanadu Police Station. He is an eye witness to the occurrence. Consequent to Ext.P1 FIS, PW30 registered Ext.P43 First Information Report as Crime No.220/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 354, 447 and 324 of IPC.
4. PW31-the Circle Inspector of Police, Erattupetta took over the investigation of the case on 16.4.2014 itself. PW31 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at 11.45 am and prepared Ext.P3 inquest report in which PW5 is a signatory. Column No11 is pertaining to the apparent cause of death. PW31 noted that the victim died as a result of the stab injuries on his chest. As part of the inquest, PW31 removed the clothes of the deceased and seized MO12 from the body of the deceased. He prepared Ext.P5 scene mahazar in which PW11 is a signatory. PW31 seized MO1 dagger, MO14 knife, MO15-the
Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 10 SCC 259]
Atley v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1955 SC 807]
Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. [(2009) 12 SCC 546]
Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [(2010)6 SCC 673.
Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra [(1995) 6 SCC 447]
Bhag Singh v. State of Punjab [(1997)7 SCC 712]
Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [(2008)8 SCC 270]
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat AIR 1964 SC 1563
Jarnail Singh and others v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719]
Krishan and others v. State of Haryana [(2006)12 SCC 459]
Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P.[(1975) 3 SCC 311]
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470]
Mohar v. State of U.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 606}
Mano Dutt and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2012)4 SCC 79]
Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar [(1973)3 SCC 881]
Ratan Lal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh [(1970)3 SCC 533]
Shivalingappa Kallayanappa and others v. State of Karnataka 1994 Supp(3) SCC 235
State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand and others [(2004) 7 SCC 629]
Surendera Mishra v. State of Jharkhand
Sanjeev V. State of Haryana [(2015) 4 SCC 387]
Vijayee Singh and others v. State of U.P. [AIR 1990 SC 1459]
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.