Point of law : Veracity of the evidence of the said witness cannot be doubted merely because of that reason. Manner of reaction of people cannot be imagined precisely, as the nature of human conduct and reactions are very complex and it depends upon various factors and it varies from person to person. Therefore we are of the view that it is not a crucial aspect which can cast a shadow of doubt on the prosecution evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.

1. The documents before us reveal the murder of an ill-fated unfortunate woman named Elizebeth@ Mani, by her own son, merely because of the reason that, she could not fulfill his demand of money for his personal needs. The son of the deceased was tried as an accused in S.C No 408/2014 by the Additional Sessions Court-I, Alappuzha and stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 302 of Indian Penal Code. The sentence imposed is imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs 5,000/-. This appeal is filed by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence.

2. The prosecution case is as follows: On 28.05.2013, at 3.45 P.M, the accused came to Srambickal House, House No 1/579 of Mararikulam South Grama Panchayath, where the deceased was living along with her husband Wilson (PW2), and demanded money from her for his personal needs. As she conveyed that she does not have any money to give him, he got infuriated, took out a knife and stabbed on the chest of the mother. Even though she was taken to hospital, with the help of neighbours, by PW2 and his daughter(PW6), who joined them enroute, she succumbed to the injuries on the way. The accused was arrested on the very same day itself.

3. The FIR was registered as Crime No 485/2013 by the Mannanchery Police, on the basis of the First Information Statement given by a Ward member of the Grama Panchayath at 7 P.M on the very same day. After investigation, the Circle Inspector, Mararikulam, submitted charge sheet before Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Alappuzha for the offences mentioned above. Learned Magistrate, after completing the procedural formalities committed the same to the Sessions Court as per proceedings in CP 24/2014. Before the Sessions Court, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16, Exts P1 to P24 were marked and MO’s 1 to 8 were identified. Ext D1 contradiction in the statement under section 161 Cr.P.C of PW2 was also marked. Thereafter the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C and all the incriminating evidence were brought to his notice, but he denied the same and reiterated that he is innocent of all the allegations. He also filed a written statement in his defense, by invoking his right under section 233(2) of Cr.P.C, which forms part of the records. In the said statement, he stated as follows; PW2 (Wilson, who is his father) a drunkard used to manhandle him and the other members of his family from his childhood itself. He was brought up under the protection of Rev Fr John Kurishinkal and Fr Thobiyackal of St Augustine Church, Mararikulam and his mother used to visit him in the church. After the death of Fr Thobiyackal, he returned to his house and even at that time, the character of PW2 remained the same. Therefore he left the house, attended various jobs at various places and visited his mother occasionally. The accused was thereafter denied entry to the house by PW2, despite a complaint filed by deceased before the police in this regard. He also alleged about certain incidents of quarrel by Sebastian, the husband of PW6, (sister of accused), with PW2, which ultimately led to the stabbing of the said Sebastian by PW2. He also referred to the arrest of PW2 consequent to the said incident and settlement of the said case, by giving Rs 1,50,000/-to the said Sebsatian, which amount was procured by selling their house at Makki colony. Thereafter, father (PW2) and sister (PW6) attempted to appropriate the remaining amount from the sale proceeds of their house at Makki Colony, with the help of the said Sebastian, but mother objected to the same. He also stated that he was not present in the place of occurrence and when he came to know about the death, he questioned PW2 and the said Sebastian, which led to a quarrel between them, and during which, the police picked him up. Later, due to the influence of PW2 and Sebastian, police implicated him in the case as an accused. However, none of the said contentions were s