Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 1020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Hariprasad, N. Anil Kumar, JJ.
Satheesh Kumar and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 817 of 2016
Decided On : 23-07-2020
For the Appellant : Clarance Miranda and V.S. Thoshin, Advs.
For he Respondents: S.U. Nazar, Sr. Public Prosecutor
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and in the absence of conclusive evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Headnote:
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Section 304 Part II - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appeal is against the conviction of accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting the deceased, resulting in his death. The prosecution alleged that the accused had assaulted the deceased with choppers and wooden sticks, causing serious injuries and ultimately leading to his death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the knowledge that their act was likely to cause the death of the deceased without any intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. As a result, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased, the timing of the occurrence, the reliability of witness testimonies, and the lack of conclusive evidence linking the accused to the alleged assault.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the prosecution's burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and highlighted the lack of reliable evidence to establish the accused's culpability under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The court also scrutinized the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the absence of conclusive forensic evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The appellants were directed to be set at liberty.
JUDGMENT :
N. Anil Kumar, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.7.2016 in S.C. No. 454/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced accused Nos. 1 and 2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months more for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).
2. The prosecution case in brief is as hereunder:-
On 04.03.2007 at 10.15 pm, out of prior enmity, accused 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention had assaulted the deceased on the road side in front of the house of the deceased with MOs. 1 and 3 choppers and MOs. 2 and 4 wooden sticks, causing serious injuries including head injury. Immediately after the occurrence, his parents came to the scene of occurrence on hearing the hue and cry of the deceased. The injured was taken to their house and later in the morning at 5 am., he was taken to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. It is alleged that A1 and A2 inflicted serious injuries on the deceased with an intention to murder and the accused stood charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC by the Circle Inspector of Police, Palode, Thiruvananthapuram.
3. Upon committal, the accused 1 and 2 entered appearance before the trial court. After having heard both sides, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty.
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 15 and marked Exts. P1 to P24. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, they were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. They denied their complicity in the case and pleaded innocence. DW1 was examined and marked Exts. D1 to D3 on their side. DW1 is a night watchman attached to the Agrifarm at Panniyode. On 04.03.2007, while he was on night duty at the office which is 50 m. away from the residence of the deceased, he saw a free fight outside the residence of the deceased between the deceased on one side and his cousins on the other side. The free fight thus ensued from 5 pm in the evening till late in the night. According to him, after 12 am in the night, he heard a hue and cry in front of the house and proceeded to the place. Then he saw the deceased lying in front of the house and on enquiry, he was told that the deceased had jumped into the well.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri. Clarance Miranda and learned Senior Public Prosecutor for the State Sri. S.U. Nazar.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the depositions of various witnesses. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC is wholly unsustainable and none of the injuries sustained by the deceased are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, PW13-the Doctor who conducted the postmortem, opined that the cause of the death is head injury. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, no question was asked touching the reason for cause of the injury. The learned counsel further contended that the alleged recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was also not proved. Further, Ext. P9 FSL report do not show that MOs. 1 to 4 contained any blood, hair or tissues. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, FIR and Inquest Report were submitted before the court belatedly. It is further contended that the time of occurrence was not proved by the prosecution.
7. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor on the other hand argued that the trial court was perfectly justified in convicting and sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. The lear
