The reliability of eye witness testimony and the admissibility of recovered evidence are crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.

JUDGMENT :

P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.

1. The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 449 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad. He was prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 326 IPC. By judgment delivered on 26.5.2010, the court below convicted the accused finding him guilty of the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He was found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 326 IPC and was acquitted of that offence. The accused has, aggrieved thereby, filed this appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows.

2. The appellant was prosecuted for the aforesaid offences on the allegation that at about 9 AM on 23.2.2008 on account of enmity and with the intention of causing her death, he inflicted injuries on the head of his mother Saraswathy Amma, that she died of the injuries caused by him and thereby he committed the offences punishable under sections 302 and 326 IPC. The appellant was arrested on the day of the incident namely, 23.2.2008. The investigation of the crime was initially conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Vadakara who was holding charge of the Circle Inspector of Police, Alathur. Later, PW-12 conducted the investigation from 2.3.2008 onwards. The investigation was completed by PW-10, Circle Inspector of Alathur who filed the final report in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alathur, where it was taken on file and numbered as C.P. No. 82 of 2009. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions, Palakkad and made over for trial to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad, Adhoc-III. Charges were framed against the accused on 17.2.2010 and read over and explained to him. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 12 and produced and marked exhibits P1 to P18 as also the material objects marked as MO1 to MO5. The trial came to an end on 18.4.2010. Thereupon, the accused was examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 8.4.2010 and the case was adjourned to 17.4.2010 for defence evidence. On 17.4.2010 as it was reported that the accused has no evidence to adduce, the case was adjourned to 28.4.2010 for hearing and later to 6.5.2010. Arguments were heard on 6.5.2010, later on 13.5.2010 and still later on 20.5.2010. On that day, the hearing was concluded and the case posted for judgment to 26.5.2010. By judgment delivered on 26.5.2010, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. The trial court relied mainly on the testimony tendered by PW-1 (son of the victim's elder sister), an eye witness to the incident who had given Ext.P1 first information statement at 10.30 AM on 23.2.2008 at Alathur Police Station and PW-2, a neighbouring resident, who was also an eye witness to the incident, to find the accused guilty of murder. The trial court held that the testimony tendered by the eye witnesses examined as PWs. 1 and 2 and PW-4, the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, Ext.P17 report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and Ext.P16 chemical analysis report, prove that MO1 chopper was used by the accused to inflict injuries on the body of the deceased. The trial court also held that the accused had abandoned MO1 chopper after committing the crime and left the place.

4. We heard Smt. Bindu Sreekumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. Abdul Khadir, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State of Kerala. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the testimony tendered by PWs. 1 and 2, who are stated to be eye witnesses to the incident, are conflicting and contradictionary and therefore, no reliance can be placed on their testimony to find the accused guilty of the charges levelled against him. Learned counsel contended that MO1 chopp