The judgment emphasizes the admissibility of hearsay evidence under the principle of res gestae and the significance of prompt FIR in establishing the truth of the incident.

JUDGMENT :

Johnson John, J.

The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 144 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Pathanamthitta and he is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 302 of IPC as per the impugned judgment dated 09.05.2019.

2. As per the prosecution case, the accused and the deceased were working as employees in a restaurant at Pathanamthitta and in connection with a dispute regarding cooking and supply of foods in the restaurant, there occurred a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and for the reason that the deceased beat the accused in the said quarrel, there was enmity between the accused and the deceased who are natives of Bengal and on 22.08.2016, at about 10 pm., while the deceased Nani Gopal Das was in the kitchen of the restaurant, the accused, with the intention to kill him, stabbed on his chest with a steel knife and committed his murder.

3. On the basis of Exhibit P1 First Information Statement of PW1, the owner of the restaurant, PW13, Sub Inspector of Pathanamthitta Police Station, registered Exhibit P11 First Information Report and thereafter, PW16 completed the investigation and filed the final report before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Pathanamthitta

4. After committal, the case was taken on file as S.C. No. 144 of 2017 and when the accused was produced before the trial court, after hearing both sides, charge was framed under Section 302 of IPC and when the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty.

5. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16 and marked Exhibits P1 to P29 and MOs 1 to 9, to prove the charge against the accused. Since it is found that the accused is not entitled for an acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C, he was called upon to enter on his defence. But, no evidence was adduced from the side of the accused.

6. After hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 09.05.2019, convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

7. Heard Sri. Sujith Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. E.C. Bineesh, the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and the sentence imposed against the accused is legally sustainable.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no direct witness to the occurrence and the evidence adduced from the side of prosecution is of a circumstantial nature and since the prosecution has not succeeded in fully establishing the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. It is argued that there is no satisfactory evidence to connect the accused with the incident and the prosecution has not furnished any reasonable explanation for the non-examination of CW2, Pintu Barman, who is alleged to have witnessed the quarrel between the accused and the deceased and also informed PWs 1 to 3 regarding the quarrel between the accused and the deceased at the time of occurrence.

10. But, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the presence of PWs 1 to 3 near to the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence is not seriously disputed and that PW1 is the owner of the restaurant and PW2 is a supplier in the very same restaurant and PW3 was working as a security staff in Karur Vysya Bank adjacent to the restaurant and there is no reason for them to falsely depose against the accused in a serious case of murder.

11. According to PW1, the deceased Nani Gopal Das, a native of West Bengal, was working as a cook in his restaurant from 2015 onwards and the accused joined in his restaurant as a cleaner during the period 2015-2016. PW1