IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the appropriate punishment under the IPC based on the circumstances and intention of the accused.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused in S.C. No. 969/2010 of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram (arising out of Crime No. 303 of 2008 of Palode Police Station) against his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’].

The prosecution case:

2. The prosecution case is that the victim, now deceased, had an argument with the appellant over not joining him at a percussion performance in connection with the Srikrishnajayanthi celebrations, that took place a few days before the incident. This led to the appellant harbouring a grudge against the victim. On August 30, 2008, at around 5:30 p.m. while the victim, his cousin PW-1 Surendran, and the victim’s sister PW-2 Rejitha were having a conversation on the public road in front of the victim’s house, the appellant approached them with a knife in hand. He kicked the victim and caused him to fall to the ground, and stated that he had been looking for him for some time to seek revenge. After the victim fell face down, the appellant stabbed him in the back, causing a deep wound. The appellant then attempted to stab the victim in the neck, but the victim blocked the attack with both hands, resulting in injuries to the little finger on his left hand and the index finger on his right hand. When PW-1 attempted to save the victim, the appellant stabbed PW-1 in the back, causing injuries. The victim did not survive his injuries. The prosecution case, therefore, was that the appellant stabbed the victim with the intention of causing his death, thereby committing the offences under Sections 323, 324, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Proceedings before the trial court:

3. PW-12, the CI of Palode Police Station registered Crime No. 303 of 2008 and the investigation was conducted by PW-13 S. Madhusoodanan. After the appearance of the appellant, the learned public prosecutor opened the case under Section 226 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”] and after hearing both the sides under Section 227, charges were framed against the appellant. The appellant pleaded not guilty when the charges were read over and explained to him. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-14 and marked Exts.P1 to P14. MO1 to MO12 were identified.

4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence against him. He explained that seven years ago, there was a scuffle between the victim and his father. During the altercation, the victim fell in the workshop, and an iron rod lying there pierced his right shoulder. Witnessing the police beating his father, he took responsibility for the incident to protect his father. The appellant had marked Ext.D1 previous statement of PW-1. No other evidence was adduced by the appellant, though an opportunity was given to him.

5. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year; rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC.

The appeal before us:

6. We have heard Smt. Saipooja, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant accused and Sri. Alex M. Thombbra, the learned public prosecutor on behalf of the respondent State. We have also perused the trial court records that are placed before us.

7. The appellant before us and the deceased victim were related to each other. The incident in question occurred during the course of an argument between the appellant and the victim in the presence of PW-1 Sur