SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 694

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. GIRISH, JJ.
Varghese, S/o. Devassy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 1089 Of 2016, Crl. A. No. 1095 Of 2016, Crl. A. No. 1166 Of 2016
Decided On : 25-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), Sri. C. Jayakiran, Sri. V.C. Sarath, Sruthy K.K., Sri. M.P. Madhavankutty, Sri. G. Sudheer Thuravoor.
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor, Sri. Alex M. Thombra.

Minor discrepancies in eyewitness accounts do not undermine their credibility; sufficient evidence established unlawful assembly and conspiracy to commit murder.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, and 302 r/w. Section 149 - Conviction for murder - Accused formed unlawful assembly and conspired to murder - Evidence of eyewitnesses accepted despite minor discrepancies - 57 injuries inflicted on the deceased, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1-17)

(B) Criminal Conspiracy - Prosecution failed to prove conspiracy under Section 120B due to lack of direct evidence - Circumstantial evidence insufficient to establish meeting of minds among accused. (Paras 16)

Facts of the case:
The deceased, Shameer, was attacked by a group of accused following a prior altercation. The prosecution established that the accused conspired and executed the murder, inflicting multiple injuries.

Findings of Court:
The Sessions Judge found the eyewitness accounts credible, despite minor inconsistencies, and concluded that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitnesses, the sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy, and the application of Section 149 IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that minor discrepancies in eyewitness accounts do not undermine their credibility, and the evidence sufficiently established the formation of an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit murder.

Result: Appeals dismissed, confirming conviction and sentence.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

These appeals have been preferred challenging the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur in S.C.No. 718 of 2008. In the above case, nine persons were indicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302 and 302 r/w. Section 149 of the IPC.

2. Short facts:

The deceased in this case is one Shameer. In December 2005, an altercation occurred between Shameer and Jayan, the first accused. Jayan was found drinking alcohol in public, which Shameer allegedly objected to, leading to a confrontation. Shameer is said to have hit Jayan on the head with a bottle, causing injuries. As a result, Jayan harboured animosity towards Shameer. The prosecution alleges that the accused Nos. 2 to 7, who are close friends and associates of Jayan, gathered in front of the compound of an unoccupied house belonging to Alappatil Babu and conspired to murder Shameer. Following this conspiracy, the accused Nos. 1 to 7, allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, and armed themselves with deadly weapons, including a chopper and iron pipes, lay in wait in front of a house owned by one Madhavan, located at Door No. TC15/342. When Shameer arrived at the spot, unaware of the presence of the accused, they allegedly attacked him and inflicted multiple injuries. It is alleged that the first accused cut Shameer with a chopper, while the third and fourth accused attacked him with iron pipes. The chopper was then handed over to the second accused, who also inflicted injuries with it. The accused Nos. 6 and 7 used MO1 to MO3 weapons, handed over to them by the accused Nos. 1 to 3, and went on to inflict injuries. As many as 57 injuries were sustained by the deceased. The 5th accused stood a bit further away guarding the place and did not inflict any injuries. When the prosecution witnesses, cited as PWs 2, 3, and 4, arrived at the scene, the accused threatened them and later fled. The first informant, the nephew of the deceased, also came to the scene. The injured Shameer was transported to Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur in a police jeep., which came to the spot, on receiving information about the incident. Upon arrival, the doctor found him gasping, but there was no pulse or blood pressure. Shameer was pronounced dead at 10:15 p.m. on the same day.

3. Registration of the crime and investigation:

After Shameer was pronounced dead, PW1 went to the Mannuthy Police Station and lodged the First Information Statement (Ext.P1) at 2:00 a.m. on 15.05.2016, based on which the FIR (Ext.P9) was registered by PW.15, Sub Inspector of police, Mannuthy, under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, and 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Ext.P2 inquest was prepared on 15.5.2016. The accused Nos. 1 to 8 were apprehended at 10:30 a.m. on the same day, and the 9th accused was apprehended on 01.06.2016. The accused was obtained in police custody and based on the information furnished, the clothes worn by accused Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6 were recovered. PW11, a Police Surgeon attached to the Government Medical College, Thrissur, conducted the autopsy and issued a post-mortem certificate (Ext.P6). In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the accused Nos. 8 and 9 harboured accused Nos. 1 to 7 and they were included in the array of the accused. The initial investigation was conducted by PW16, and it was later taken over by PW17, who completed the investigation and laid the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) - III Thrissur.

4. Proceedings before the Court:

After complying with the procedure, the Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) - III Thrissur committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thrissur. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, and 302 r/w. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Accused Nos

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top