IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Jobin Sebastian, JJ.
Raju M.A. @ Undachi Raju – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Rep. By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 17 OF 2023
Decided On : 08-11-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Accused convicted for murdering his 3-year-old son by strangulation and assault with a coconut scraper – Evidence from eyewitnesses and medical reports corroborated the prosecution's case – Conviction upheld. (Paras 1-25)
Facts of the case :
The accused, after a quarrel with his wife, murdered his son, Rahul, aged 3, in a neighbor's house.
Findings of Court :
The evidence of eyewitnesses was credible and consistent, establishing the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues : The main issues included the credibility of eyewitnesses and the accused's mental state at the time of the crime.
Ratio Decidendi : The court found that the eyewitnesses' accounts were reliable and that the accused failed to prove legal insanity.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The accused in SC No.473/2015 (Crime No.314/2015 of Rajapuram Police Station) on the file of Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod has preferred this appeal assailing the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed against him for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
The accused driven by hostility towards his wife and following a quarrel, took his children to the neighbouring house bearing No.IX-511 of Panathadi Grama Panchayat and committed murder of his son, Rahul, aged 3 years, by strangulation and also by assaulting him with a coconut scraper on 21.07.2015 at about 9.30 p.m.
3. On completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg. Being satisfied that the case is one triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities committed the case to the Court of Session, Kasaragod. After taking cognizance, the learned Sessions Judge made over the case for trial to Additional Sessions Court-I, Kasaragod. After trial, the accused was found guilty for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three more years. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is assailed by way of this appeal.
4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses as PW1 to PW16. Exts.P1 to P22 were exhibited and marked and MO1 series to MO8 were produced and identified.
5. The prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of PW1 and PW2, to prove the occurrence. PW1 and PW2 are none other than the inmates of the house where the gruesome incident allegedly occurred.
6. The law was set in motion in this case on the strength of the FIS given by PW1 to PW9, the Sub Inspector of Police, Rajapuram, and the said FIS is marked as Ext.P1. On examination before the court, PW1 deposed that she is a coolie and had been residing at Mailatty Colony along with her mother, grandmother, and uncle. The accused is her neighbour. Though she was not able to recollect the exact date of the incident, she remembered that it had occurred at night about 2 ½ years back. On the alleged date of the incident at 8 p.m., after picking up a quarrel with his wife, the accused entered her house with his two children. The wife of the accused, Padmini, followed the accused and came to the courtyard and demanded back the children. The accused gave the younger child to his wife and she returned home with the child. Thereafter, the accused closed the door of the house. Her mother Kumba (PW2) and grandmother Chitta were present in the house at that time. Thereafter, she saw the accused dragging his elder son, Rahul, who was crying, inside the house. She stated that her house was not electrified and she was able to see what the accused was doing in the light emanating from the kerosene lamp. She stated that she saw the accused dragging the child to her kitchen and thereafter, he stabbed the child on the backside of his neck with a coconut scraper. Then she saw the accused take a dhoti and strangled the child using the same. She stated that the inmates including herself went to the nearby house of a relative to save themselves. Though she intimated the incident to the neighbours, none intervened. Thereafter, Vineesh and Abhilash, who arrived at the spot garnered the courage and went inside the house. They found that the child was lying motionless. The child was then rushed to the hospital. According to her, the incident occurred between 9 p.m and 9.30 p.m. and she saw the incident in the light of a kerosene lamp that kept burning in her house. She lodged a statement to the Police and Ext.P1 is the statement so given. The Police prepared a scene mahazar and seized
The court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, affirming the reliability of eyewitness testimony and rejecting claims of the accused's insanity.
The court highlighted the necessity of corroborative evidence in witness testimonies, particularly concerning juvenile witnesses.
The court affirmed a conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing reliance on eyewitness testimony and the sufficiency of direct evidence over the need for motive in murder cases.
It would always be open for prosecution to decide on quality and quantity of evidence that they wish to lead in order to establish charge and this Court cannot comment on such aspect of matter, as lo....
The conviction for murder was upheld based on substantial eyewitness testimony and evidence of motive, affirming the principle that direct evidence substantiates a guilty verdict beyond reasonable do....
The testimony of close relatives in domestic crimes is valid and can establish guilt when consistent and corroborated by medical evidence; intention to kill may be inferred from the nature of the att....
As the attack is an outcome of the said incident, which took place immediately prior to the incident, we feel that it is a fit case where the nature of offence has to be scaled down from Section 302 ....
The court clarified that common intention under Section 34 IPC requires clear evidence of prearranged plans, leading to the first accused's conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 while ac....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.