IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, affirming the credibility of eyewitness testimony and scientific evidence linking the accused to the crime.

JUDGMENT :

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

This appeal is filed by the sole accused in SC No.525/2016 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-V, Palakkad challenging his conviction and sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC by that court.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 27/12/2015 at about 5.30 pm, in the courtyard of the house bearing No. VIII/522 of Kinassery Village, Palakkad, the accused committed murder of Jayakumaran by inflicting blows upon him using wooden sticks, bricks, cement block and granite stone. Hence, the prosecution alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

3. In the trial court, from the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW18 were examined and Exts.P1 to P28 & MO1 to MO11 series were marked. Ext.D1 contradiction was also marked by the accused through the prosecution witnesses. When the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence and contended that he was innocent. Even though the accused was called upon to enter his defence, no evidence was adduced. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- under Section 302 IPC. In case of default, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant Adv. Ramesh P contended that the prosecution evidence, even if it is accepted in toto as gospel truth, cannot warrant a conviction against the accused under Section 302 IPC. He submitted that the prosecution case hinges upon the evidence of PW3, PW4 & PW5, who have allegedly witnessed the incident and an appraisal of their evidence would show that they have not seen the incident and that they are deposing falsehood. He contended that going by the evidence of PW12, there is no chance for PW3 to PW5 witnessing the incident in the manner stated by them. He argued that the identification of MO1 to MO6 by PW4 is not convincing and both PW3 & PW5 did not identify the weapons. He also submitted that even though the prosecution is substantially relying upon Ext.P26 & P27 reports from the FSL, it has not proved that it is the materials collected from the body of the deceased, the place of occurrence and the dresses of the accused, which have been examined in the FSL.Hence, he prayed that this appeal may be allowed.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor Adv. Ranjith T.R contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that the evidence of PW3 to PW5, the eye witnesses to the incident, is credible and cogent and the same can be relied upon to rope in the accused in this crime. He submitted that the scientific evidence let in, in the form of Ext.P26 also lends considerable support to the prosecution case and shows that MO1 to MO6 are the weapons used in the attack. He further submitted that Ext.P27 would reveal that the dhoti worn by the accused at the relevant time contained the blood of the deceased and no explanation is offered by the accused for the same. Hence, he prayed that this appeal may be dismissed.

6. Before evaluating the evidence, it would only be proper to discuss the material evidence let in by the prosecution. PW1 is the brother of deceased Jayakumaran, who lodged Ext.P1 FIS. He stated that, on getting information, he reached the spot at about 6.10 pm and saw his brother lying dead in a pool of blood with his skull broken. PW5 told him about the incident and the accused attacking the deceased and he told the same to the police, who recorded his statement.

7. PW3 is a neighbour of the deceased and who had witnessed a part of the incident. He deposed that at about 4.30 pm he came back to his house after work and returned immediately to purchase some articles. While returni