IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction in a murder case cannot be sustained on unreliable eyewitness testimony, and the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

The appellants, a mother and her son, were the 1st and 2nd accused in S.C. No. 520 of 2013 before the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Kasaragod. They were charged with the murder of the 1st appellant’s husband’s brother. By the impugned judgment, they were found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment, along with a fine of ?50,000 each, with a default clause.

Brief Statement of Facts:

2. The 1st appellant is the wife of Chandrashekhara Gowda, and the deceased, Mudhappa Gowda, is the brother of Chandrashekhara Gowda. It appears that there was a dispute between the deceased and the appellant regarding the drawing of water from a pond situated near the house of the deceased. As per the charge, on 04.03.2011 at 6:15 p.m., the appellants proceeded to the property of the deceased to draw water from the pond. The prosecution alleges that a dispute occurred between the parties and the 1st appellant, who was allegedly armed with a chopper, inflicted a cut injury on the head and other parts of the body of the deceased, while the 2nd appellant attacked the deceased with a rafter, causing injuries.

3. Hearing the cries of the deceased, his son Vishwanath, who was examined as PW2, rushed to the spot. He is alleged to have seen the last phase of the incident. On hearing his cries, the appellants retreated to their home which was situated nearby. PW2 found his father lying on the ground with injuries. Shortly thereafter, his mother, Meenakshi, arrived at the scene. PW1, a Panchayat Member, and one Ananda Gowda arrived immediately thereafter. However, PW2 did not deem it necessary to rush the injured to the hospital, as according to him, his father had by then succumbed to the injuries sustained.

Registration of Crime and Investigation

4. On 4.03.2011, at around 10:00 p.m., PW2, along with Ramachandran (PW11), went to the Police Station and furnished Ext.P2 FI Statement, wherein he disclosed the names of the assailants. On the strength of the said statement, Ext.P9 FIR in Crime No. 91 of 2011 was registered at the Rajapuram Police Station by PW9, the ASI of Police. The Circle Inspector of Police, Nileshwar Police Station, took over the investigation on 05.03.2011 at 9:00 a.m. He prepared Ext.P1 inquest and the clothes found on the body of the deceased, his sandals and a wooden rafter found at the scene were seized. On the same day, at 4:30 p.m., the 1st accused was arrested as per Ext.P10 Arrest Memo. Later, as per Ext.P12 Arrest Memo, the 2nd accused was also arrested. The accused were produced before the Court, along with Ext.P14 Remand Report. Based on the disclosure statement furnished by the 1st accused, MO2 Chopper, allegedly used by her to inflict the injury, was seized from her residence. The clothes worn by the accused at the time of the commission of the offence were also seized and forwarded to the Court. After completing the investigation, the final report was submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate.

5. Committal proceedings were initiated by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the law, and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The case was finally made over to the Additional Sessions Judge -III, Kasargod for trial and disposal. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, charges were framed under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. When the same was read over, the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed that they be tried in accordance with the law.

Evidence Tendered

6. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses as PWs 1 to 12 to prove the charge and through them, Exts.P1 to P23 were exhibited and marked. MOs 1 to 3 were produced and identified. After the close of prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials arising from the prosecution evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances and maintained that they were innocent. No evidence was adduced