Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2301
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ.
Rajesh Babu @ Kochumon, S/o. Nadesan – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 876 of 2019
Decided On : 03-07-2025
For the Appellant : Sri. T.P. Pradeep, Sri. S. Sreedev
For the Respondent: Adv. Neema T.V., Senior Public Prosecutor.
Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case; trustworthiness of evidence is key to conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Accused found guilty of killing the deceased with a knife and chopper, resulting in multiple stab wounds - Conviction based on credible eyewitness testimony despite minor discrepancies - Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- imposed. (Paras 1, 7, 11, 21)
(B) Evidence - Minor discrepancies in witness testimonies do not undermine core prosecution case - Test regarding trustworthiness is paramount. (Paras 14, 17, 21)
Facts of the case:
The deceased was attacked by the appellant with a knife and chopper after a drinking session, leading to his death from multiple stab wounds. The appellant was said to have threatened the deceased regarding an upcoming engagement ceremony. (Paras 2.1, 11)
Findings of Court:
The learned Sessions Judge found the prosecution evidence credible, concluding that the appellant was guilty based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses. (Paras 6, 11)
Issues: The key issues revolved around testimonies of eyewitnesses, discrepancies in statements, and the integrity of the investigation process. (Paras 8, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that minor inconsistencies in witness accounts do not detract from the overall reliability of their evidence, affirming that the evidence of a single reliable witness can substantiate a conviction. (Paras 14, 17)
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. crime registration and investigation details. (Para 3) |
| 3. details of the court charge and evidence. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments presented by the appellant. (Para 8) |
| 5. prosecution's counterarguments. (Para 9) |
| 6. court's analysis of evidence and findings. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 , 18 , 19) |
| 7. final ruling and confirmation of conviction. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
The above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.05.2019 in S.C.No. 572 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Session Judge-II, Pathanamthitta. In the above case, the appellant was charged for having committed offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. By the impugned judgment, he was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with a default clause.
2. Brief Statement of Facts:
2.1 The deceased Pankajakshan Pillai, along with his wife Anandhavalliamma (PW4) and their younger son Rajesh Babu (PW1), resided immediately on the eastern side of the house of the appellant in Ward No. 1 of Nedumpram Village, Thiruvalla. It is the case of the prosecution that the engagement ceremony of PW1 was scheduled to be held on 26.03.2006. On the previous day in the evening, the appellant went to the house of the deceased with a bottle of alcohol. The deceased, PW1 and the appellant drank alcohol, sitting in the courtyard of the house. At about 09.00 p.m., the deceased was told by the appellant that he will ensure that the engagement ceremony of PW1 is not held on 26.03.2006. When the conversation became loud, Anandhavalliamma (PW4) is alleged to have asked the appellant to leave the house. The prosecution case is that the appellant, along with the deceased, proceeded to the house of the appellant and PW4 followed them. It is alleged that after entering the property of the appellant, he took out a chopper as well as a knife and inflicted multiple injuries on the body of Pankajakshan Pillai. The cries of the deceased were overheard by PW4, who rushed towards the gate of the house of the appellant. She saw the appellant inflicting injuries on her husband. Her elder sister Rajamma was also with her. She sought help from her son who was at home. PW1 and PW4 could do nothing but stand outside the gate of the house of the appellant and witness the deceased being inflicted with injuries by the appellant by sitting on his torso. It is alleged that the appellant threatened them by brandishing the weapons in his possession, and they were not permitted to enter the property. However, they managed to intimate the police, who came to the spot. The police managed to open the gate after obtaining the keys from the mother of the appellant.
2.2 The injured was immediately rushed to the Pushpagiri hospital, but his life could not be saved.
3. Registration of Crime and Investigation:
3.1. Based on the information furnished by PW1, Crime No. 62 of 2006 was registered by PW9, the Sub Inspector of Police, Pulikeezhu Police Station. As per the FI statement, the incident had taken place in the courtyard of the house of the appellant.
3.2. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW10, the Sub Inspector of Police. He conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased, which was lying at the Pushpagiri Hospital, and prepared Ext.P3 Inquest Report. The clothes which were found on the body of the deceased were seized. On the same day itself, he went to the scene of crime and prepared Ext.P5 scene mahazar. At the time of preparation of the scene mahazar, trace evidence was collected from the scene. On the same day itself, a search memo was prepared and the same was forwarded to the court and search of the house of the appellant was carried out. No weapons were seized from the house of the appellant. However, a telephone directory with blood stains was found in the living room and the same was seized.
3.3. On 31.03
