The court upheld the murder conviction based on reliable eyewitness and medical evidence, rejecting self-defense claims due to insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The sole accused in Crime No.199 of 2010 of Panoor Police Station is the appellant before us aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.03.2019 of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thalassery in S.C.No.451 of 2011.

The Prosecution case:

2. The case of the prosecution is that at about 06.30 a.m. on 18.03.2010, the accused committed the murder of one Vasu, son of Kunhiraman [hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”] by intentionally inflicting fatal injuries on him using a billhook. The motive for the murder was apparently to settle scores with the deceased on account of a property dispute that was subsisting between the accused and the deceased. The deceased died on the spot within a short while after the infliction of the fatal injuries.

The investigation and trial:

3. The investigation commenced with the registration of Crime No.199 of 2010 of Panoor Police Station, and on its culmination, the final report was laid before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery in C.P.No.6 of 2011. The appellant/accused appeared before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery, when he was furnished with copies of all the relevant prosecution records. Thereafter, on complying with the other procedural formalities, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thalassery, from where it was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thalassery for trial. On the appearance of the appellant/accused before the trial court, the charges framed against him were read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty. He was thereafter released on bail.

4. In the trial that followed, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 20 and marked Exts.P1 to P25. MOs.1 to 21 were also identified. On the side of the defence, Exts.D1 to D8 were marked albeit through the prosecution witnesses. Exts.D3 to D5 and D8 are contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses marked under Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”]. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. when he denied the incriminating circumstances put to him and reiterated his plea of innocence. In an additional statement that was filed by him, he stated as follows:

“A suit was filed by deceased Vasu, his mother and sister against him as O.S.342/1991 to restrain him from trespassing to the property from where the alleged incident took place. An application for interim injunction filed in the said suit as I.A.2308/1991 claiming title and possession of deceased and others in the said property and seeking injunction to restrain him from trespassing to the said property was dismissed by the court. He stated that in 1999, O.S.342/1991 happened to be decreed against him, challenging which AS 538/1999 was filed by him before the Honourable High Court of Kerala, along with an application for stay of operation of the decree in O.S.342/1991. It is stated that, the Honourable High Court was pleased to stay the operation of decree till disposal of the appeal. He stated further that, A.S.538/1999 was decreed by the Honourable High Court, by setting aside the decree and judgment in O.S.342/1991 and by remanding the matter to the court below for fresh consideration. According to him, accordingly the suit was tried afresh and decreed in his favour by recognizing his rights and possession over the suit property. So his contention was that, the suit property was throughout in his ownership and possession. He contended that, he was taking usufructs from the property and the deceased was never in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is stated that, on the date o