Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.B.S nehalatha, J
ANOOP @ ANU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 222/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
The court upheld the conviction for murder, establishing that the appellant acted with intent to kill, and found no merit in the alibi presented.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 449, 323, and 34 - Conviction for murder - Appellant was convicted for stabbing the victim after a quarrel over tea pricing at the hotel run by the victim - Evidence from multiple eyewitnesses corroborated the prosecution's case - The incident was premeditated, and the prosecution established intent to kill - The plea of alibi was not substantiated - Conviction upheld. (Paras 7, 46, 59)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 207 - Proper legal procedures followed in the trial - The court found no merit in the appeal against the conviction and sentence. (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was involved in a fatal stabbing incident at a hotel, following a quarrel over the price of tea. The victim was attacked by the appellant and accomplices, resulting in death. Eyewitnesses provided consistent accounts of the incident, leading to a conviction.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the conviction based on substantial evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and medical reports that confirmed the cause of death.
Issues: The main issues included the sustainability of the conviction and the appellant's plea of alibi.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the evidence presented was reliable and corroborative, establishing the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The plea of alibi was found to be unsubstantiated.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the crime and trial process. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. details of the incident and eyewitness accounts. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. testimonies of various witnesses supporting the prosecution. (Para 15 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. evaluation of witness credibility and consistency. (Para 25 , 26 , 28) |
| 5. discussion on the identification of the accused. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. defense arguments and plea of alibi. (Para 34 , 36 , 38 , 40) |
| 7. court's analysis of culpable homicide vs murder. (Para 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 57) |
| 8. final dismissal of the appeal. (Para 59) |
JUDGMENT
M.B.S nehalatha , J
Appellant herein is A1 in Crime No.36/2006 of North Paravur Police Station. There are four accused in the said crime. Appellant/A1 in the said crime alone faced trial in S.C No.435/2016 of Sessions Court, Ernakulam and he was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Section s 449 , 302 , 323 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (‘ IPC ’) by the impugned judgment. This appeal has been filed challenging the said conviction and sentence.
2. The rank of the accused shall be referred to in this judgment as shown in the charge sheet.
3. In a nutshell the prosecution case is as follows: Victim Santhosh who was running a hotel at Chendamangalam Junction under the name and style ‘Miyami Fastfood’ was stabbed to death by the accused on 17.01.2006 at around 8.30 am at the said hotel. It is the prosecution case that A2 Sabeer in the said crime who had come to the said hotel in the morning of 17.01.2006 to have a tea, quarrelled with the victim over the price of a tea. Infuriated A2, who left from there, came back within half an hour along with his friends viz., A1, A3 and A4, armed with iron pipe and knife, criminally trespassed into the said hotel, dragged the victim from the chair, beat him with an iron pipe and thereafter appellant/A1 stabbed on the chest of victim Santhosh with a knife and intentionally murdered him.
4. PW1 who was an employee of the said hotel laid Ext.P1 FI statement pursuant to which PW20 viz. the then Sub Inspector of Police, North Parvavur Police Station registered Ext.P15 FIR. PW25 the then Circle Inspector of Police, conducted the investigation. His successor in office namely PW26 completed the investigation and laid final report against A1 to A4 before the court.
5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, North Paravur. The learned Magistrate received the same as C.P.No.17/2006 and after complying the legal formalities under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C], the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam which was subsequently made over the case to Additional Sessions Court VI, Ernakulam for trial and disposal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for the offences under Section s 449 , 323, 294(b) and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC . Charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused abjured guilt, alleged false implication and claimed to be tried.
6. To bring home the guilt of the appellant/A1, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 26, marked Exts.P1 to P28 and 16 material objects. On the side of the appellant/A1 DWs 1 and 2 were examined. Exts.D1 to D3(a) viz. the portions from Section 161 statement of PWs 2, 3 and 5 were also marked.
7. By the impugned judgment, appellant/A1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence under Section 449 , he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of ₹50,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. For the offence under Section 323 he was sentenced to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
