Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 83684
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, JJ
JAYAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 106 OF 2018 | SC NO.96 OF 2010
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR, SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW
For the Respondents: SMT.BINDU O.V.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was achieved through credible eyewitness testimony and corroborative forensic evidence, leading to the conviction under IPC Sections 302 and 324.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 324 - Conviction of the accused for murder and attempted murder - The accused stabbed the victim, Anitha, out of animosity due to rejection of marriage proposal - The prosecution established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the testimony of eyewitnesses and medical evidence. (Paras 2, 16)
(B) Evidence - Standard of proof - The testimony of key eyewitnesses was found credible and corroborated by forensic evidence, leading to rejection of the accused's challenge to the prosecution's case. (Paras 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The accused, motivated by rejection of a marriage proposal, attacked Anitha with a knife, causing fatal injuries and injuring her brother Raveendran when he intervened. (Paras 2, 6, 18)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the conviction based on reliable testimonies and forensic corroboration, concluding there was no merit in the appeal. (Paras 16, 18)
Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence of the accused were sustainable based on the evidence presented. (Paras 5, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that the collective testimony of eyewitnesses, along with forensic evidence, established the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt - No reason to doubt the findings of the lower court was present. (Paras 16, 18)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on evidence of homicide. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial process and appeal mechanism. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. reliability of eyewitness testimonies. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. forensic evidence corroborating testimonies. (Para 11 , 13) |
| 5. arguments regarding intervention of doubts. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. final dismissal of appeal upheld. (Para 18) |
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.Appeal No.106 of 2018 -----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 29th day of August, 2024
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.96 of 2010 on the files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge- IV, Palakkad. He stands convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).
2. One Anitha, an unmarried lady sustained serious injuries in an occurrence that took place at about 4.00 p.m. on 19.10.2006 near the public water tap in the vicinity of her residence and she succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. Raveendran, the brother of Anitha also suffered an injury in the same occurrence. The matter was immediately informed to the police, and on receiving information, Town North Police, Palakkad registered a case based on the statement furnished by Raveendran. The investigation in the case revealed that it was the accused who caused death of Anitha and caused injury to Raveendran. Accordingly, final report was filed against the accused alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC . The accusation in the case is that the accused who maintained hostility towards Anitha for evading his proposal to marry him, caused her death by stabbing on the right side of her neck and also on the left side of her chest with a knife when she came near the water tap for drawing water. It is also the accusation in the case that the accused caused injury to Raveendran also when he tried to prevent the attack on Anitha at the scene.
3. On the accused being committed to trial, the Court of Session framed charges against him, to which he pleaded not guilty. Thereupon, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses as PWs 1 to 16 and proved through them 17 documents as Exts.P1 to P17. Exts.D1 and D2 are the case diary statements of PW4 and PW12 respectively. MOs 1 to 5 are the material objects. When the incriminating evidence was put to the accused in terms of the provisions contained in Section 313 of the Code, he denied the same and pleaded innocence. Thereupon, on a consideration of the evidence on record, the Court of Session found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine for the offence punishable under Section 302 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine for the offence punishable under Section 324 . As noted, the accused is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, hence this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The point that falls for consideration is whether the conviction of the accused and the sentence imposed on him are sustainable in law.
6. No arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the accused challenging the finding rendered by the Court of Session that the death of Anitha is a homicide. On the other hand, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel were as to the reliability and acceptability of the evidence tendered by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. According to the learned counsel, satisfactory evidence has not been let in by the prosecution to prove the occurrence and that the accused, in the circumstances, is liable to be acquitted on that ground.
7. Let us now examine the evidence tendered by the prosecution to prove the occurrence. The first among the witnesses cited by the prosecution is Raveendran, the brother of Anitha
