Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 31801
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SOPHY THOMAS, J
KALAN @ KUMARAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 1810/2006
SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE, SRI.K.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimony can undermine a conviction.
Headnote:
Criminal - Culpable Homicide - IPC Section List - The court analyzed the evidence under IPC Section 304 Part II, interpreting the lack of intent for murder and the insufficiency of witness testimony to uphold the conviction, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with murder under IPC Section 302 but was convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under IPC Section 304 Part II. The prosecution alleged he killed his brother-in-law with a stick, but evidence was insufficient to prove intent or the circumstances of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting inconsistencies in witness testimonies and the lack of credible evidence linking the accused to the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed culpable homicide under IPC Section 304 Part II.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the inconsistencies in witness statements and lack of direct evidence led to the conclusion that the accused could not be convicted.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, and the accused is acquitted.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is at the instance of the sole accused in SC No.252 of 2004 on the file of Sessions Judge, Wayanad, Kalpetta, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 304 Part II of IPC , as per judgment dated 22.08.2006.
2. The accused was chargesheeted under Section 302 of IPC in Crime No.15 of 2002 of Thirunelli Police Station. The prosecution allegation is that, on 16.02.2002 at about 10 p.m, accused Kalan @ Kumaran committed murder of his brother-in-law Kalan by inflicting blows on his head with a stick, at the veranda of his house.
3. On committal, the appellant/accused appeared before the trial court and charge was framed under Section 302 of IPC , to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10, marked Exts.P1 to P8 and identified MOs 1 to 10.
4. On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances put to him, but no defence evidence was adduced.
5. On analysing the facts and evidence, the trial court found that the prosecution could not prove an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the accused. But there was evidence to show that he had committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as he had not intended his death. So, he was found guilty under Section 304 Part II of and was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal contending that, the testimony of PWs 1 and 4 could not have been relied upon by the trial court in order to find him guilty under Section 304 Part II of as they have not stated before Police that they have seen the accused inflicting blow on the head of the deceased with a stick.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that, the incident as alleged by the prosecution could not be proved through the testimony of PWs 1 and 4, the so-called occurrence witnesses.
According to the prosecution, the incident occurred after 10 p.m on 16.02.2002. PW1, who is the wife of the younger brother of the deceased, had stated before court, that she had seen the deceased and PW2 Rajan coming through the paddy field at about 10 p.m during that night. But, PW2, who was along with the deceased, when PW1 saw them in the paddy field, would say that, they reached his home at about 7.30 p.m and till 9 p.m they were together at his house, and thereafter the deceased went to his house. He has no case that any incident occurred till the deceased went back to his house. But PW4, who is an eye witness, would say that the first quarrel occurred at 7 p.m. If any incident occurred between 7 - 7.30 p.m on 16.02.2002, there is no clear evidence as to whether the deceased had sustained any injury in that incident. Though PW2 is residing not so far from the place of incident, he has no case that he saw any quarrel between the accused and the deceased, or the incident in which the deceased received a fatal blow on his head. PW2 admitted that, on the date of incident, himself and the deceased were thoroughly drunk, and PWs 1 and 4 also deposed that the deceased was a drunkard who used to create problems in their tribal colony, after taking liquor.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would rely on the injuries found on the body of the deceased, stated in Ext.P6 postmortem certificate, to say that it was not possible with a single or double blow with a stick. The injuries in Ext.P6 shows:
“There was diffuse swelling over right maxillary region with an abrasion 1x1cm over its centre. Dark blood oozing from right ear. Filth seen in nostrils, small abrasion 0.5x0.5cm (3 in number) around umbilicus. Right Temporo-mandibular joint dislocated and tongue seen bitten”.
According
