Direct evidence from eyewitnesses can sustain a conviction, even amid inconsistencies, when supported by credible medical evidence.

JUDGMENT

K.Vinod Chandran, J.

Passions run high in migrant labour camps and this is one such case wherein a Kannadiga killed a native of Odisha; both migrant labourers. The accused and the deceased, according to the prosecution, were staying in the neighbouring quarters. There was some financial transaction between them, which led to a quarrel and then, on the crucial day, the accused trespassed into the residential quarters of the deceased, exchanged hot words with the deceased and eventually stabbed the deceased, as also his brother who sought to intervene. Both the injured were taken to the hospital and one of them succumbed to the injuries. The accused stood trial, in which the prosecution examined 17 witnesses, marked 21 documents as Exts. P1 to P17 (a) and produced three material objects. The trial court found the accused guilty under sections 324, 450 and 302 of the IPC . Life imprisonment was imposed under Section 302 along with term imprisonment of three years and 45 days under section 324 and 450 . The trial court also imposed fines and default sentences.

2. Sri. Joswin Thambi Kunnath, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused argued for the acquittal of the accused. According to him, there is nothing to evidence the accused having stayed in the quarters of PW2. The two eye witnesses, PW8 and PW15, prevaricated in their depositions regarding their prior acquaintance with the accused. PW8 categorically stated that he was not aware of the name of the accused and only before his second statement to the police, it was revealed. There is hence considerable suspicion regarding the FIS, which speaks of the name of the accused. There is also no clarity as to when the FIS was recorded. PW15 deposed contrarily as to what he witnessed; first the witness stated about having seen the stabbing, but later admitted to have seen only the accused running away from the crime scene with something hidden in his hands, which he assumed to be a knife. PW8 and 15 accompanied the victim to the hospital but the wound certificate shows the history as a stab injury inflicted by an unknown person.

The recovery, pursuant to the confession of the accused, cannot be believed for reason of the confession having been recorded in the vernacular Malayalam; which the accused would not be aware of. There was also no independent witness brought before Court to speak on the actual recovery made. In this context, the medical evidence of the Doctor, PW12, is specifically pointed out, who deposed that, the wound sustained by the deceased was a little deeper than the whole length of the blade of MO1. There is also no scientific evidence to sustain the conviction. Despite blood having been detected in MO1, the source or origin has not been found. While arguing for the acquittal, the learned Counsel would also submit that, since the stab injury was a solitary one, there should be mitigation in so far as finding the accused guilty of an offence under Section 304 and not Section 302 .

3. Sri. Renjith, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that there is no anomaly with respect to the deposition of the eye witness and FIS. The incident occurred on the 19th by around 3 p.m., and the death was on the next day; after which the FIS was recorded. The testimony of PW8 in cross examination is only that the FIS was not taken on the same day i.e., the 19th. It is also pointed out that, the anomaly from the testimony of PW8 regarding the name of the accused is only with respect to his name being 'Chandru'; while in the FIS it was stated as 'Chandu'. There is a clear motive projected regarding the financial transactions between the accused and the deceased, which is spoken of by PW8. PW8 and PW15, eye witnesses are credible, trustworthy and there is nothing to show that they would foist a false case against the accused. The mere relationship of PW8 or the fact that PW15 was again a native of Orissa, staying along with the deceased, cannot be the sole ground to disbel