Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, SOPHY THOMAS, JJ
RAJENDRAN, C.NO.9145
– Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 846 2019
Murder - Criminal Procedure - IPC Section List: [302] - The court upheld the lower court's decision, interpreting Section 302 IPC regarding intentional murder, emphasizing credibility of eyewitnesses and significant circumstantial evidence like possession of the murder weapon with blood stains, which directly implicated the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, accused of murder under IPC Section 302, was convicted for fatally stabbing the victim in a confrontation influenced by prior enmity. The crime took place in public view, with multiple eyewitness accounts documenting the incident.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented, particularly eyewitness testimony and physical evidence, sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that credible eyewitness accounts, supported by circumstantial evidence of the murder weapon and blood evidence, were enough to uphold the conviction for intentional murder under Section 302 IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
The key points from the legal document regarding the case are as follows:
Credibility of Witnesses and Evidence: The court emphasized that the credibility of eyewitnesses and corroborative circumstantial evidence, such as possession of the murder weapon with blood stains, are crucial in establishing guilt in a murder case, despite procedural shortcomings in investigation (!) (!) .
Evidence of Witnesses: The direct witnesses, P.Ws 3, 4, and 5, provided consistent and credible testimony that they saw the accused stabbing the deceased with a knife at around 8:30 p.m. in front of P.W-3’s shop, with the incident being visible due to street lighting (!) (!) (!) .
Corroboration of Evidence: The testimonies of these witnesses are corroborated by the scene mahazar, medical reports, post mortem findings, and the identification of the weapon (MO-1 knife). Their evidence collectively supports the prosecution’s case that the accused intentionally caused the death of the deceased (!) (!) .
Motive and Prior Enmity: The evidence indicates a motive rooted in prior enmity and marital discord, which was established through witness testimony and prior conduct, providing a rational basis for the accused’s motive to commit the crime (!) (!) .
Discrepancies and Contradictions: Minor discrepancies or contradictions in witnesses’ statements, including differences between initial FIR statements and court testimonies, are considered natural and not material enough to undermine the core evidence or the case’s integrity (!) (!) .
Reliability of Witnesses: The court recognizes that witnesses related to the deceased or the victim, such as P.W-1, are not automatically disbelieved. Their testimonies are carefully scrutinized but can be accepted if found credible, especially when supported by other independent evidence (!) (!) .
Investigation Flaws: Although the investigation had procedural lapses, such as the loss of the mobile phone and the site plan not being produced, these flaws did not materially affect the core evidence or the overall case against the accused (!) (!) (!) .
Overall Assessment: The court concluded that despite minor contradictions and procedural flaws, the evidence was sufficient to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed (!) .
These points collectively establish that the evidence, both direct and circumstantial, along with the motive and corroborative medical findings, support the conviction for murder.
JUDGMENT
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 1459 of 2011 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam, in Crime No. 402/2007 of Kadakkal Police Station, for committing offences punishable under Sec.302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 22.03.2014, the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Kollam convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, default of which would entail him to suffer rigorous imprisonment upto 6 months. The fine amount was directed to be paid to the wife and children of the deceased.
2. The brief facts leading to the case are as follows: Due to previous enmity towards the victim, Salim Raj, the accused, Rajendran who is his brother-in-law, on 27.09.2009, at about 8:30 PM, while the victim was sitting on his motor cycle, on the northern road margin of Kadakkal-Nilamel public road in front of the shop of P.W-3 Prasad at Azhanthakuzhy inflicted one injury below the left hand muscle and two on the left side of the chest of the victim, with a knife, which subsequently led to his death.
3. The indictment against the accused is that at about 8:30 PM on 27.09.2009, the accused, with the intent to murder the victim/deceased caused bodily injuries with a dangerous weapon, which led to the death of the victim.
4. For the occurrence of the above crime, Ext.P-1 FIS dated 27.09.2009 was lodged by P.W-1, who is the brother of the deceased, and the brother-in-law of the accused, before P.W-16 SI of Police, Kadakkal Police Station. P.W-16 recorded Ext.P-1 FI statement of P.W-1 (first informant) and registered Ext.P-1(a) FIR on the same day.
5. Initially, the investigation was commenced by P.W-16 SI of Police on 27.09.2007 and immediately, the next day P.W-17 Circle Inspector of Police, Kadakkal Police Station, has taken over the investigation on 28.09.2007. P.W-17 CI of Police conducted the inquest of the body of the deceased and prepared Ext.P-7 inquest report, in which P.W-11 is an attesting witness. Column No.11 of Ext.P-7 inquest report states the apparent cause of the death, as due to the severity of the wound, caused by the knife on the left side of the chest of the deceased. The doctor, who examined the body at Gokulam Medical College, Kollam, has noted that the deceased died as a result of injury no.2. As part of the inquest, P.W-17 removed the clothes of the deceased and seized MO No.4 (pants), M.O.No.5 (shirt) and M.O. No. 6 (jetty) from the body of the deceased, etc.
6. P.W-17 investigating officer has arrested the accused on 28.09.2007 at 3:30 p.m., as per Ext.P-13 custody memo, based on the FI statement and P.W-17 proceeded to the scene of occurrence and has recovered MO-1 (knife) and MO-7 (Motor Cycle), as per Ext.P-8 scene mahazar/seizure mahazar. Later, the material objects were produced before the court by Exts.P-17, 17(a) & 17(b) property lists. Material objects were later forwarded to the chemical examiner for examination and report. The chemical examiner has submitted Ext.P18, FSL report, stating that blood was found on MO-1 and the dress and that MOs 1 & 2 contained blood, which is insufficient for detecting the origin and that MOs 3 to 5 contained 'A' group blood. P.W-17 (investigating officer), as part of the investigation, has questioned the witnesses, recorded their statements, collected material evidence and has filed the final report/charge sheet, before the court.
7. On committal, on the basis of the materials on record, the Sessions Court has framed charge against the appellant under Sec. 302 of the IPC on 04.07.2013, to which he pleaded not guilty.
8. During the trial, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 19 and has marked Exts. P-1 to P-25 documents and M.O. 1 to M.O. 8 (material objects) on the prosecution side. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused was questioned by the Sessions Court under Sec. 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.
9. The Sessions Court did not deem fit and proper for recording acquittal under Sec. 2
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
