The court affirmed that credible eyewitness testimony can sustain a conviction for murder despite inconsistencies, supported by corroborative evidence such as weapon recovery and medical findings.

JUDGMENT

Ziyad Rahman A.A., J.

The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 803/2014 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thalasserry, who stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C). He is accused of committing murder of his own brother, in front of their mother.

2. Payyavoor Police registered Crime No. 33/2014 against the appellant and after investigation, they filed a charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Thaliparamba. After completing the formalities, it was committed to the Sessions Court, wherein it was tried and it resulted in the impugned judgment convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹ 5000/-. The appellant /accused was arrested on the next day of the incident, i.e on is 21/01/2014 and he is in judicial detention since then. The prosecution case in detail is as follows;

The appellant and deceased are brothers and they were residing in nearby houses. Smt. Neithy @ Annamma, is the sister of their mother and she is the owner of a rubber plantation having an extent of ¾ Acre. As she was working at Kottayam, she entrusted the management of the said property with the appellant and his brother Stephen, who is the deceased. The appellant used to tap the rubber trees in the said property and he used to take the income from the aforesaid property. It was the instruction of his maternal aunt, the owner of the property, to give ₹ 1000/-per month to his mother from the income derived from the property. On 20/01/2014, at about 4 o’clock in the evening, PW1, the mother of the appellant, who was residing along with the deceased, went to the house of the appellant and demanded the amount, which was to be paid to her from the income from the plantation of her sister. The appellant informed he did not have the money but agreed to pay it shortly. At that time, the deceased Stephen came to the house of the appellant and questioned the appellant for wasting the income from the aforesaid property for consumption of alcohol. The said questioning enraged the appellant and it resulted in a scuffle between them. The mother intervened, separated them and held his hand, to pull him away and out of the house of the appellant. While so, the appellant went inside the house, came back with a chopper and inflicted cut injuries on the head of the deceased. Even though he was taken to a hospital, next morning he succumbed to the injuries.

3. In support of prosecution case, PWs 1 to 21 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P25 were marked and material objects, M.Os 1 to 4 were identified. After completing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and he explained that at the time of the occurrence of the crime, he was not in station, as he was engaged in concrete work at Irikkur.

4. After analysis of the entire materials, the Sessions Court found the accused guilty of the offence and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₹ 5000/-.

5. Heard Sri R. Krishnakumar (Cherthala), the learned counsel for the appellant (State Brief), and Sri S.U.Nazar, the learned public prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellant raised various contentions such as; the evidence of PW1, the mother of the deceased and the appellant are not at all believable, as there are several inconsistencies therein, particularly with respect to the exact spot of occurrence. He points out that as per the First Information statement (FIS) given by the mother, the incident of inflicting cut injuries occurred