Eyewitness testimony can sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC if corroborated by reliable circumstantial and medical evidence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT &

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRL.A.No. 1133 of 2006(C)

------------------------

SC.673/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC) FAST TRACK COURT-II, THRISSUR CP.59/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM ....................

APPELLANT : (ACCUSED IN SC.673/2004):

---------------------------------------

KRISHNAN KUTTY @ VASUTTAN, S/O. NARAYANAN NAIR, CHENAMCHATTIL HOUSE, KAIPPARAMBU VILLAGE AND DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.C.D.DILEEP RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT ---------------

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.

***********************

*****************************

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2010

JUDGMENT

BASANT, J.

Is it safe to place reliance on the oral evidence of the occurrence witness PW2?

ii) Is the accused entitled to the benefit of any doubt?

iii) Is the verdict of guilty and conviction under Section

302 I.P.C justified?

These are the questions that have been raised before us for consideration by Advocate C.D.Dileep, the counsel for the appellant in this appeal.

2. The appellant faced indictment for uxoricide. He is alleged to have caused the death of his wife Padmini by inflicting multiple injuries on her with M.O1 chopper on the public road while she was walking along the public road - returning from her place of work. The alleged motive is the refusal of Padmini to return to live with the appellant/accused.

3. Investigation commenced with the registration of Ext.P13 F.I.R proved by PW15 on the basis of Ext.P1 F.I statement lodged by PW1. The incident allegedly took place at 6 p.m on 06.05.2002. The F.I statement was lodged at the police station by PW1 at 8 p.m on the same date. The F.I.R, it is seen from the records, had reached the learned Magistrate at

11 a.m on 07.05.2002.

4. After completing the investigation, it was PW17, who filed final report/charge sheet raising the allegation under Section 302 I.P.C against the appellant. The learned Magistrate duly committed the case to the Court of Session. Before the Court of Session, the appellant/accused denied the charge levelled against him. Thereupon the prosecution was directed to adduce evidence in support of the charge and the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 17 and proved exhibits P1 to P25. M.Os 1 to

5 were also marked.

5. On the side of the accused, no evidence - oral or documentary, was adduced. The court below, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances, came to the conclusion that it is absolutely safe to rely on the oral evidence of PW2, the only occurrence witness, who had tendered evidence in support of the prosecution. Accordingly the court below proceeded to pass the impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant/accused faces a sentence of imprisonment for life.

6. An appellate judgment is and has to be read as continuation of the judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has adverted to the oral and documentary evidence as also all the other materials and matters before it. It is unnecessary, in these circumstances, for us to attempt to re-narrate the relevant facts, evidence, materials and matters in this appellate judgment. We shall not do the same. We may hasten to observe that the learned counsel for the appellant has taken us exhaustively through the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 17 and Exts.P1 to P25 as also all other relevant matters/materials. We shall advert to the relevant evidence/matters as and when necessary in the course of our discussions in this judgment.

7. The prosecution had wanted to rely upon the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who had allegedly witnessed the occurrence. The incident took place