KODAVANDI MOIDEAN ALIAS BAPUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried by the learned Sessions Judge, Manjeri Division at Kozhikode, for causing the death of one Karingodan Muhammad alias Bappu by stabbing him with a knife on January 23, 1971. He was found guilty and convicted under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant challenged this conviction and sentence before the Kerala High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 1971. The State filed criminal Revision Petition No. 380 of 1971 for enhancement of the sentence. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 12-10-1971 confirmed the appellant's conviction. Regarding the sentence, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the State and enhanced the sentence to one of death. This Court, by its order dated 19-4-1972 granted special leave, limited to the question whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court in imposing the lesser penalty.

(2.) As the only question is regarding the enhancement of the sentence, we have examined the judgment of the High Court under appeal in order to discover the special reasons, which induced the learned Judges to differ from the opinion of the Trial Court about the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the appellant. According to the prosecution, when Bappu, in the company of P. W. 1, was walking along the road on the evening of January 23, 1971, the appellant who was staying in a room near the road, suddenly came out armed with a knife and inflicted a deep injury on the left side of the chest of Bappu. Bappu fell down and died on his way to the hospital. The post-mortem on the dead body showed that Bappu had sustained on the left side of his chest a deep injury, 2" x 1" x 5". The plea of the accused was one of complete denial. The evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 11 regarding the incidence has been accepted by both the Courts. From the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 it appeared that, earlier in the day, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the brother of the appellant, who were both working in certain transport services.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge has taken into account the circumstance on the assumption that the accused must have known about this incident when he attacked the deceased the same evening. But it is not categorically found by the learned Sessions Judge that the appellant was aware of the quarrel that took place between the deceased and his brother. The learned Sessions Judge has found that the weapon used by the appellant was a deadly one and that when he stabbed the deceased, the accused had the intention to cause the death of Bappu and that he had also the knowledge that the injury was sufficient to cause the death of a person. The further finding is that there was no cause for the appellant causing this injury on Bappu as a result of which the latter died.