STATE OF KERALA Vs. ANILACHANDRAN ALIAS MADHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. Five accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (in short the 'IPC').

(2.) All the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime. Learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram found A1 to A4 guilty, while A5 was acquitted. The following convictions and sentences were recorded :

(3.) Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows : Gangadharan Pillai (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') father of PW1, and Raveendfan, A1's father's brother, were neighbours. A coconut tree belonging to the said Raveendran was slanting over the building of the deceased. On the allegation of falling of tender coconut etc. from the coconut trees, there were frequent quarrels between the deceased and Raveendran. The deceased Gangadharan Pillai demanded to cut and remove the said coconut tree. On 27.10.1993 at about 8.15 p.m. a quarrel occurred between Raveendran and Gangadharan Pillai and Reveendran sustained injuries, for which the Poonthura Police registered Crime No. 82 of 1993 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34, IPC. Ext. D3 is the scene mahazar in respect of Crime No. 82 of 1993. On account of the injuries sustained by Raveendran, A1 to A4, close relatives of Raveendran, and A5, a friend of A1, decided to do away the deceased and to inflict bodily harm on PWs 1 and 3. In prosecution of their common object they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons like dagger, sword, Iron rod, iron bar etc. at 8.45 p.m. on 27.10.1993 inside the coconut garden of one Mohammed Shah situated by the side of the pathway that starts from AmbalatharaPoonthura Road at Numari Chantha near the Vedanthara Bridge. A1 caught hold of the collar of the shirt of PW1 and fisted thrice on his chest. A4 with the iron rod inflicted a blow on the back of PW1 and A3 with the iron bar inflicted four or five blows on the right shoulder of PW 1. Then PW1 cried aloud. At that time, Al inflicted a stab injury on PW1 with the dagger which was warded off by PW1. On hearing the cry of PW1, his father Gangadharan Pillai (deceased) rushed to the scene and tried to prevent the accused from causing further harm to PW1. At that time A2 and A3 caught hold of the deceased and wrongfully restrained him. Then A1 with the dagger inflicted a stab injury on the back at the left side above the waist on the deceased. A4 and A5 inflicted blows on the body of the deceased with iron rods. At that time PW3, mother of PW1 and wife of the deceased, intervened and tried to prevent the accused from causing further harm to the deceased and PW1. A2 with a sword, inflicted a cut injury on the head and two other cut injuries on the highs of PWS. A3 and A4 inflicted blows on many portions of the body of PW3 with the iron rods. The deceased and PW3 were taken to the General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram in an autorikshaw. PW3 was admitted at the General Hospital and the deceased was referred to the Medical College Hospital. PW1 also went to the General Hospital and later accompanied the deceased to the Medical College Hospital. PW1 was admitted there. On the way to the Medical College Hospital itself the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The deceased was removed to the mortuary. This is the sum and substance of the prosecution case. After investigation was completed charge-sheet was filed. Since accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held for proving the occurrence. Four witnesses were primarily examined as eye witnesses. They are PW1, PW3, PW4 and PW3. PW1 is the son of the deceased while PW3 is his wife. PWs 4 and 5 turned hostile and resiled from the statements made during investigation. PW2 is the doctor who examined PW1 and issued wound certificate. PW3 was examined by PW14 Doctor and the wound certificate was issued by him. PW15 is the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination and Exhibit P. 13 is the post-mortem report. The trial Court placed reliance on the evidences of PWs1 and 3 to record conviction. As noted above, appeals were filed by the accused persons. Their stand in Court was that the evidence of PWs1 and 3 does not inspire confidence. The original FIR which was produced in Court was not a complete document and a vital part of it had been removed. It was pointed out that there was a considerable delay in sending the report to the Ilaka Magistrate. The High Court found the submissions to be acceptable and directed acquittal of the accused, which is being questioned in these appeals.