MANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning his conviction made for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') this appeal has been filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "accused"). The learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Palakkad District (hereinafter referred to as 'trial Judge') found him guilty and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and one year respectively for the aforesaid offences.

(2.) Background facts as projected by the prosecution are essentially as follows: Rajappan (hereinafter referred to as "Deceased") was the owner of Sri Dharmasasthra Cinema theatre situated at Karudikkad in Pudussery West village in Palakkad Taluk. On 26-4-1994 accused Mani went there for first movie show. At about 7.30 p.m., there was power cut in the Cinema Hall. Accused Mani insisted that the deceased should issue him and some other persons passes to witness the film later. The request was accepted by the deceased. When accused Mani reached near gate of the Cinema Hall compound, power supply was restored. He returned to the theatre to see the film, but deceased did not permit him and asked him to come back later, for the second show or on any other day. Accused insisted, to see the film and there was exchange of words between accused and deceased. On hearing the quarrel inside the theatre compound, wife of the deceased ask him to come to the house, which deceased did. The, house which is situated nearby the Cinema Hall. In the meantime, quarrel and suffle occurred between accused Mani and employees of the deceased. Accused made a complaint that he lost his money in the scuffle and went to the house of deceased to get back the same. Deceased asked him to go away as he was not prepared to hear the complaint about the scuffle which occurred in the theatre premises. He told the accused that he will be coming to the theatre after some time, and there the matter can be discussed. Later at about 9.30 p .m. first show was over and deceased went to the theatre premises again. At that time, accused Mani entered the theatre compound through the main gate and there was exchange of words which led to push and pull. Suddenly, accused took out a knife from his waist, and inflicted injuries on the abdomen and chest of the deceased. One Velayudhan prevented the accused from inflicting injuries, and he also sustained injuries. Deceased was taken to Government District Hospital, Palakkad. Doctor examined him and declared that he was already dead. Velayudhan was also given treatment. Information was lodged with the police from the hospital and investigation was undertaken. During investigation it transpired that one Gangadharan had also a role in the unfortunate incident. Therefore, both accused Mani and Gangadharan were put to trial for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 r/w 34, IPC. Learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that guilt was established against accused Mani in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324, IPC. But he acquitted Gangadharan as his involvement was not successfully proved. Accused Mani was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the accused submitted that there was no independent witness to corroborate the version of the prosecution. In any event, the scenario as depicted rules out the application of Section 302, IPC as the alleged incident occurred in the course of a sudden quarrel and the accused did not act in a cruel manner and also did not take advantage of the helplessness of the deceased. According to him act of accused is covered by Exception 4 to Section 300, IPC. Learned Counsel for the State supported conclusions and findings of learned trial Judge.