STATE OF KERALA` Vs. GOVINDAN NAIR SUKUMARAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal under S.417 CrPC filed on behalf of the State to set aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge,Kottayam in favour of the respondent accused who had been in the first instance convicted and sentenced by the Asst.Sessions Judge,Kottayam to undergo 3 years 'rigorous imprisonment under S.307 I.P.C.for attempting to cause the death of PW 1,P.N.Narayanan Nair,and 6 months rigorous imprisonment under S.324 I.P.C.for causing hurt to PW 2,K.Narayanan Nair by stabbing them with a Malapuram knife after the midnight on 16 -12 -1968.

(2.) PWS 1 and 2 are cousins.The respondent is the son inlaw of an uncle of PWs 1 and 2.On account of some property dispute,the respondent and his father inlaw were not on good terms for some time.PWs 1 and 2,who supported the uncle in the matter of property dispute,were therefore not well disposed towards the respondent.The relationship of PWs 1 and 2 towards the respondent was also strained as the respondent misbehaved with his wife who had therefore occasion to go and live in her brother's house some few days prior to the incident.When the respondent went there to bring her back to his house,PW 1,was purported to have told him that if he beat his wife,she would not be some along with him.It was under the above background that the respondent happened to meet PWs 1 and 2 in the midnight at about 12.30 a.m.on 16 -12 -1968 While all of them were returning along the Kanjirappally - Erattupetta road after attending a festival which was simultaneously held in the temple and the church in Tendinad.The respondent came form south to north while PWs 1 and 2 came from the opposite direction.While so,the respondent asked PW 1 to come nearer as he wanted tell him something,when the respondent told him that he would not allow his uncle to collect usufructs from the property in dispute.Then PW 1 said not to create any embarrassment to the uncle.The respondent replied:"I will quarrel even with your father " ;.Then PW 1 replied:"You are not capable of it '' ;.It was then that the respondent caught hold of the left hand of PW 1 and saying that he would be done away with the respondent stabbed him with a Malapuram knife on his abdomen with the result the intestines protruded.When he aimed another blow against PW 1,he was intercepted by PW 2 when the respondent stabbed him also on his left hand and thereby PW 2 also sustained injury.PW 1 then fell down.By that time,PW 3,Bhaskaran Nair,PW 6 Joseph and DW 4 Purushothaman Nair came to the scene.The respondent was seen to have run away from the place towards north and then towards south.After some first aid was given to PW 1,both PWs 1 and 2 thereafter were taken to Palai Govt.Hospital at which PW 4,Asst.Surgeon dressed the wounds of PWs 1 and 2 at 2 a.m.on the same day.PW 4 issued Ex.P2 wound certificate to PW 1 while Ex.P3 wound certificate was issued to PW 2.The injury of PW 1.being serious,he was sent to the Medical College Hospital for better treatment at which he remained as in patient under the treatment of PW 7 Professor of Surgeory.However,he was discharged as cured on 25 12 1968.In the meanwhile,PW 2 had given Ex.P1 first information to PW 8,Head Constable,Palai on the basis of which he registered a crime and the same was sent to Erattupeta Police Station within the jurisdiction of which the occurrence took place.PW 9 registered a crime there and PW 10,Sub Inspector took up investigation.He visited the scene of occurrence,and prepared Ex.P10 scene mahazar.The place of occurrence was pointed out to him by one Chandrasekharan Nair.The respondent later surrendered before the court.On completion of investigation,the charge was laid against the respondent.

(3.) THE fact that PWs 1 and 2 were injured after the midnight of 16 12 '68 admits of no doubt.But,the prosecution evidence did not reveal that,in the circumstances of the case,the respondent would have caused voluntary hurt to PWs 1 and 2.PWs 1 and 2 are the two injured persons.PWs 3 and 6 are said to be the witnesses who witnessed the occurrence.But,there is serious doubt whether PWs 3 and 6 reached the scene before PWs 1 and 2 sustained injuries.There was discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses.PWs 1 and 2 stated that the witnesses came to the scene after PW 1 fell down on the ground sustaining the injury.If the version in Ex.P1 as well as that of PWs 1 and 2 in the evidence is to be accepted,it would show that the witnesses reached the place on hearing the cry of PWs 1 and 2.But,the evidence of PWs 3 and 6 showed that when they reached the place,PW 1 was found lying on the ground injured.PW 1 had also admitted in cross examination that PWs 3 and 6 came to the spot after PW 1 had fallen on the ground.But,PWs 3 and 6 described the entire incident from beginning to the end which would go to show that their testimony is not worthy of any credit.On the other hand,the evidence of DWs 3 and 4 coupled with the 342 statement of the respondent revealed that the defence version was more probable than the prosecution version.