ROBIN DAVID Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A brawl on the road resulted in a person's life being snuffed out and the defence is total denial, with an alternative plea raised of there being no intention to take the life of a person.

(2.) PW1 to PW3 and the deceased were returning from a friend's house, met the accused at a petrol bunk; who later waylaid them on the road. The four persons, PWs 1 to 3 and the deceased were travelling in a scooter and a motor bike. The prosecution case is that at the petrol bunk, when the car with the two accused were exiting, the dickey was open. The four persons, from the roadside, hollered at the accused, asking them to close the dickey. The accused misinterpreted it as an abuse and waylaid the four persons travelling in the bike. A scuffle ensued and A2 stabbed the deceased repeatedly with active participation of A1, which resulted in his death. The accused stood trial and the prosecution examined 24 witnesses, marked P1 to P42 documents and produced material objects marked as MO1 to MO28. The defence also examined two witnesses and marked D1 to D7, of which D1 to D3 were contradictions. The Sessions Court found the accused guilty of offences under S.341, 323, 140, 302 and 324 read with 34 IPC. The accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under S.302 and imprisonment for various periods under the other provisions on which they were found guilty; with fine imposed on each of such offences followed with default sentence. The compensation realised was also directed to be given to the mother of the deceased.

(3.) Learned Counsel Sri.Balachandran R.B. appeared for R1 and at the outset stated that PW1 to PW3 and the deceased were total strangers to the accused. The version of the prosecution witnesses cannot be believed, because according to them the two accused were pitted against four persons and it is very unlikely that the two accused could have overpowered the four and also stabbed one of them. It cannot be believed that the deceased was dragged down from the bike and the other persons were passive onlookers. A1 did not have any weapon in his hands and there is nothing suggestive of a prior intention. The FIS of PW1 does not speak about an active role of A1, in the stabbing of the deceased. The version of PW2 and PW3 that A1 caught hold of the hands of the deceased to facilitate the stabbing is a clear embellishment, at the instance of the Investigating Officer [I.O]. The exhortation made by A1 to pierce the victim cannot be categorised as an exhortation to kill. In fact the injuries on the chest of the victim are superficial. The medical opinion is that the stab injury on the thigh caused the death, due to excessive bleeding. A1 has to be exonerated since there is no overt act alleged and if at all, A1 has to be punished only under S.304, Part-II. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Madhu v. State of Kerala((2012) 2 SCC 399) and Virender v. State of Haryana ((2020)2 SCC 700).