JAYARAJ Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Friendships are created and differences effaced over a drink; but when passions soar, friends and foe alike end up in a brawl, often with disastrous consequences. In the case before us, we are not sure whether they were celebrating friendship or ironing out differences, but it sure ended in a brawl, in which both the assailant and the victim were armed, resulting in the murder of one.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused, two in number, with premeditation, called the deceased over the telephone and since he refused to speak to them, came to his house to confront him. The deceased, with both the accused, went out of the house and sat down in the nearby premises of a spinning mill, a place visible from the house. PW2, an associate of the deceased, joined and all four together consumed liquor. The tete-a-tete broke up with a brawl, in which A1 and the deceased fought and both took out knives. The knife-play resulted in wounds on both persons, one of which inflicted on the deceased, proved fatal. The prosecution arrayed 34 witnesses, marked 55 documents and produced 17 material objects, which according to them establish the guilt of both the accused in the murder; carried out with premeditation. The defence examined five witnesses and marked three documents. Both the accused were found guilty under Sec.302 and Sec.324 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to undergo respectively imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rupees one lakh each for the offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, with default sentence.

(3.) Sri. Renjith B.Marar, appearing for the 1st accused, argued that the motive alleged has not been proved by the prosecution and is an inherently weak story. It is pointed out that the party between the four continued for hours together, even according to the prosecution, and this rubbishes the allegation of premeditated murder. The presence of the accused is admitted and the accused contended that there arose a brawl between the deceased and PW2, who were business associates. A1 interfered when the associates came to blows and brandished knives. A1 also suffered injuries and realising that the deceased suffered a fatal injury, they bolted; not for the reason of their guilt, but more due to fear of being falsely implicated, which fear has now been proved correct. There is inconsistency insofar as the PW1's testimony regarding the time at which the incident occurred. There is also suspicion regarding the time of registration of the FIR. The scientific evidence is in favour of A1, since the blood of the deceased was not detected in MO1 weapon, which is alleged to have caused death. It is argued that, if at all this Court finds an intention, then necessarily, it can only fall under the fourth Exception under Sec.300 and the sentence can only be under Sec.304, part one. The learned Counsel would rely on Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 to bring the offence under culpable homicide not amounting to murder as covered by Exception 4 to Sec.300. Surain Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 5 SCC 796 was relied on to contend that, the number of injuries need not necessarily take the offence out of Exception 4 to Sec.300. Sri. Sreekumar, learned Counsel for the 2nd accused, asserted that there is absolutely no evidence against A2 and his presence alone was proved. Even if he is said to have facilitated the flight of A1, there is no question of roping him in, for the offence under Sec.302. There is nothing to indicate a common intention and reliance was placed on Virender v. State of Haryana, 2019 KHC 7260. Per contra, Sri.Sreejith, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, vehemently argued that the investigating officer has painstakingly conducted the inquiry and adduced evidence before the court. The testimony of the witnesses arrayed establish the offence and also the premeditation. The wife of the deceased has spoken of the enmity between the accused and the deceased. The bike, in which the accused arrived, is established to be stolen and it was because of the threat levelled by the deceased, to report the same to the police, that the murder was committed. The accused were armed and came intending to silence the deceased forever. The State prays for upholding the conviction and sentence.