KANARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted of culpable homicide,and sentenced under section 304,Part I,I.P.C.to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.brother -in -law.There were disputes between them over the boundary of their property,and it was in that background that the occurrence took place on 7th February 1971 at about 12 noon.That day at about 10 a.m.deceased Kunhiraman had gone to Palai,and returned by about 12 noon.He was coming along the foot -path running through the paddy field laying to the south of his paramba.His wife P.W.1,was at the time going to the shop with a basket for purchasing household articles.On seeing her husband she stopped for a while,and heard him shouting "Kanara,Kanara "( Kanaran is the accused ).Looking up she saw the accused running towards her husband with a chopper,and when the deceased was about to climb the bund leading to his property the accused inflicted cuts from behind with the chopper.The first two cuts fell on his right hand,and the third one on the left hand.On receipt of these cuts Kunhiraman fell down.P.W.1 ran to the spot,but before she reached,one more cut was dealt by the accused which hit on Kunhiraman's leg.The accused then escaped from the scene with the weapon.P.W.1 immediately sent her son to fetch P.W.3,a relation.He immediately arrived in the company of P.W.4.To them the deceased stated that he was cut by Kanaran.Kanaran was seen at the time in his property which is to the immediate east of the deceased's property.P.Ws.3 and 4 asked him what had happened.Then in a fretful tone the accused said that he was responsible for the infliction of the cuts,and that nobody need interfere with it.The injured was taken to the hospital,and when they reached the,hospital by about 4 p.m.they were told that Kunhiraman had died.

(2.) THE accused denied the charge.He stated that he had nothing to do with the occurrence and that out of enmity the case was foisted on him.Learned Judge,on a careful consideration of the evidence,has come to the conclusion that the accused and none else is the assailant and that he is solely responsible for the death of the victim.I see no reason,on a reappraisal of the evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 4 to take a different view.The occurrence took place in broad daylight and there was no difficulty either for the victim or for the witnesses to identify the assailant.The occurrence was seen from beginning to end by P.W.1.On a considera­tion of her evidence,I have no hesitation to observe that she is a truthful witness with no tendency to suppress anything.She was sought to be discredited on the ground that she is one engaged in distillation of illicit arrack and that she was even convicted once of such an offence.When questioned about it,she frankly admitted that she was once convicted,and stated that she was never engaged in distillation of illicit arrack,but was engaged only in the sale of arrack.Another point on which her evidence was challenged was that from her house the scene of occurrence cannot be seen,and it is to get over this difficulty that she was brought to the boundary of the property.This is not correct.She was positive that the scene of crime could clearly be seen from her house.There was,therefore,no need for taking / her towards the boundary for the purposes of the case.One witness who supported the accused's suggestion that the scene of crime is not visible from the house of the deceased was P.W.2 Bhaskaran;but he was hostile to the prosecution from the very beginning and had to be cross -examined by the prosecution.The learned Judge has not accepted his evidence for any purpose.The other point on which the evidence of P.W.1 was challenged,was that she is very closely related to the deceased being his wife.A witness cannot be discredited merely on the ground of relationship.If such evidence is reliable and if the witness is quite a natural and probable witness,it can be accepted irrespec­tive of the fact that it comes from a near relation.P.W.1,as already observed,is the solitary eye -witness and there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused even on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness.It has often been pointed out that evidence has to be weighed and not counted.

(3.) P .Ws.3 and 4 supply corroboration.Both of them are unsophisticated rustics not prone to exaggerate,or draw from their own imagination.Both of them were imme­diately attracted to the scene,and to them the deceased stated that he was cut by Kanaran.They also swear to the declaration made by the accused that it was he who was responsible for inflicting the cuts,and nobody else had any right to interfere in the matter.Learned counsel tried to weave out discrepancies in the statements of these two witnesses,but I do not see any discrepancy worth -consider­ing.The accused was seen with the weapon in the adjoining compound belonging to him and it was from there that he shouted out to them,I see no ground to disbelieve these witnesses.