BOBAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT (Al) was charged under S. 302 of the Indian penal Code for having caused the death of Thomaskutty by stabbing him with m. O. 2 knife during the night of 21-4-1986 (at about 12-15a. m. on 22-4-1986 ). Second accused was charged under S. 201 read with S. 34 of the I. P. C. A2 was found not guilty and he was acquitted. Al was found guilty under S. 302 and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) AL and A2 are cousins. AL (hereafter referred to as 'accused') was an employee of Thomaskutty (deceased) who was the owner of apsara Theatre. Calicut . In May. 1985 accused left the service of Thomaskutty on his own accord. Prosecution case is that while accused was working as a gate-keeper in Apsara theatre he was a troublemaker to the management. that after leaving the service under Thomaskutty he tried his luck in several ventures unsuccessfully and that he was under impecunious circumstances. On 21-4-1986 Thomaskutty returned to his house after his work. P. W. 1. a maid-servant in the house went to bed in the up stair portion of the building at about 10. 30 p. m. Thomaskutty slept in the bed room in the down stair portion of the building along with his wife. a mental patient. P. W. 1 heard the call bell twice followed by an alarm accompanied by the thud of something falling down. P. W. 1 came down and found the light on and someone groaning from near the entrance door of the house. P. W. 1 found Thomaskutty lying on the courtyard with his face downwards. She woke up the wife of Thomaskutty. Both of them went near Thomaskutty and found him in a pool of blood. They helped Thomaskutty to lie with face up. P. W. 1 found injuries on his chest and back. By the time he was dead P. W. 1 and wife of the deceased cried. Both of them proceeded to the adjacent house of Appunni menon (P. W. 2) and informed him about the incident. P. W. 2 came to the place of occurrence along with P. W. 1 and Mrs. Thomaskutty. P. W. 2 realised that thomaskutty was no more. P. W. 2 told P. W. 3. another neighbour to inform the police Control Room over telephone. P. W. 2 took P. W. 1 and Mrs. Thomaskutty to his house. He informed Thomaskutty's father and daughters who were residing in a house at Mavoor Road. Within fifteen to twenty minutes police party came there. P. W. I. P. W. 2 and Mrs. Thomaskutty came to the courtyard where the dead body was lying. P. W. 1 lodged first information statement Ext. P-1 to P. W. 19 sub Inspector of Medical College Police Station. P. W. 25 Circle Inspector held the inquest over the dead body. Ext. P-31 is the inquest report. P. W. 26 assistant Commissioner of Police. Calicut North Sub Division conducted investigation and laid the charge before the Court.

(3.) MOTIVE set up by the prosecution has not been established in the case. In reality there is total lack of motive on the part of the accused to commit the horrendous crime. In Ext. P-32 remand report dated 24-4-1986 the case set up by the prosecution is that the accused was dismissed from service by the deceased and this motivated the accused to commit the crime. It is stated in Ext. P-32 that the accused was an employee under the deceased. that he was dismissed from service. that there was an attempt to implicate him in a theft case and that on account of it the accused harboured enmity towards deceased and to wreak vengeance committed the murder. Evidence in the case does not reveal dismissal of the accused by the deceased. In fact the evidence would only show that the accused left the service of the deceased on his own volition. Therefore. by no stretch of imagination it is possible to come to a conclusion that the accused perpetrated the crime out of vengeance. Evidence ofp. Ws. 4. 6 and 7 and Ext. P-5 series would clearly rule out any motive for the accused to commit the crime.