FRANCIS ALIAS PONNAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE reference by the Sessions Judge under section 374 Cr.P.C.and the criminal appeal by the accused arise out of the conviction and sentence of death passed under section 302 I.P.C.in Sessions Case No.20 of 1972 of the Sessions Court,Ernakulam,for the alleged murder of one Pappachan by the appellant by cutting him with M.O.1 chopper at about 3.30 p.m.on 24th December 1971 at the junction of Pandikkudi road within the limits of the Mattancherry Police Station.

(2.) THE deceased Pappachan was going along the road from east to west on a bicycle when the appellant was lying in wait in the compound of one Peter Asan to the north of the road.As soon as deceased Pappachan was sighted the appellant came running out of the compound carrying M.O.1 chopper in his hand.P.W.1,a pedestrian who was returning from his workspot,and P.W.2 a labourer who was going to his workspot to get some advance,happened to see the incident.The appellant ran after the deceased Pappachan while he was going on the bicycle and first inflicted a blow on the left side of his head with M.O.1 chopper,with the result that Pappachan fell down with the bicycle on the northern side of the road.After the fall,the appellant approached him and then removed the bicycle on the other side of the road.Then the appellant again cut the deceased Pappachan with M.O.1 on the head and on the region of the lips,thereby causing two more injuries.Deceased Pappachan was lying in a pool of blood at the spot and died instantaneously.The appellant then went into the compound with M.O.1 in his hand and tied M.O.1 on the carrier of his bicycle and thereafter left the place.P.W.1 who went near the place where Pappachan was lying found that he had already succumbed to his injuries.P.W.1 then went straight to the Mattancherry Police Station and lodged Ext.P -1 first information at 5.45 p.m.before P.W.20 Sub Inspector.P.W.21 Inspector being on other duty,the investigation of the case was taken up by P.W.20 himself.He deputed police constables to guard the dead body.On the next day P.W.20 held the inquest and prepared Ext.P -10 inquest report.After questioning the witnesses,investigation was continued.P.W.10,Assistant Surgeon,conducted autopsy and prepared Ext.P -5 post -mortem certificate.The appellant was found absconding.On 30th December 1971 P.W.21 took up investigation.Thereafter the appellant was arrested on 23rd February 1972 and on the basis of his confession recovery of M.O.1 was made under Ext.P -9 mahazar which was attested by P.W.16.On completion of the investigation charge was laid.

(3.) THE fact of the death of Pappachan clue to the fatal injuries on his head admits of no dispute.The evidence of P.W.10,the Assistant Surgeon,was conclusive that injuries Nos.1 to 3 in Ext.P -5 post -mortem certificate were necessarily fatal and that those injuries could be caused by stabbing with a weapon like M.O.1.The eye -witnesses to the occurrence were P.Ws.1 and 2.They were cross examined at great length but nothing had come out from the evidence that they were not truthful or reliable witnesses.P.W.1 stated that he saw the appellant running out of the compound of Peter Asan with M.O.1 chopper in his hand and that he gave a forcible blow with M.O.1 on the left side of the head of Pappachan with the result that Pappachan fell down crying out "My mother " ;.As soon as he fell down P.W.1 saw the appellant taking out the bicycle on which Pappachan rode towards the southern side of the road.Thereafter the appellant inflicted two more injuries with considerable force on the head of Pappachan with M.O.1.The appellant then removed Pappachan's bicycle to the stand on the southern side of the road.The appellant then went back to Peter Asan's compound wherefrom he removed his bicycle and tied M.O.1 chopper on the carrier of the bicycle.After tying M.O.1 on the carrier of the bicycle,the appellant went along the Pandikkudi road towards west.The evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of P.Wr.2,both of whom were independent witnesses.However,a suggestion was made to P.W.2 that his son and son -in -law were on inimical terms with the appellant on account of Ext.P -3 first information statement in another case which was laid before the police by P.W.4,the brother -in -law of the appellant,at about 4.15 a.m.on 24th December 1971.He denied that suggestion.