VATTAPARAMBIL THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to three months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 323 I. P. C. , and to four years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 326 I. P. C. THE conviction under Section 302 was for causing the murder of one Joseph by the appellant stabbing him with M. O. 1 dagger and the conviction under Section 323 I. P. C. was for beating Joseph with his hands at about 7. 30 p. m. on 18-4-1972. THE conviction under Section 326 i. P. C. was for causing grievous hurt to P. W. 1 by stabbing him with M. O. 1 dagger at the same time and place. THE sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution story was narrated as follows: Some dispute existed originally between P. W. 5, a brother of deceased Joseph on the one hand, P. W. 7, a brother of the appellant's brother-in-law on the other, with regard to a transaction in paddy seeds. That dispute developed into enmity between the respective families of the appellant and deceased Joseph. While so a wordy altercation took place on the date of the incident near one Koomanthodu bridge between P. W. 1 and deceased Joseph and the appellant, P. W. 1 is the younger brother of deceased Joseph. THEy were on their way back home after sale of milk in the adjacent village. P. W. 1 went walking a little ahead of Joseph when he met the appellant near the bridge. While they were engaged in some exchange of words Joseph came and disrupted the talk. THEreafter the appellant crossed the bridge and stood on the road on the other side. In the meanwhile Joseph walked through the channel and reached near the appellant when again there was a wordy quarrel between them during the course of which the appellant drew out M. O. 1 dagger intending to stab Joseph. But due to the timely intervention of P. W. 6, no untoward incident happened there. P. W. 6 directed the appellant to go away from the place while he asked P. W. 1 and joseph to go home a little later. It was thereafter that the appellant went and stood in front of the house of deceased Joseph. THE house of P. W. 5, another brother of Joseph, was adjacent to it. When Joseph reached in front of his house, the appellant beat him first on his face with his hand and then stabbed him with M. O. 1 causing a penetrating injury on his lift eye. By then P. W. 1 came running to the spot and P. W. 5 accompanied by P. W. 2, wife and P. W. 3, daughter of Joseph, also arrived at the scene hearing the cry of Joseph. As soon as the stab on the eye was inflicted Joseph had caught hold of the appellant. While so the appellant stabbed him again on his back with the result that he fell down. P. W. 1 then intervened when he too was stabbed on his back with M. O. 1. However, he was able to overpower the appellant by wresting M. O. 1 from him with the help of P. W. 5. After getting M. O. 1 from him it was handed over to P. W. 5 who in his turn handed it over to P. W. 2. While wresting M. O. 1 from the appellant, P. W. 1 sustained two more injuries on his hands. Finally, they tied down the appellant with a rope. P. Ws. 4 and 6 came there later and saw the appellant lying tied down with a rope. But the appellant's brother released him a little later.

(3.) P. W. 20 Sub-Inspector held the inquest over the dead body. Ext. P. 6 was the inquest report. P. W. 10 Assistant Surgeon conducted autopsy and issued Ext. P. 9 post-mortem certificate. The appellant was arrested after he was discharged from the hospital. The appellant's case as set out in Ext. P. 19 was referred as false.