ANTONY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in Sessions Case No. 147 of 1989 on the file of the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. He was convicted under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. and hence he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 324 I.P.C. The said conviction and sentence are being challenged by the accused in the present appeal. The prosecution case can be summarised thus: On 14 -2 -1989 at about 7.30 a. m. P. W. 1 Subhadra, and her niece P. W. 2 Ambika went near the side of a canal in front of their house. While P. VW 1 was brushing her teeth, the accused hurled a tirade of abuse at her from outside his house which was located on the other side of the canal. P. W. 1 aptly retorted. Raju (deceased) who was then coming from western side of the canal, hearing the filthy words, asked the accused to stop hurling of abuses at P. W. 1. This was resented to by the accused. Then he rushed to his house and came out with M. O. 1 iron rod. Accused then walked along the bund and came near to Raju and hit him with the iron rod causing injury on his head. Seeing this P. Ws 1 and 2 rushed near to Raju and the accused thereupon beat P. W. 1 also with iron road causing injury on her head. He also beat P. W. 2 though she craved him with folded arms not to harm them. P. W. 2 had sustained bleeding injury. P. W. 3 and others made arrangements to remove the injured Raju, P. W. 1 and P. W. 2. They were taken to Vithura Police station. P. W. 8 Head Constable recorded Ext. P1 F.I.R. statement from P. W. 1, on the basis of which Ext. P1 (d) F.I.R. was registered, All the three injured were sent to local hospital with Ext. P6 requisition. They were attended to by P. W. 5 doctor, who issued Exts. P3 to P5 would certificates. Raju and P. W. 1 were then referred to Medical College hospital. P W. 10 doctor treated Raju, but he could not be saved though proper treatment was given. Finally the tragic end had come abruptly Raju died on 16 -2 -1989. P. W. 9 Sub Inspector of Police went to Medical College hospital prior to the death of Raju and recorded his statement, P. W. 6 conducted autopsy and issued Ext. P7 certificate. P.W. 9 conducted investigation initially and after the death of Raju, investigation was taken over by P. W. 11, Circle Inspector of Police. He arrested the accused on 3 -3 -1989. Pursuant to the information supplied by the accused M. O. 1 iron -rod was recovered from the place where it was concealed, as per Ext. P9 recovery mahazar. P. W. 12, after completing the investigation, laid the charge against the accused before the Magistrate's Court. Then the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

(2.) THE defence case as brought out in the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr. P.C. can be stated thus: P. Ws 1 and 2 and their relatives came the house of the accused and hurled abuses. Then the accused asked them to go away and at that time Raju came to the scene and shouted at the accused and went into the house of the accused. Then there was 'push and pull' between Raju, P.W. 1 and P. W. 2 on the one side and the accused on the other. P. W. 1, deceased Raju and accused fell into the canal and all of them thus sustained injuries. Accused got up and went away to his place of work. What happened thereafter the accused did not know.

(3.) THUS the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 sufficiently corroborates each other in all material particulars regarding the incident. Their evidence has been made subject TO careful and cautious scrutiny in all respects and after doing so this court finds that there is no reason to disbelieve them in any manner. They are natural and reliable witnesses who have narrated the entire incident in which they themselves have suffered injuries. It is no doubt true that P.Ws 1 and 2 are related to the deceased. When the witnesses are otherwise found to be reliable there is no justification for discrediting their evidence on the ground that they are related to the deceased. What all that is necessary is that the evidence of interested or related witnesses should be subjected to a very careful scrutiny with extreme care and caution as observed by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Vinodkumar ( : A.I.R. 1992 S. C. 1011). P.W. 3 very sufficiently witnessed the entire incident where the deceased, P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 were beaten up by the accused with M. O. 1 iron rod. This is a marvellous piece of evidence which corroborates the testimony of P.Ws 1 and 2. P. W. 3 is said to be a relative of accused who have no axe to grind against him. He is an independent witness who has narrated the true version of the incident.