PARAMESWARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE father and his two sons were the accused persons in crime No. 358/1996 of Chalakudy Police Station. THE younger among the sons was juvenile. Accordingly, the appellants, the father and the elder son were tried by the Sessions Court. Both of them have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 302, 324 and 326 I. P. C. read with Section 34 I. P. C. THE prosecution case was that at about 6. 30 A. M. on 19. 10. 1996, they along with his younger son, pelted stone on the house of one Velandi. Velandi came out. THE accused persons who were residing just the opposite side of the road separating the residence of the both, attacked with m. O. 1 stick and beat on his head. PWs. 1 to 4 and one Sandhya, the daughter of velandi came out in succession. THE accused persons, beat them as well. THEy also sustained injuries. All of them except PW. 3 were taken to the hospital. At the hospital, it was found that Velandi was deed. THE others were given treatment including the stitching of the wounds. THEre is a dispute as to whether they have been hospitalized or not. PW. 1, brother of the deceased velandi gave Ext. P1 F. I. Statement to PW. 10 who registered the crime. P. W. 9 conducted the investigation and laid charges. Appreciating the evidence on record, including the testimony of PWs. 1 to 10, documents Exts. P1 to P20, and the material objects M. Os. 1 to 9 identified during the trial, the trial court found that the accused persons were guilty of the offences punishable under sections 302, 324 and 326 I. P. C. and were accordingly sentenced to undergo life imprisonment on the first count, three years rigorous imprisonment on the second count, and one year rigorous imprisonment on the third count. THE trial court also found that they shared common intention in committing the offence. Thus, the conviction is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) PWS. 1 to 4 were the injured witnesses. It is submitted that they are only interested persons, being the close relatives of the deceased Velandi viz. , the brother, father, wife and sister-in-law. Therefore, they ought not have been simply believed in the absence of corroboration by an independent witness, especially, when Ext. P1 F. I. Statement discloses that other persons had also arrived at the scene of occurrence. So, the conviction based on the testimony of the interested witnesses PWS. 1 to 4 cannot be sustained, the appellants submit. They further contended that accused 1 and 2 were not in station, and they have gone for a festival in a temple. The juvenile in conflict with law, the 3rd accused in the crime, alone was present in their house. At that time, the injured party had pelted stones. He came outside and there was alteration. It was during such alteration that the said incident had happened. It is further contended that the incident as really happened had not been disclosed to the court. The genesis of occurrence is also withheld from the court. Pointing out the evidence of PW. 3, it is submitted that she had been inside the house engaged in cooking. Her daughter Sandhya, one among the injured had given tea to the said Velandi. But it is clear from ext. P4 post mortem certificate issued by PW. 6 that the stomach of the injured was empty. Therefore, the story of giving tea and accordingly the entire deposition of PW. 3 cannot be believed. There was no chance as to she having witnessed the incident as spoken to before the court below.

(3.) AS already mentioned above, the occurrence was at 6. 30 A. M. on 19. 10. 1998. It was just the dusk time. Therefore, there was no possibility of anyone else being witnessing the occurrence. Of course Ext. P1 F. I. Statement given by PW. 1 indicates that other persons have also come and seen the incident. That is only an embellishment as normal in any case. Therefore, much importance cannot be given to that version in Ext. P1 F. I. Statement. Except a suggestion from the witnesses as to whether the incident occurred inside the compound of the accused persons, no question has been asked as to whether any of them had pelted stone on the house of the accused persons. Scene Mahazar prepared by PW. 9 was at about 2. 00 P. M. on the date of occurrence. Of course, he has noticed the broken window panes. Merely because of that, it cannot be taken that the deceased persons had pelted stones.