JENSON ALIAS MATHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is faced with conviction under Section 304, Part-I, I.P.C. and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and imposition of fine of Rs. 10,000/- with a default sentence of two years' imprisonment. The charge was under Section 302, 1PC. The Court below found that he was entitled to the benefit of Exception No. 4 to Section 300, IPC. That was why he was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304. Part I, I.P.C.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, it is submitted that, out of the 9 witnesses cited as occurrence witnesses, namely PWs-1 to 9, only PW-9 who was none other than the father of the deceased alone supported the prosecution case. What was available was the sole testimony of PW-9, who is almost an interested witness. Therefore, the trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellant/accused relying on the said sole testimony. It is further submitted that, he had only seen a part of the occurrence. How the occurrence had really happened is not divulged by PW-9. So the genesis of occurrence has not come to light. It is again submitted that, as spoken to by PW-9, two of his other sons had been present on the scene of occurrence but they have not been cited as occurrence witnesses. It is further submitted that Exts. Dl(a) to (f) contradictions marked through PW-9 will reveal that he had not spoken consistently with respect to the occurrence, before police and before the Court below. So it is not safe to rely on that sole wilnesses to fasten conviction. It is again submitted that he had seen only the accused stabbing thrice. But there are several other injuries on the body of the deceased as evidenced by post-mortem certificate issued by PW-10. So the occurrence is not in tune with the evidence of PW-9.

(3.) It is again submitted that, PW-9 did not know Malayalam. He was a Tamiliyan, admittedly by the prosecution. He gave evidence before the Court in Tamil. His deposition was written by the Court in Malayalam, availing the service of an interpreter. The interpreter has not been administered oath as required under Rule 52 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. So the evidence of PW-9 cannot be taken note of at all.