PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants in Cri. A. No. 835 of 2002 were charge-sheeted under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A-1 and deceased are brothers and A-2 is their father. A-1 was residing in the tharwad with family. Deceased was residing with his family in the adjacent land. The Sessions Court found A-1 (first appellant) guilty under Sections 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A-2 was found guilty under Section 323, IPC and not guilty under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34, IPC. Since A-2 was not found guilty under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34, State filed Cri. Appeal No. 1637 of 2003. The following sentences were imposed on them:

(2.) PW-1 gave the first Information statement. PW-1 Is not an eye-witness to the incident. But. he stated that he gathered information from the place of incident and gave first information statement, Ext. P-1, to PW-11. According to PW-11, the statement was recorded at the station at 9-15 p.m. on the same day (22-2-1994) and he registered Ext. P-1 (a) FIR and he along with PW-16 reached the place of occurrence at about 10-30 p.m. on that day and arranged scene guard. PW-1 admitted that Ext. P-1 is his signed statement. But, he deposed that he has given it on the next day morning. In the next day (23-2-1994) itself, the first information statement reached the Magistrate's Court. PW-7 is the wife of the second accused and mother of the first accused and she did not support the prosecution or-the defence. PW-9 is the wife of the deceased. She deposed that there was property disputes between the deceased and the accused. The accused and PW-7 were staying in the tharavad house while herself and the deceased along with the children were staying in another house. According to PW-7, accused was in Inimical terms with the deceased during the relevant time because of the property dispute. She also identified MOs 10 and 11 as dhothi and shuddy of the deceased. Ext. P-12 is the inquest report wherein it is stated that the body was found in the river bund about 150 metres north of the old ferry in Amarambalam south. PWs-2, 3 and 8, occurrence witnesses, stated the case in accordance with the prosecution story. Even though elaborate cross-examination was done, nothing was stated to disbelieve the above witnesses in material particulars. PW-2 was an injured witness. PW-4, an employee of the accused, was examined as an occurrence witness. According to him, he has not seen the incident. He pretended that he did not see both the deceased and accused. Even though his statement to the police as otherwise as can be seen from the contradictions marked, we are of the opinion that evidence of PWs-2, 3 and 8 are cogent and believable. The fact that PW-2 immediately went to the private doctor is not a ground for disbelieving him. Thereafter PW-2 went to the Government Hospital. PW-13 is the doctor of the Government Hospital who issued Ext. P-9 certificate. He also deposed that injuries on PW-2 can be caused by MOs 2 and 3.

(3.) PW-14 who conducted the autopsy noticed the following injuries: "