LUKKA ULAHANNAN Vs. TRAVANCORE-COCHIN STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from Sessions Case No. 12 of 1954 on the file of the Kottayam Sessions Court. Ouseph Varkey Alias Pappachan, who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal 70, was accused No.1 in the case and he stood charged for commission of two offences of murder and having abetted his coaccused, Lukka Ulahannan Alias Kunju Lonan (accused 2) in causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon on one Chandy Devassia, PW 2 in the case. Accused 2, who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal 61 besides being charged with causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon on PW 2 was also charged with the abetment of the two murders with which accused 1 was charged. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted both the appellants of the charge of abetment arraigned against either, but found that both Pathrose and Mundan whom accused 1 is said to have stabbed died as a result of the injuries sustained by them at the hands of the said accused. The learned Judge however, took the view that the offence as against either victim did not amount to murder, but only to culpable homicide not amounting to murder falling under the first part of S.304 I.P.C. Convicting accused 1 of two offences under that section, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years in each case, with the direction that the two sentences shall run consecutively. The appeal against these convictions sentences is, as already indicated, Criminal Appeal 70. The appellant thereto will hereinafter be referred to as accused 1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal 61, who will hereinafter be referred to as accused 2, was found guilty of causing grievous hurt with a dangerous weapon (S.326, I.P.C.) on PW 2 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten months. Before us Sri K. T. Thomas, Advocate, represented accused 1 and Sri P. Govinda Menon, Advocate, represented accused 2.

(2.) The facts of the case are correctly set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the judgment of the lower court and those paragraphs may conveniently be quoted here:-

(3.) On the evidence it is clearly established that both Pathrose and Mundan died as a result of the injuries sustained by them on the evening of 23.6.1952 and that as a result of the wounds sustained by PW 2, he had to remain an inpatient in the Kottayam District Hospital for not less than 74 days, unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. It is equally clear from the evidence that the attack on all the three victims was made with sharp, dangerous weapons. At the trial accused 1 did not dispute the factum of his having had an encounter with the three victims in the case at the time and place mentioned by the prosecution. His statement was to the effect that following an altercation with Pathrose, in which Mundan, PW 2 and some others joined hands with Pathrose, they belaboured him and that with considerable difficulty he managed to escape from the place. No plea for complete exoneration or even amelioration of the crimes of murder levelled against him was definitely set up. The cross examination of the occurrence witnesses, however, suggested a plea of self defence. Accused 2 denied having participated in the incident, but said that when he passed along the scene of the crime he witnessed a quarrel between accused 1, the two deceased persons, PW 2 and others. According to him he did not wait there for long to see how the quarrel ended, but hurried home. He added that in the night the police went to his house in search of him, that he managed to escape from there and afterwards kept out of their hands for some time.