JOY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the accused. He was charged with the offence of murder of one Kunjappan.

(2.) THE accused joy was standing on the side of muvattupuzha-Kaliyar public road on 13-9-1981 at 10 AM. Muvattupuzha-Kaliyar road runs east-west. THE accused was waiting for a bus. THE deceased came from the west. THE accused commanded the deceased Kunjappan not to stir a step. Kunjappan turned back and ran to the side of a shop-room. THE accused remained static. Toe deceased re-appeared on the road. A tussle ensued. THE accused stabbed Kunjappan. Kunjappan was taken to the Taluk Hospital . On the way. Kunjappan died. Joy, the accused was apprehended on 24-9-1981. He was indicted for committing the offence of murder of Kunjappan. THE Sessions court, Ernakulam tried the accused, found him guilty and convicted him. THE accused challenges the verdict of the Sessions Court in this appeal.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant Sri Manual thomas argued his case very ably. He contended that there is no clear proof of stabbing of the deceased by the accused. He submitted that the evidence relied on by the trial court in respect of this is wholly unacceptable and the trial court ought to have rejected the same. He particularly pointed out that the trial court committed an error in relying on the evidence of Pw. 2 and Pw. 4 who were the eye witnesses in the case. He submitted that the evidence of Pw. 2 is corroborated only by the evidence of Pw. 4 and that since Pw. 4 is a doubtful witness, there is no proper corroboration. Relying on decisions reported in V. THEvar v. State of Madras (AIR. 1957 SC. 614) and State v. Tula ram (AIR. 1960 Allahabad 585) the learned counsel submitted that the evidence of a doubtful witness cannot be used for corroboration of another witness of the same character. He submitted both pws. 2 and 4 are doubtful witnesses. THE counsel further argued that at any rate, the trial court erred very seriously in appreciating the evidence to find out an answer to the crucial question as to who was the aggressor in this case. He elaborated his point by submitting that since there is clear evidence of a tussle preceding the fatal act of stabbing, the court below ought to have given a definite answer in regard to the genesis of the tussle. He submitted that there is absolutely no evidence to warrant a conclusion that the accused was the aggressor.