KUDUVAKUZINYIL SUDHAKARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in a murder case is the appellant. He has been convicted of an offence under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Thalassery. The correctness of the said conviction and sentence is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is this: On 10-2-1990 at about 7.30 p.m. when the deceased Narayanan was walking along the public road in Payyavoor Market, appellant Sudhakaran came from the opposite direction and intercepted him. He, then hit the deceased repealed with MO 1 bill-book and caused grievous injuries on the body of the deceased. PWs. 1 to 3 and 6 saw the incident. When the persons gathered appellant went westwards with MO. 1 weapon. The injured was taken by the PWs. 7 and others to the Government Hospital, Taliparamba in a jeep. After examining the deceased, doctor declared him dead. PW. 16 Doctor concluded autopsy and issued Ext. P-7 Certificate. PW 1 who was an employee of a hill produce shop went to the police station and gave First Information Statement. While PW 1 who was in the police station the appellant with MO 1 weapon came and surrendered before the police. MO 1 produced by the appellant was taken into custody by PW 20 under Ext. P-4 mahazar. The appellant was arrested thereafter at about 10 p.m. and PW 20 registered case against him under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code. PW 21 Circle Inspector of Police took over the investigation and charge was laid on 22-3-1990.

(3.) The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges laid against him under Sec. 302 Indian Penal Code. The defence case as revealed from the statement of the accused under Sec. 313 Code Criminal Procedure is thus : The deceased slapped the accused on his right cheek and he was having injury on his face. Though he made a request to the police to not him examined by a Doctor, it was not done. This defence version makes this court to understand that the appellant was putting up a case of private defence. It was in fact to establish this defence case, two witnesses were examined as D. Ws. 1 and 2.