ABRAHAM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Marangattil Abraham stands convicted by the sessions Judge, Tellichery for the offence of murder of one Joseph and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) SINCE a year prior to the occurrence the deceased and accused were on terms of bitter enmity. The accused's brother one Lukka was concerned in a prohibition case and had been arrested. The accused approached the deceased who was the member of the panchayat for standing surety for his brother. The deceased refused to accede to the request and asked him to get away. Accused felt humiliated and left the place. On 2-2-64 the deceased and accused met in front of the Government L. P. School, thettamala and there was an exchange of blows between them. A police constable interfered and separated them and since then it is stated the accused was going about saying that he would kill the deceased. He is said to have gone to Pw. 8 the sister of the deceased and told her that he had ordered for a dagger which was intended for the deceased. Getting scent of this, deceased was going about in the company of his nephew Pw. 1. On 27-3-64 Rev. Fr. Mathew of the local church delivered a sermen in the church in the course of which he compared deceased Joseph to pilathose and exhorted the parishioners not to have anything to do with him. Knowing about this, on the 29th deceased Joseph violently denounced the Rev. Father for the speech he had made. The entire parishioners resented this conduct of the deceased. On 1-4-64 when deceased way on his was back from the church one Ali met him and asked him for money to redeem a saw that he had pledged. Deceased told him that he has kept his own saw in Pw. 16's house and would get it for him. After that the deceased accompanied by his nephew Pw. 1 went to his house and from there they went to the house of Pw. 4 and from there started for Pw. 16's house. They had to pass Nedunthodi vayal Pw. 1 was going in front and the deceased was following him. Hardly had they gone a short distance, when Pw. 1 heard the cry of his uncle from behind that he was being stabbed by the accused. Pw. 1 turned back and saw the accused stabbing the deceased. Getting frightened Pw. 1 ran from the place. Hearing the cry Pws. 2,3 and 4 came running to the scene from the house of Pw. 4. When they were coming to the scene they saw the accused running away. They found Joseph lying with extensive injuries. He was removed to the house of Pw. 4 and within a few minutes he succumbed to his injuries. Pw. 1 went to inform the relations and then proceeded to the Vellamunda police station. Pw. 19 the Head Constable recorded Ext. P-1 statement from him and registered a case. On getting information the Circle inspector reached the scene at 8 a. m. next day. Inquest was held and after the inquest Pw. 17 the medical officer attached to the Govt. Hospital, Manantody conducted the autopsy. The accused surrendered at the police station on 3-4-64 along with his father and was arrested. After completing the investigation charge sheet was laid against the accused. The case of the accused was one of complete denial. He admitted that there was bitter enmity between him and the deceased and he would have it that a false case had been foisted on him. The deceased had as many as 10 incised injuries on different parts of his body. As a result of the injuries the internal organs, namely, thorax, right lung, diaphragm, left kidney and splean were all injured. Injuries 1, 3 and 4 were each fatal injuries and death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of the multiple injuries. There is thus no dispute that the deceased sustained injuries and died of these injuries.

(3.) WE will now see how far the evidence of Pw. 1 compels belief and how far his evidence could safely be acted upon. WE will first compare his evidence with his complaint Ext. P-1. What he stated in Ext. P-1 is that while he was proceeding along the Nedunthodi field he heard his uncle crying from behind and when he turned back he saw the accused stabbing him, that thereafter he ran to the house of his brother-in-law, that when he went there his uncle Chacko was also there, that immediately himself and Pws. 2 to 4 and other neighbours ran up to the place and by that time the accused had already left the place, that they removed the injured to Pw. 4's house and within 15 minutes the injured succumbed to the injuries. He had no case then that while they came running they saw the accused running away from the place. When confronted with the statement Ext. P-1 he stated that what he stated there is not correct. He had no case that when they went there the deceased mentioned that it was the accused who stabbed him. Pw. 24, the Circle Inspector has also stated that when questioned at the inquest Pw. 1 did not mention to him that when they went to the place the deceased was saying in a feeble voice that he was stabbed by the deceased. Pws. 2 and 3 also did not tell the Inspector that when they went there the deceased mentioned that it was the accused who stabbed him. The doctor Pw. 17 only stated that the injured could have survived for some time and he could have talked even though indistinctly. It is, therefore, extremely doubtful whether as spoken to by the witnesses in court the deceased would have cried out that he was being stabbed by the accused and again a second time sufficiently loud to be heard by Pws. 2 to 4 who were living not near from the place of occurrence. It was admittedly a dark night. Pw. 1 would say that he identified the assailant by the aid of a torch light in the hands of the deceased which he was flashing down to the ground. If that be so, it would not have been possible to identify the assailant. Then again if really Pw. 1 was accompanying the deceased as a sort of body guard why he should have walked in advance is not explained and more so, when Pw. 1 himself had no light with him. Pw. 24 the Circle Inspector has stated that when he first questioned Pw. 1 he did not mention that since two months he was always accompanying the deceased wherever he was going. The evidence of Pw. 1 does not impress us as reliable. WE find it extremely unsafe to place any reliance on his evidence to condemn a man in such a serious case as this,