GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant Gopalakrishnan Nair alias Chandran stands convicted under S. 302,1. P. C. for having murdered one Devaisia alias kochu by stabbing him with a knife as also under S. 324, I. P. C. for stabbing one chacko. THE sentence of imprisonment for life on the first count and the sentence of imprisonment for six months for the second are directed to run concurrently. THE incident took place at about 9-30 p. m. on the 6th of december, 1964 on a public road in Bharananganam Village.

(2.) WHILE Chacko (P. W. 1) was on his way home along the kurumanoor Pykada Peedika road he happened to meet Kochu who also was returning home along the same route and the two proceeded together. When they came near the Mattathil purayidom where they had to take different paths they sat on the top of an old "kayala" (wall) with a view to continuing their conversation. When they were there for about five minutes the accused accompanied by P. W. 2 Raghavan came from the north. Raghavan had a lighted country torch which he was holding aloft. According to the prosecution when they neared the place where Kochu and P. W. 1 were seated Kochu asked the accused whether he had not warned him (the accused) earlier not to frequent that place. No sooner the accused heard the remark than he drew out his "malappuram" knife and rushed at Kochu. The first stab which the accused aimed at Kochu was warded off by the latter with his left foot and this caused an injury in between the fourth and the fifth toes. The next stab hit Kochu on the right side of the neck. Then Kochu got down from the wall when a third stab was given which fell on the left eye-brow followed by the last one which pierced his chest on the right side and felled him. P. W. 1 tried to support the falling man when the accused stabbed him on his back causing an injury on the left shoulder blade. When a second stab was aimed at P. W. 1 he turned and knocked the knife off from the accused's hand. The accused then took to his heels and was followed by P. W. 2 who was in his company all the while. The injured died almost instantaneously. The motive put forward by the prosecution is spoken to by P. W. 3. P. W. 3 is the son of the deceased. On the Sunday preceding the incident he saw the accused in a drunken state and laughed at him. The accused took offence at this and tried to assault him. He managed to escape and reported the matter to his father. The next morning when he and his father were on the way to their work spot they happened to meet the accused on the road and his father asked the accused why he abused his son and tried to assault him the previous day. The accused then abused his father as well and attempted to assault him but his father slapped the accused and pushed him away telling the accused that he should not be seen anymore on the road.

(3.) THOUGH the accused does not admit that he had caused the injuries, virtually his plea is one of private defence. So the real question to be decided is whether the injuries were caused by the accused in the circumstances alleged by the prosecution or in the manner as stated by the accused The learned Sessions judge relied upon the evidence of P. W. 1 and the statement given by P. W. 2 in the Committal Court to find that the prosecution version of the incident is the true one. The evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5 who saw the accused in the company of P. W. 2, the former shortly before the incident and the latter immediately after the incident and to both of whom P. W. 1 stated soon after the incident that both Kochu and he were stabbed by the accused was relied upon by way of corroboration.