BIJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SANTHAKUMARI (PW 7) would have never thought that she would become a widow at the hands of her own brothers and that her brothers would have to undergo imprisonment for life for committing murder of her husband. Deceased Sasi was enjoying the evening of 27/05/2001, after a day's labour, with his wife (PW 7) and his son (PW 1) watching television. At 9.30 p.m. on 27/05/2001 brothers of his wife along with third accused came to his house and third accused pulled him out of the house to the courtyard facilitating others to do the rest. First accused stabbed him with knife and second accused inflicted cut injuries on several parts of the body of the deceased with tapping knife and when the wife of the deceased intervened second accused also inflicted cut injury on her hands as well. PW 7's husband was taken to Kanjirappally Government Hospital and on reaching the hospital, PW 8 the Doctor declared him dead. PW 1 son of the deceased went to Mundakkayam Police Station and gave Ext. P1 statement which was recorded by PW 16 Sub Inspector of Police and Crime No. 107 of 2001 under S.302, 447 and 324 IPC read with S.34 IPC was registered.

(2.) INVESTIGATION was taken over by PW 17 Circle Inspector of Police, Kanjirappally who conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at the Government Hospital, Kanjirappally and prepared Ext. P9 inquest report in the presence of PW 12 and recovered MOs 3, 4 and 5 from the body of the deceased. Dead body was sent to Medical College Hospital for post mortem examination. PW 15 Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Medical College Hospital conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued Ext. P13 post mortem certificate. He also collected blood and viscera of the deceased and obtained Ext. P14 chemical analysis report. PW 17 visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ext. P10 scene mahazar in the presence of PW 13 and another. On 02/06/2001 PW 17 arrested the accused persons from near the private bus stand of Earattupetta and when questioned, first accused gave Ext. P11(a) statement and as led by him PW 17 went to a place from where MO 1 knife was recovered with the help of the first accused. PW 17 prepared Ext. P11 seizure mahazar in the presence of PW 14 and another. Second accused was also questioned who gave Ext. P12(a) statement regarding the place where he concealed the weapon of offence, MO 2 which was recovered under Ext. P12 mahazar in the presence of the same attestor to MO 1.

(3.) SRI Varghese Prem, counsel appearing for the appellants - accused persons took us elaborately through the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case and also the evidence of DWs 1 to 4, examined on the side of the defence. According to the counsel, prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and argued for acquittal. Counsel submitted that PWs 1 and 7, are highly interested witnesses and their version of the incident is totally unreliable warranting acquittal of the accused persons. The evidence tendered by other witnesses is also most unreliable and not worthy of acceptance. Counsel submitted that the deceased is none other than the brother inlaw of accused 1 and 2 and it is highly improbable that they would commit such a gruesome act. Counsel submitted that in any view of the matter, prosecution has no case that third accused had inflicted any injury on the body of the deceased and hence he has shared no common intention with accused 1 and 2 so as to commit the offence of murder. In any view, counsel submitted that the worst that could be said is that the acts of accused Nos. 1 and 2 would amount to only culpable homicide not amounting to murder and therefore imposition of imprisonment for life is unwarranted in the facts and circumstances of the case.