LAWS(KER)-1956-12-18

THOMMEN THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On December 19, 1956
THOMMEN THOMAS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thomas alias Kunju who was accused No. 2 in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1955 on the file of the Parur Sessions Court has preferred this appeal against the convictions made against him by the learned Sessions Judge under S.302 & 324 I.P.C. and the sentences passed therefor. Finding him guilty for the murder of one Thomman he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. For causing hurt with a dangerous weapon to Thommans younger brother Ouseph (PW. 1) and to their mother Annam (PW. 2) he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment respectively for 4 months and 3 months. The judgment directs that all the three sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The case against the appellant was that in the afternoon of 14.12.1953 he stabbed one Thomman to death and that he also inflicted stab wounds on Thommans brother and mother with the self same weapon, to writ, a pen knife, with which he killed Thomman. Accused No. 1 in the case, one Kurian Kurian alias Chacko, the appellants master, was alleged to have abetted the commission of these offences, but the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving that part of the case and accordingly acquitted accused No. 1. It would appear that accused 1 and accused 2 met Thomman in the afternoon of 14.12.1953 at a toddy shop conducted by PW. 13. The two accused persons in the case would seem to have been spending the best part of the day in the toddy shop. After Thomman went to the shop for a drink a quarrel arose between the appellant and Thomman as the latter consumed the curry purchased by the appellant. When the quarrel looked like assuming serious proportions, PW. 9, who was in the shop at that time, sent all the three out of the shop. They went southwards towards the direction of one Cheenikuzhi Bridge, but Thomman returned to the shop, purchased a cup of toddy and going back where the accused persons were offered the toddy to the appellant who refused to take it. Thomman threw away the toddy and its container, the cup. At that time the appellant had a pen knife in his hand which he was keeping open. PW. 1 came along that way, fearing that the appellant might do some harm to his brother, improvised himself with a stick by breaking a branch of a Vetti and approached the place where the three people where. Thomman snatched away the stick from his brother and threw it away. PW. 1 took two small stones presumably to throw at the appellant, but as some school children passed along that way he dropped the stones down without using them against the appellant. At that time PW. 2 appeared on the scene with a small stick and tried to persuade her sons to return home. Her attempt was unsuccessful, but PW. 1 however crossed the bridge after crossing which along he could reach his house. Thomman was not bold enough to do that and asked the appellant to keep his knife folded. When he declined to do that Thomman caught hold of the hand which had the knife. Immediately PW. 1 approached them and he caught hold of the appellant from behind. A tussle ensued between the three and all of them fell down. Thomman sustained some minor injuries from the knife in the hand of the appellant and when the three got up a scuffle ensued between accused 1 and PW. 1 and another between Thomman and accused 2. Struggling for some time each trying to get the better over the other, both Thomman and the appellant fell down, the former on his back and the appellant at once sat on the abdominal region of Thomman. The prosecution alleged that at that time accused 1 called out to the appellant to stab and the case of the prosecution is while Thomman was laying flat on his back the appellant sitting over the abdominal region of the latter gave a stab to Thomman on his chest. PW. 1 then tried to drag the appellant away from Thomman, but the appellant turning round to PW. 1 gave three stabs to him, who fell down immediately on receiving the stabs. PW. 2 went to the side of her sons when the appellant gave a stab to her right ankle with his knife and she also fell down. The prosecution would have it that at this stage accused 1 ran away and the appellant soon followed him throwing down his knife, cloth, baniyan and belt at the scene. He had only a pair of knickers on while running away. Thomman died shortly afterwards and PWs. 1 and 2 were first taken to the Thodupuzha police station and then to the Thodupuzha hospital. The police recorded PW. 1s statement at the latter place and as his injuries appeared to be serious he was removed to the Moovattupuzha hospital. Afterwards the police registered a case against the two accused persons pursued the investigation and in due course charge sheeted them before the Thodupuzha First Class Magistrate, who after the usual preliminary enquiry committed both of them to the Parur Sessions Court to stand their trial, the appellant for committing murder and causing hurt with a dangerous weapon to PWs. 1 and 2 and accused 1 for abetment of those offences. Mention has been made earlier as to the result of the trial and our task now is to consider whether the convictions and sentences passed against the appellant can be sustained.

(3.) The medical and other evidence on the record of the case leave no room for doubt that Thomman died of a stab wound on the chest and that PWs. 1 and 2 had also sustained injuries inflicted with a sharp instrument. Ext. P11 is the report of the inquest held over Thommans dead body and Ext. P9 is the post mortem certificate. The evidence of PW. 5, who conducted the post mortem examination and Ext. P9 show that Thomman died of the wound over his chest which had injured his right lung. Exts. P6 and P7 are the wound certificates respectively of PW. 1 and PW. 2. The former shows that PW. 1 had three incised injuries on the left side of his chest and Ext. P7 shows that PW. 2 had an incised wound on her right ankle. There is overwhelming direct evidence that the appellant inflicted the injuries on these three persons. Before the committal court his plea was one of complete denial, but at the Sessions trial his statement was to the effect that he did not remember anything of what happened on that fatal day. PWs. 1 to 3 and 7 to 15 have given direct evidence regarding the occurrence. Their evidence stands corroborated by the medical evidence in the case and the recoveries which the police made from the scene of the crime of articles belonging to the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge had therefore no difficulty to find that the appellant was responsible for killing Thomman and that he had also inflicted injuries on PWs. 1 and 2 with a pen knife. On a careful consideration of the evidence and circumstances we have very little hesitation to agree with his conclusion.