RAGHAVAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal appeal and referred trial arise from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge of Trichur in S.C. No. 18 of 1955. In that case one Raghavan, son of Mupparath Raman of Karalam Village, at Elampuzha, Mukundapuram Taluk, (hereinafter referred to as the accused) stood charged with the commission of an offence punishable under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was that at about 9 P.M. in the night of 7th August 1954 (corresponding to 22nd Karkadagam 1129 M.E.) the accused caused the death of one Abdul Kadir, a dealer in textile goods, by cutting him with a chopper while he was proceeding home along the bund by the side of the Kuruvannoor River. The trial was conducted with the aid of three assessors. The learned Sessions Judge agreeing with the unanimous opinion of the assessors found the accused guilty of the offence of murder and sentenced him to death. The accused has preferred the criminal appeal against the conviction and sentence and the referred trial is the reference under S.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of the death sentence.

(2.) The prosecution case as put forward before the lower court is as follows: Deceased Abdul Kadir resided at Ettumuna in Karalam Village. He had a textile shop at Karalam. The accused was an employee under him for some time but his services were dispensed with in Meenom 1128 M.E. on account of suspicion about his honesty. The accused who had a family to support found it difficulty to get a job. He had a greivance against Abdul Kadir as he thought that his failure to get a job was due to the adverse opinion given by Abdul Kadir when references were made to him by persons of whom he sought employment. For some time the accused had been to Malabar seeking some work there. He got some temporary jobs only. Hence in Mithunam 1129 M.E. he returned home from one of those trips and resided with his parents. On the date of the occurrence,namely, 7th August 1954, at about 5 P.M. he went to his wifes house to inquire about the ailment of his mother inlaw. At about 6 P.M. he left the house saying that he will procure some medicinal pills to relieve her suffering. He then crossed the Vellani ferry and went to his house. From there he armed himself with a chopper and dressed in a black shirt, went towards the bund by the Karuvannoor River and waited near Arattukadavu. This was the way by which deceased Abdul Kadir used to pass when going home after closing his textile shop at Karalam. On that day also, he came that way at about 9 P.M. Then the accused way laid him and cut him with the chopper he had with him, inflicting fatal injuries. Leaving Abdul Kadir so wounded the accused left the spot, went to his house and from there proceeded to an Ayurvedic Physician and obtaining the medicinal pills returned to his wifes house. Soon after the occurrence, Pws. 1 and 2 returning home after their days work along with the bund found Abdul Kadir lying there with fatal injuries. They procured help and removed him to the Irinjalakuda Hospital where on examination the Doctor found that Abdul Kadir had already passed away. On receipt of information a crime was registered and first information report despatched that night itself by the Head Constable in charge of the Irinjalakuda Police Station. The accused was arrested on 14th August 1954. His confesison was recorded by the 2nd Class Magistrate of Mukundapuram under S.164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and on the information supplied by the accused the clothes worn by him at the time of the occurrence, the chopper used and other articles then in his possession were recovered from the channel a little away from his house. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence he was charge sheeted and committed to the Sessions. In the enquiry court as well as in the Sessions Court the accused retracted his confession and pleaded innocence. The learned Sessions Judge found him guilty, awarded him the capital sentence and the conviction and sentence are sought to be set aside in the appeal.

(3.) There is no eye witness of the occurrence. The conviction is based upon circumstantial vidence, the extrajudicial confessions made by the accused to his parents and brother examined as Pws. 22 and 24, and the judicial confession, Ext. P(19), recorded by the 2nd Class Magistrate of Mukundapuram. The question for consideration before us is as to whether the crime has been brought home to the accused. That Abdulkadir died as a result of the injuries sustained by him at about 9 P.M. on the night of 7th August 1954 (corresponding to 22nd Karkadagam 1129 M.E.) while he was proceeding by the bund on the side of the Karuvannoor River near the Arattukadavu is amply borne out by the evidence on record. Pw. 9, a neighbouring shop-keeper, deposes to having seen Abdulkadir close the shop and leave at about 8 P.M. on that day. Pw. 12, another shop-keeper, corroborates it. Other witnesses depose to having met him on the way before reaching the place of occurrence. Pws. 1 and 2 are the persons who first found Abdul Kadir lying wounded. Their evidence and that of Pw. 49, the Assistant Surgeon who conducted the autopsy, clearly go to prove that Abdulkadir died of the injuries noted in the post mortem certificate, Ext. P(10) at about 9 o clock on that night. There were six injuries on the body of the deceased. The second injury which was parallel to an incised wound noted as injury No. 1 was a vertifical incised wound over the left temporal region about 5 inches long and one inch wide being deepest at its middle and front part and skin deep towards the anterior end. That injury incised the skull about 2 inches in the middle of the wound, cutting the meninges and cerebrum. Apart from other injuries, according to Pw. 49, this wound by itself was enough to cause the death of the deceased. Thus clearly a brutal murder was committed. What is urged on behalf of the appellant is that in view of several missing links in the chain of circumstances placed before court by the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge was wrong in holding that the guilt of the accused had been proved. It is urged that no reliance can be placed upon the alleged extra judicial confession to Pws. 22 to 24 and the judicial confession filed as Ext. P(19).