JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Joseph alias Baby has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ernakulam for the murder of one Thankappan on the night of 16-2-1965 and he has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Pw. 10 is the mother of the accused and Pw. 11 is his sister. They were all living together in Moonnumakkal house. Accused is a mazdoor who goes about for work in various places and used to be away from the house. Deceased, Thankappan is said to have been visiting the house and was on intimate terms both with the mother and the daughter. In regard to this there was a scandal in the village.

(2.) On the evening of that day accused and deceased had gone to the toddy shop and consumed toddy. Pw. 8 is the salesman of the shop. After having their drinks they purchased beedies from the shop of Pw. 12 and left the place. On the way they were seen by Pw. 1 who was going to purchase beedies. Before reaching the accused's house, one has to pass by the lane in front of the houses of Pw. 3, a cousin of the deceased and of Pw. 4. Pw. 7 a daughter of Pw. 3 was then in the house of Pw. 4. Seeing his relations, deceased Thankappan stopped and had a brief talk with them. The accused proceeded ahead and the case of the prosecution is that when the deceased had finished his talk and was proceeding along the deep lane on reaching the entrance to the accused's compound the accused dropped down some stones M.Os. 1 to 3 series on the head and body of the deceased and thereby caused his death. After this, the accused is stated to have gone along the lane passing by the side of the houses of pws. 3 and 4. pws. 3, 4 and 7 heard the sound of the falling stones. Their children had gone for fishing and thinking that something might have happened to them Pw. 3 went to see what it was about. On the way seeing the accused she questioned him what the sound was and he said that there was nothing, and passed along. Pw. 3 went to the neighbouring canal and while coming back with the children when she reached the house of Pw. 4 she heard the accused telling Pw. 4 that she need not go to the place whence the noise came and that even if a noose were to fall round his neck, others could live in peace. Saying this the accused left the place. Pw. 3 then took a lamp and went to the lane and found Thankappan lying dead. She returned home crying.

(3.) The question that arises for decision is whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that it was the accused who inflicted the injuries on the deceased. There are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and the case against the accused depends solely on certain extra judicial confessions alleged to have been made by the accused to some of the prosecution witnesses and the suggestion of a motive for the commission of the crime. The evidence of pws. 8 and 12 and the evidence of pws 1, 3 and 4 that they saw the accused proceeding along the lane followed by the deceased does not advance the prosecution case. About the motive what is stated is that deceased Thankappan used to frequent the accused's house in his absence when his mother and sister are alone there, that there was a scandal about this in the village, and the suggestion of the prosecution is that this must have embittered the appellant to take revenge by killing Thankappan. Both pws. 10 and 11 did not support the prosecution story. Pw. 10, no doubt, stated that there was some such talk in the village, but she would say that the scandal was spread by Pw. 1. She stated that deceased used to come to the house only when there was some work to do. Learned counsel for the defence submitted that if the accused had, in fact, known about the scandal and was on inimical terms with the deceased, it is most unlikely that they would be seen drinking together in the toddy shop, returning together after their drinks and the deceased would not have thought of going to Moonnumakkal house on that night as deposed to by Pw. 4. It was pointed out that there was the evidence of Pw. 1 that because of the bad ways of the deceased, people in the village were on inimical terms with him, that people were feeling that he was spoiling the family and the Christians particularly were, on that account, inimically disposed towards the deceased. Reference was then made to the evidence of Pw. 13 that Pw. 10 the mother had other paramours and it was stated that it might as well be that some of them would have thrown stones at the deceased on seeing him going to the house and if the deceased had been done to death in some such way by some unknown person the one who would be suspected would be the accused, because of the scandal and that accounts for his false implication. There is considerable force in the submission made. It would appear from Pw. 1's evidence that this scandal was there since about two years. There is. therefore, practically no understandable motive for the accused to have done this and adopted this crude method of killing the deceased.