SURENDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surendran, 29, who was tried along with his father, Madhavan. the second accused in the case, on a charge of committing murder of Thampi and Thankan, two Harijan youths, was convicted twice by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikara, under section "304" I. P. C and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life on both counts, with the direction that the sentences shall run concurrently. The second accused who was tried on a charge of abetment of this murder was acquitted. The convictions and sentences are challenged in the appeal filed by the appellant; whereas the Revision Case comes up before us in pursuance of an order passed by a learned Judge of this Court on the Calendar as to why the appellant should not be convicted and sentenced under S.302 I. P. C.

(2.) The occurrence in this case was at about 6 p. m. on July 15, 1974, and was from a bathing ghat on the southern side of a canal known as Market Canal, which runs east to west at the place. There is a bridge over this canal and the bathing ghat is almost below this bridge a little to the east. There are pathways on the bunds on either side of the canal. There is a small platform near the bathing ghat shown as No. 3 in the plan Ex. P 5 prepared by the Village Officer The shop cum residence of Govindan (Pw 5) is a few yards to the southeast of the scene of offence and there is a toddy shop about 50 metres to the south of the place of occurrence. The appellant and his father are residing in a property, a few yards away from the place of incident. Sreedharan (Pw. 1), the first informant in this case, and Kunjumon (Pw. 17) are brothers of Thampi (deceased), while Vasukuttan (Pw. 16) is his uncle. Milan Madhavan (Pw. 8) is the father of Thampi Raju, son of Joseph (Pw. 3), is the nephew of Antrayos (Pw. 4). Thimpi and his relatives are agricultural labourers. They used to purchase articles from the shop of Govindan and also often take their bath in the evening at the bathing ghat near the shop. Thankan (deceased) was the brother inlaw of the elder brother of Pw. 1. On the date of occurrence at about 5.30 p. m.. Pws. 1, 3 and 4 and the deceased were standing in front of the shop of Pw. 5 talking each other. A little later Thampi, Thankan and Raju went to the bathing ghat for bathing. Raju got into the canal, while Thampi was sitting at the bathing ghat and was engaged in applying soap on his Kaili placing the same on the washing stone. Thankan was seated on the nearby platform. The appellant also came there and took his seat on the platform. The appellant was then having a knife (M. O. I) with which he was cutting a piece of tapioca. While so the appellant got down from the platform and suddenly approaching Thampi, from behind, inflicted two stabs on him with M O. 1 knife causing injuries on his left shoulder and on the back and pushed him into the canal. On seeing this, Thankan got up from the platform and was approaching the bathing ghat, when he was also stabbed on his chest by the appellant with the same weapon causing an incised gaping wound and pushed into the canal. The appellant then wanted to attack Raju and approached him, when Raju waded into the water and somehow escaped. Thampi who received the injuries somehow got up and taking a few steps from there fell down at the foot of a coconut tree. Both the injured died on the spot. The appellant also attempted to stab Pws. 1 and 16, who ran away and escaped. Pw. 1, Pw. 2 who was passing along the pathway on the northern bund of the canal, and Pws 3 and 4 who were there near the bathing ghat, saw the occurrence. Pw. 5 also saw part of the incident; but, at the trial he resiled from his previous statement to the police and was cross examined on behalf of the prosecution. Pw 1 went and informed his relatives and thereafter went to the Thiruvella Police Station and laid Ex. P1, first information statement, before the Sub Inspector of Police, Pw. 15, at 10pm. on the same day. A case was registered on this basis and later investigation was taken up by the Crime Branch, The Detective Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, (Pw. 18), reached the scene of offence, held inquest over the dead bodies prepared inquest reports Exx. P-6 and P7, inspected the scene of offence and questioned witnesses. Pw. 9, the Medical Officer, held autopsy over the dead bodies on the next day of the occurrence. The appellant was arrested on August 1, 1974 and in pursuance of a statement given by him, M. O.1 knife was recovered under mahazar Ex. P2 attested by Pw. 7.

(3.) Some time prior to the occurrence the local farmers wanted to construct a bund for the second crop But the second accused, the father of the appellant, objected to this Disregarding his objection, the local farmers, with the help of the agricultural labourers including Thampi (deceased) Pw. 1 and their relatives constructed a bund taking mud from the paddy field belonging to the second accused Under the belief that it was Thampi and his relatives who took a leading role in putting up the bund, the appellant and his father, ever since that incident, were on inimical terms with them The prosecution also has a case that some four days prior to the date of occurrence, the father of Thampi lost his knife on the way in front of the toddy shop. In the morning of the date of incident, Pw. 17 found a similar knife in the bands of the appellant and when Pw. 17 wanted to have a look at it, ho refused to show the same and there was some altercation between them on this account. It is alleged that the appellant then issued a threat that be would do away with all of them. This is said to be the apparent motive for the occurrence.