MAVELIKKARA Vs. M.R.SARIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein challenges the conviction and sentence against him under Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code in S.C 817/2009 of the Court of Session, Alappuzha.

(2.) The prosecution case is that, at about 8 p.m on 9.10.2005 at the canal puramboke near the house of the accused, he stabbed his close relative Ramesan to death with a knife, due to some previous enmity in connection with the destruction of the telephone cable to the house of the said Ramesan. At about 2.30 a.m on 10.10.2005, Ratheesan, the brother of the deceased, gave first information statement to the Police, and on the basis of this statement, the Police registered the crime under Section 302 I.P.C. The deceased was first taken to the local hospital at Haripad, and was later shifted to the Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha where he breathed his last within a few hours. The material witnesses in this case are the relatives of both the parties. After thorough investigation, the Police submitted final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Haripad under Section 302 I.P.C. After complying with the procedure prescribed under the law, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was made over to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc), Mavelikara for trial and disposal.

(3.) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the trial court under Section 302 I.P.C and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 19 witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P18 documents. The MO1 to MO7 properties, including the weapon of offence, were also identified during trial. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied the incriminating circumstances and projected a defence that deceased Ramesan in fact sustained injuries accidentally when he fell in the canal during a scuffle and wording quarrel that ensued in connection with the destruction of the telephone cable. The prosecution would allege that Ramesan was stabbed by the accused while he was trying to save his mother who fell in the canal; whereas the defence contention is that it was deceased Ramesan, who actually fell in the canal, and he died due to the injuries sustained in the said fall. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence in defence. However, Exts.D1 and D2 documents were marked. These two documents do not contain anything material to probabilise the defence case or to disprove the prosecution case in any manner.