CHANDRAN NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the accused in SC No.649/11 challenging judgment dated 20/1/2014 by which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2 lakhs in default of which to undergo RI for two years for offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC, RI for one year for offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to fine of Rs.500/- in default of which to undergo imprisonment for one week for the offence punishable u/s 341 of IPC.

(2.) The prosecution alleged that one Viswambharan (the deceased) had a fight with the accused on 16/2/2007 at around 12.30 p.m. The occassion for the fight was on account of the accused abusing PW1, niece of the deceased, in front of her shop. During the confrontation, the accused inflicted several blows on the deceased on his face and chest. He was pulled down. The accused thereafter lifted Viswambharan's head and repeatedly hit on a concrete stump of a side wall with an intention to kill him. Deceased suffered fatal bleeding wounds on his head and forehead. The accused thereafter pushed him down into a low lying paddy field and inflicted injury on both knees, nose, right thigh etc., and on account of the said impact of the head injury, he died. The nephew of the deceased lodged a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Chirayinkeezh Police station. Crime No.67/2007 was registered alleging offence punishable u/s 294(b) 323, 341 and 302 of IPC. The investigation was conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Attingal and final report was submitted by his successor before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Attingal. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The accused appeared. Charge was framed in SC No.649/2011. Accused pleaded that he was not guilty of the charges. Court below examined PWs1 to PW13 and marked Exts.P1 to P20. MO1 to MO10 were identified and proved. The accused was questioned under 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating statements against him. The Court below however found that the accused was guilty of the charges levelled against him and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

(3.) Since the appellant could not engage a counsel for appearing in the case, Adv.Sri.A.S.Faridin was appointed as counsel. He argued the case on behalf of the accused. It is argued that the prosecution could not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The eye witnesses who have been examined in the case have turned hostile. There was no other material to connect the accused with the crime. Court below placed reliance upon MO10, the shirt which the accused was allegedly wearing at the relevant time. The shirt was seized when the accused was in police custody and there is no recovery in terms of S.27 of the Evidence Act. The Court below completely erred in placing reliance on the testimony of witnesses who had turned hostile and that of the investigating officer to convict the accused.