ARUNKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Crl.Appeal is filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offences under Sections 342 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Court (III), Palakkad in SC No.44 of 2014. The prosecution case is that on 16.1.2013, at about 3.30 p.m, the appellant picked up a quarrel with his father Kuttikrishna Menon, on his father refusing to accede to the demand of the appellant for the purchase of a new autorickshaw. It is alleged that during the course of the altercation the appellant had beaten up his father severely and later had illegally confined Kuttikrishna Menon in the bed room of his house, by locking the door from outside. It is alleged that, when Kuttikrishna Menon was not seen outside his house, PW2, who is an immediate neighbour went to the house of Kuttikrishna Menon by about 5.30 p.m on 17.1.2013 and enquired about him. Thereupon, the appellant who was present in the house, informed PW2 that Kuttikrishna Menon was lying inside the bed room and when PW2 insisted on seeing Kuttikrishna Menon, the appellant initially refused permission and after much persuasion opened the door of the bed room. On entering the bed room, PW2 found Kuttikrishna Menon lying motionless bleeding from his mouth and with injuries all over his body. At the insistence of PW2, the appellant along with his mother (PW15) took Kuttikrishna Menon to the Government Hospital, Pattambi from where Kuttikrishna Menon was referred to the Medical College, Thrissur. During the course of treatment, Kuttikrishna Menon succumbed to the injuries inflicted on him by the appellant.

(2.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 18 and marked Exts. P1 to P23, as also MO1 and MO2. No defence evidence was tendered on behalf of the appellant, other than filing a statement under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Based on the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing and proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was the person responsible for the death of his father, by inflicting injuries mainly on the chest and face of the deceased with MO1 and that the indiscriminate attack resulting in 25 ante-mortem injuries and the illegal confinement of the deceased inside his bed room, thereby denying basic amenities and medical assistance till the intervention of PW2, was with the intention to cause the death of his father and therefore the act of the appellant fell within the definition of culpable homicide mentioned in Section 299 of IPC, amounting to murder under Section 300 Clause No.II, punishable under Sections 302 and 342 IPC.

(3.) In the appeal, Advocate Neema T.V, appearing on State Brief, made strenuous and commendable efforts to assail the trial court judgment on various grounds. It was contended that the sole eye witness to the incident is PW15, who is the wife of the deceased and mother of the accused, had deposed before the court that Kuttikrishna Menon had sustained injuries by falling from the steps of his house and that the accused had not caused any injury to the deceased. It was further contended that in the absence of any direct evidence and since the circumstantial evidence relied on by the trial court did not form a complete chain, the trial court had committed a grave error in convicting the appellant based on such incomplete circumstantial evidence. It was also contended that the prosecution had miserably failed in proving the motive alleged against the accused.