MANI GEORGE @ SOJO Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One George @ Vakkan met with a sad death in the hands of his son Mani George in an alleged incident happened on 04.10.2010 at 4.00 p.m. at the house of the victim and he succumbed to the injuries on 07.10.2010 at 11.00 a.m. The crime was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC at the Pala Police Station as Crime No.1119/2010 and final report was also submitted. Consequently, he was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No.74/2011 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-II, Kottayam and he was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and convicted thereunder and ordered to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment by judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 13.03.2012.

(2.) There is no eye witness to the alleged incident and hence the prosecution heavily relied on the circumstantial evidence. The incident happened at 4.00 p.m. on 04.10.2010. PW1 is the first informant, a relative of both the accused and the deceased. He is having only a hearsay knowledge regarding the alleged incident. He was intimated about the incident by one Binoy. Then both PW1 and Binoy went to the hospital and found the deceased undergoing treatment in the Intensive Care Unit, but he was unconscious at that time. FIS was given on the next day, i.e. on 05.10.2010. The accused was also arrested on the same day, 05.10.2010.

(3.) PW1, the first informant, had given the details of an earlier incident happened two years back to the alleged incident in which the accused inflicted an injury on his father, the deceased herein. The prosecution tried to develop a motive behind the crime based on the oral testimony of PW1 that the accused and the deceased were in inimical terms for several years on account of the hostile attitude taken by his father in the matter of marriage of his son, the accused. But, no case of immediate provocation for the alleged commission of offence was brought out through any of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, except the case of enmity and the earlier incident happened two years back.