KELU AYYAPPAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1956 of the court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Parur is the appellant in this appeal. He has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge tinder Section 304, Part I, I. P. C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and also convicted on two counts under Section 324, I. P. C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years in respect of each of them. Besides these three convictions he has also been convicted for attempting to commit suicide, under Section 309 I. P. C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. All the four sentences are to run concurrently. The occurrence complained of took place in front, of and inside a car shed used as a house by the divorced wife of the accused and her parents in Talamattam Kara, Thodupuzha Taluk, at about 4-30 p.m. on 24-8-1954 corresponding to 8-1-1130. The accused married about three, years before the occurrence, Pw. 4 a deaf and dumb woman, and he divorced her after about six months of married life. From the time of the divorce till the date of the occurrence she was living with her parents in the car shed mentioned above. Pw. 1 is her mother; and the deceased Kela, the person for causing whose death the accused has been convicted under Section 304, Part I, I. P. C.. was her father. After divorcing Pw. 4 the accused married another woman, Pw. 11, whose mother is Pw. 10. After the accused's marriage with Pw. 11 troubles arose between him and Pw. 11 on the one side and Pws. 1 and 4 and the deceased Kela on the other. According to the prosecution, even after his marriage with Pw. 11 the accused wanted Kela and Pw. 1 to send Pw. 4 to live with him and they and Pw. 4 were not amenable to comply with this request, and so, the accused was frequently molesting Pws. 1 and 4. According to both the prosecution and the defence, dissatisfied with the accused's marriage with Pw. 11, Pw. 4 used frequently to insult Pws. 10 and 11 by showing improper, gestures and this led to frequent quarrels between them. Whatever that be, both sides are agreed that the relationship between the accused and Pws. 10 and 11 on the one side and Pws. 1 and 4 and Kela on the other were very strained at about the time of the occurrence. Both sides are also agreed that some time before the occurrence, on 24-1-1954, Pws. 4 and 11 happened to meet in the house of one Varghese whew Pw. 11 had gone to buy rice, that Pw. 4 then insulted Pw. 11 by showing improper gestures, and that this led to a quarrel between them. According to the prosecution, Pw. 11 complained about this incident to the accused and Pw. 10 and so, shortly before 4-30 P. M. on the same day, Pw. 10 went to the car shed where Pws. 1 and 4 were living and took up the matter with Pw. 1. A quarrel then ensued between the three women, Pws. 1 and 4 on the one hand and Pw. 10 on the other, in front of the car shed, and Kela who happened to be nearby went to the car shed, and asked them not to quarrel. While the three women were quarrelling Pw. 11 told the accused, who was working near his house, about this quarrel and he also went to the car shed. On seeing him Pws. 1 and 4 ran to the car shed and, when the accused attempted to follow them, Kela stood at the gate and prevented him from entering the shed by spreading out his hands. Immediately the accused stabbed Kela on his stomach causing the intestines to fall out and as Kela turned to one side on being thus stabbed the accused stabbed him again on the back. As a result of this attack Kela fell down on road and then the accused entered the shed and stabbed Pw. 4. When Pw. 1 tried to catch him he stabbed her also. After this he attempted to commit suicide by stabbing himself on the stomach and chest. Subsequently Pw. 1 went to the police station with the assistance of the people who came to the scene and gave the first information statement at about 6-30 P. M. Later, the Police came to the scene and removed all the injured persons to the hospital where dying declarations were recorded from both Kela and the accused. In spite of the treatment given to him in the hospital Kela died at about 10-30 A. M. on the next day as a result of the injuries caused to him. Pws. 1 and 4 and the accused were treated at the hospital and discharged after their injuries were cured. This, in short, is the prosecution case.

(2.) The defence plea in the Sessions Court was that the accused went to the car shed hearing that his mother-in-law was being belaboured by Pws. 1 and 4 and the deceased Kela and another person named Kunchal, that he was there set upon and attacked by the said four persons and the injuries sustained by him were caused by them, and that he had only acted in pure self-defence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge disbelieved this plea and found the prosecution case true. But, although the accused was charged under Section 301 I. P. C., for the murder of Kela, the learned Judge held that in respect of Kela's death he was guilty only of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part 1, Indian Penal Code. For the injuries caused to Pws. 1 and 4 he convicted the accused under Section 324 I. P. C., and for the attempt to commit suicide, under Section 300 I. P. C.

(3.) The appeal petition was sent to this court by the accused from the jail, and no advocate appeared to argue the case on his behalf at the time of hearing. Therefore, Mr. Isaac, the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the prosecution, very fairly placed all the facts before us--both for and against the Prosecution; and after hearing him and perusing the evidence on record, we have absolutely no doubt that the prosecution case is true and the accused's plea false. The witnesses relied upon by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for holding the prosecution case to be true are Pws.. 3, 7 and 9. Pw. 9 appears to be a very respectable person, and Pws. 3 and 7 are neighbours. All of them appear to be thoroughly disinterested, and they have given evidence in terms of the prosecution case set out in paragraph 2 above. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve any of them. The facts testified to by these witnesses were also spoken to by the deceased Kela in his dying declaration and by Pw. 1 in the first information statement. Pw. 1 also repeated the same version in the Sessions Court. No doubt, the case of self-defence was put forward by the accused even in his dying declaration. But there is one very important circumstance which belies the plea. According to the version given in the accused's1 dying declaration, the quarrel between the women took place not in the car shed where Pws. 1 and 4 were Jiving but in front of the house where the accused was living. The accused must have said this in the dying declaration in order to make out that be had only acted in self-defence. The evidence of Pws, 3, 7 and 9 is clear that the incident took place in front of and in the car shed. The scene roahassar also shows that there was blood -- and plenty of it --at the scene of occurrence mentioned by Pws. 3, 7 and 9 and none near the accused's house. This would indicate that the occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged by the Prosecution and that Pw. 10 must have gone to the house of Pws. 1 and 4 to pick up a quarrel with them. Pws. 10 and 11 gave evidence in the Sessions Court supporting the accused's plea of self-defence. But, in view of their obvious interest in the accused and the clear evidence of Pws. 3, 7 and 9 and the other circumstances mentioned above, we do not consider their evidence to be reliable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also has not accepted their evidence.