SREE KUMAR @ THAMPI, Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT started as an innocuous rebuke, snow balled into a feud, resulting in the death of a merchant and landing three other persons, father and two sons, the male members of a family, being put on trial for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. They were found guilty of all the offences. They were therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs. 50,000/ - each, in default of payment of which, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They were also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 342 read with Section 34 IPC. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was also directed that if the fine amounts were realised, the entire amount shall be given to the widow and daughter of the deceased in equal proportion under Section 357 (1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) THE deceased, namely, Mohanan, and the accused were merchants carrying on business in Peroorkada market at Trivandrum. Late Mohanan was engaged in the business of plantains and bananas. The first accused, namely, Sreekumar, was new in that field and he had started his business in plantain and banana about two months ago. On the date of the incident, A1 was seen selling plantains and bananas at a reduced price than the other merchants in the market. This annoyed deceased Mohanan and he questioned the conduct. Exchange of words followed and finally both were infuriated. The prosecution allegation is that the second accused, who is the father of first and third accused beat Mohanan with an iron rod. By that time, the third accused had also arrived at the spot. The second accused is alleged to have beaten the deceased on the left shoulder with the iron rod. Late Mohanan fell down. When he tried to get up, his hands were held by second and third accused and the first accused is alleged to have stabbed Mohanan with M.O.1 knife. The brother of the deceased, namely, Suku came to the aid of the deceased. Two other persons, who were carrying on business in the market, namely, Sasi and Asokan removed the injured to the hospital in an autorickshaw. P.W.1 and another person by name Salim went to the Medical College Hospital. When they reached the place, they found that Mohanan was no more. The allegation is that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the first accused regarding the sale of bananas and plantains in the market. P.W.1 laid Ext.P1 first information statement before Peroorkada Police Station. C.W.19 recorded the first information statement furnished by P.W.1 and registered Crime No. 100 of 1998 of Peroorkada Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC as per Ext.P1(a) FIR. P.W.10, the Circle Inspector of Police took over investigation on 7.5.1998. He went to the medical college hospital and conducted inquest over the body of late Mohanan and prepared Ext.P2 inquest report. Thereafter the body was sent for postmortem. P.W.9, the then Lecturer in Forensic Medicine and Assistant Police Surgeon, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram conducted autopsy on the body of Mohanan and prepared Ext.P7 postmortem report. Meanwhile P.W.10 inspected the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.P4 scene mahazar. He seized M.Os. 1 to 6 from the place. He claims to have arrested the accused on 7.5.1998 at 4 p.m. According to him, on the basis of Ext.P5 confession statement said to have been given by the first accused, M.O.1 knife was recovered as per Ext.P5 mahazar. He also claims that on the basis of Ext.P6(a) confession statement said to have been given by the second accused, M.O.2 iron rod was recovered as per Ext.P6 recovery mahazar. He filed Ext.P9 report showing the details of the accused. He had the articles seized during investigation sent for forensic examination and obtained Ext.P10 report. He recorded statements of witnesses. Investigation was completed by P.W.8 and final report was filed by him.

(3.) THE first accused had stated that he had commenced his business in plantains and bananas about a month prior to the date of the incident. According to him, that was not to the liking of other merchants, who were dealing in the same commodity. He would state that on the date of the incident in the evening a few people, to whom the deceased owed money came to his shop and created problems. At that time, he was selling the commodity at a lower price. That was questioned by the deceased. A1 told the deceased that he would take care of his affairs. That, according to the first accused, annoyed Mohanan, who snatched the knife and slashed it at the first accused. According to the first accused, at that time somebody beat Mohanan and the knife fell from his hand. By that time, electric supply had gone. There was a commotion involving several persons. He would claim that by about 7.30 p.m. on the date of the incident he was called to the police station by the Circle Inspector. Next day he was produced before court. A1 claims that only at that point of time he came to know that he had been arrayed as an accused. He says that he had not committed any act, which would constitute an offence and that he is innocent.