RAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJAN and Nagappan, hereinafter referred to as 'accused' by name, questioned legality of judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. Accused Rajan was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under S.302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'); rigorous imprisonment for five years in respect of offence under S.449 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under S.324 IPC. Accused Nagappan has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, two years and one year respectively in respect of offences punishable under S.323, 324 and 451 IPC. Sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) PROSECUTION case, as unfolded during trial, is as follows: Lalitha (PW 1) was residing at Kuttaraviala Kunnil Puthen Veedu, Keasavadev Road, Mudavanmugal Ward, Thirumala Village along with her husband, Thankappan. They had three children - Latha (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'), Usha (PW 2) and Suma. Chellamma (PW 12) is the wife of Thankappan's younger brother, late Maniyan. Accused are brothers, who are children of Thankappan's elder brother, namely Kuttan. PW 12 and her children were residing in a building situated adjacent to the house of Lalitha. Accused claimed some personal rights over the said building in which PW 12 was residing and wanted to evict her and her children. This demand led to frequent quarrels when accused came to the house of PW 12. Thankappan used to render help to PW 12. Perplexed by action of accused, PW 12 lodged a complaint before police and accused were taken into custody on 16,9.1993. On 17.9.1993, accused threatened Thankappan of bodily harm. PW 1 lodged a complaint before police on 24.9.1993 about the said threat by accused. Police came in search of them. On 26.9.1993, accused Rajan came with a handle of spade and accused Nagappan with a stick, trespassed into verandah of PW 1's house. Rajan asked PW 1 as to whether she will file a further complaint before police and tried to hit her on the head which was warded off. He again inflicted another blow which hit her left side and she sustained an injury. Hearing her cry, deceased came to verandah and tried to obstruct the accused from further assault. Accused Rajan inflicted a blow on her head, thereby causing fracture of the skull and contusion on the head. She fell down. Accused Nagappan stabbed on various parts of her body. PW 1 and deceased were taken to General Hospital from where they were referred to Medical College Hospital. Deceased succumbed to the injuries on 28-9-1993 around 12-45 p.m. Information was lodged with police and investigation was undertaken. Accused persons were committed for alleged commission of offences punishable under S.449,307 and 302 IPC read with S.34 IPC. Accused persons pleaded innocence.

(3.) IN support of appeal, Mr. B. Krishna Mani, submitted that learned trial Judge should not have placed reliance on the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3, after having doubted version of PW 12 on the ground of unreliability. Additionally, PWs 1 and 2 are related to deceased and PW 3 is only a chance witness. Their evidence has not been analysed and scrutinised in a proper manner. Alternatively, it is submitted that there was no intention to kill anybody. Even if prosecution case is accepted, it was PW 1 who was supposed to be the target of assault. Nature of injuries alleged inflicted on her does not show existence of an intention to do away with her life. There is no reason as to why any intention to cause death of deceased would exist. That being position, application of S.302 IPC so far as deceased is concerned is clear ruled out. In any event, according to learned counsel, at the most, an offence under S.326 IPC can be said to have been committed on accepting prosecution version in its entirety. Mr. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned State Public Prosecutor, however, supported the judgment, conviction and sentence imposed on accused persons.