RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam is under challenge in this appeal by Ramachandran (hereinafter referred to as 'accused'). Learned trial Judge found him guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'I.P.C.'), convicted and sentenced t o undergo imprisonment for life.

(2.) In a nutshell, prosecution case runs as follows: On 11-7-1994, Bhaskaran (hereinafter referred to 'the deceased') came to the toddy shop of Mamachan (PW-7) and was drinking toddy when accused came there and ordered for a glass of toddy. He picked up a quarrel with the deceased. PW-7 intervened and asked them to disburse and accused went out of the shop and on directions of PW-7 deceased remained in the shop for some time and left thereafter. Accused and deceased are residents of Eruthuvapuzha Vettavar colony. They proceeded to their colony through Eruthuvapuzha Erumely road and from Eruthuvapuzha junction, they had to go through Eruthvapuzha - Keeri-thodu mud road. Ration shop of Devasiachen (PW-6) and the shop of Vasu (PW-2) are situated to south of Eruthupuzha - Erumeli road. House of Baby, father-in-law of Joseph (PW-3) is also situated nearby. At about 6 p.m. accused was found being beaten by deceased and when they reached opposite to the house of Baby, PW-3 was talking with Baby in front of their house and Baby asked accused and deceased not to quarrel and go to their houses and thereafter deceased went ahead of accused through Keerithodu road. When he reached near Eruthuvapuzha north post office building, accused took out a knife and stabbed deceased. He fell down on the mud road. Accused sat on his body and stabbed several times and ran away. This occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws 2, 3 and 4. PW-1 was the District President of their community and also a resident of their colony. On being informed that deceased was lying with stab injuries, he ran to the spot, hired a jeep and took him to the Primary Health Centre, Erumeli, PW-9, the doctor, on examination found that deceased has breathed his last. Information was lodged by PW-1 at Erumeli Police Station. Investigation was undertaken and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid. During trial, 15 witnesses were examined to prove prosecution case. Accused did not adduce any evidence. He pleaded that incident happened on a sudden quarrel between him and deceased. Plea of grave provocation was advanced during trial and it did not find favour. In addition, right to exercise of private defence was also pleaded. Disbelieving the plea relating to sudden provocation and right to exercise of private defence, learned trial Judge found accused guilty, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel submitted that prosecution version was full of contradiction and evidence of the so-called eye witnesses is not cogent and credible. Additionally it is submitted that plea relating to exercise of private defence has been discarded without proper appreciation of factual aspects. It is also submitted that alternative plea of accused relating to sudden provocation was not considered in its proper perspective. In any event, it is submitted that factual backdrop, as projected by prosecution, established that occurrence took place in course of a sudden quarrel. Therefore, conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. is not warranted. Learned counsel for State submitted that grounds pleaded have been duly considered by learned trial Judge and rightly discarded. So far as acceptability of evidence tendered by eye witnesses, PWs 2, 3 and 4 is concerned, there is no infirmity therein to warrant rejection. According to him, learned trial Judge has rightly relied upon their evidence.