MUHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Manjeri finding appellant, Kizhakkakath Muhammed alias Bava (hereinafter referred to as accused) guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short TIPC) is challenged in this appeal. Accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. It was alleged that he caused homicidal death of Alavikutty Master (hereinafter referred to as deceasedT) on 22-5-1993.

(2.) Prosecution case in a nutshell which led to trial is as follows: Accused was living separately from his wife (P.W. 4), She had filed a petition for maintenance. The case was pending. Deceased had tried to bring about a settlement and a compromise. In terms of the decree obtained by P.W. 4, accused was to pay the Rs. 1,44,300/- and part of amount had been paid. Accused was not happy with the conduct of deceased and considered him to be a meddler in his personal affairs. On the fateful day, deceased was mercilessly stabbed by accused. P.Ws. 1 to 3 are stated to have witnessed occurrence. P.W. 3 had sustained injury caused by accused during chase given by the latter when he tried to intervene. Information was lodged at police station by P.W. 1. Investigation was undertaken on the basis of report. Post-mortem was conducted by P.W. 7, P.W. 6 was the Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Tirur, who examined deceased and issued injury certificate, on 22-5-1993. On the next day, she examined P.W. 3 and issued Ext- P4 injury certificate. Dying declaration stated to have been recorded by P.W. 6 was also pressed into service to further the version of eye-witnesses. Plea of insanity based on Section 84, IPC was discarded.

(3.) Learned trial Judge considering evidence of eye-witnesses, found them to be reliable witnesses. P.W. 3 had sustained injuries, P.W. 1 had lodged information almost immediately after incident. That being position, stand of accused that F.I.R., was a concocted one or was brought into existence as a result of confabulation or deliberation was discarded. Time gap between the time of incident and time, of lodging information was attributed to the attention given by witness for administering treatment to deceased. P.W. 1 was a neighbour of both accused and deceased and there is no reason as to why he would falsely implicate accused. Reference was also made in First Information Report regarding deceasedTs statement about stabbing. He was the person who had rendered immediate attention to deceased and had, in fact, pulled out the knife. P.W. 2 testified that on hearing cries of deceased, while he was standing in front of P.W. Ss shop, he came running. Evidence given by P.W. 1 was corroborated by P.W. 2. It is to be noted that at the earliest point of time, presence of P.W. 2 at the spot was indicated by informant P.W.3 also stated to have seen the occurrence and heard cries of deceased. P.W. 4 was examined to tell background of the marital discord between her and the role played by deceased. Plea of insanity as set out by accused was, as aforesaid, not accepted. Accused was found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life.