KUTTAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P.W.1 Christudas and P.W.2 Simon are brothers. They reside together at Parasala by the side of a road leading from the Trivandrum Nagercoil road to the south. Both are drivers in the KSRTC. On 21.1.1984 P.W.2 had to report for duty early morning and P.W.1 had to go only a litte later. By about 4.30 a.m. P.W.2 was on his way through the branch road when P.W.1 was getting himself ready. The three' appellants, in . furtherance of their common intention to murder him on account of enmity, was laid him. Accused 1 and 3 were armed with chopper and dagger. At the excitation of the second accused who forcibly bent P.W.2, accused 1 and 3 inflicted several injuries on P.W.2 after announcing their intention and ran away with weapons. This is the prosecution version which was accepted by the Sessions Judge. All the three were convicted under Secs.307 and 324 read with Sec.34 and each of them was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 8 and 2 years respectively.

(2.) DEFENCE version is that scene of occurrence is a little away and the time was a little earlier at 3 a.m. It is said that on account of previous enmity P.Ws.1 and 2 attacked them with weapons when they were returning home after second show film, resulting injuries to accused 2 and 3 who were immediately admitted in the Neyyattinkara Government Hospital. A case was registered on the information given by the second accused but it was referred as false after investigation. Three minor injuries found on the body of the second accused and one on the third accused are the trump cards to contend that P.Ws.1 and 2 were the aggressors and the incident took place in different manner.

(3.) THE attempt was to make out that P.Ws.1 and 2 were the aggressors and the prosecution has not presented a true picture before Court. THE injuries found on the bodies of accused 2 and 3 and the failure of the prosecution to offer acceptable explanation for these injuries are the main grounds relied on in this connection. Prosecution is bound to explain the injuries sustained by all concerned only because of its duty to present a true picture to help the Court in arriving at the correct conclusion. Such of the injuries as are having a bearing on the guilt or innocence or involved in the course of the transaction and circumstances connected with it alone need be explained by the prosecution. Very minor injuries not having any impact on the crime, even though sustained in the course of the incident, may go unnoticed and non-explanation of such injuries is not relevant. So also, after the incident and unconnected with it the accused could sustain injuries. THEy could even cause self inflicted injuries in an attempt to escape punishment. THE evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is that after the incident when the accused ran away with the weapons they fell down and sustained injuries. P.W.5 said that the injuries of accused 2 and 3 could be had in that way provided in the fall those portions contacted with some sharp objects like broken glass pieces. THEse injuries could have been sustained in some other manner also. In such a situation as this, the maximum that could be said is that the Court will have to weigh the prosecution evidence and the defence version meticulously to find out whether there is any possibility of the prosecution being guilty of suppression or distortion or the defence version being probable.