Ashokan vs State Of Kerala

Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

Crl. Appeal No. 1137 of 2022 has been preferred by the appellant challenging the finding of guilt, conviction, and sentence passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Thiruvananthapuram, in S.C.No. 447 of 2013. In the above case, the appellant was indicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, and 302 of the IPC. It appears that before the filing of the above appeal, a Jail Petition was filed by the appellant through the Superintendent, Central Prison and Correctional Home, Poojappura, Thiruvananthapuram, and on its basis Crl. Appeal. No. 807 of 2021 was filed by the legal aid counsel. As the appellant has filed Crl. Appeal No. 1137 of 2022 through the counsel of his choice, the said appeal can be heard and disposed of.

The facts in brief as per the prosecution:

The appellant, along with his family consisting of his aged father, wife, and two daughters, resided at Karunilakkodu. The deceased, Soman, lived on the southern side of the appellant's house with his wife, Geetha (PW2), and their three daughters. The appellant's property is situated at a higher elevation, separated from Soman's by a short laterite wall running east to west. According to the prosecution, the appellant used to persistently misbehave with PW2 and her children, and this led to a seriously strained relationship between the families. The prosecution alleges that on May 14, 2006, at around 10 a.m., the accused, wearing only a bath towel (Thorth), committed criminal trespass by entering the courtyard of the deceased's house. An altercation ensued, during which Soman and his wife confronted the accused for trespassing and verbally abusing them. The accused followed Geetha and after slapping her on her face, kicked her, causing her to fall. When Soman intervened, a physical skirmish broke out between him and the accused. This incident was witnessed by Babu, Ani (PW11), and Kuttappan (PW10), who were working nearby in Thankamma’s house. They intervened and separated the two men. The accused then returned to his house, changed into a lungi, tied a bath towel around his waist, and came back armed with a knife. Another tussle ensued between the accused and the deceased. Geetha (PW2) and their daughter Sini (PW3) tried to intervene and cried for help. Hearing their cries, Anandan (PW1), who was working nearby, rushed to the scene and attempted to break up the fight. It is alleged that the appellant then took out the knife and inflicted multiple stab wounds on Soman's chest and neck. Anandan also sustained minor injuries in the course of the transaction. As neighbors gathered hearing the commotion, the appellant is taken to have heels, carrying the knife with him. Though Soman was rushed to the Government Hospital, Varkala, he was declared dead on arrival. The appellant is alleged to have made an attempt to leave the place with his aged father. However, his attempt was foiled when the neighbours who had assembled there caught him when he fell down and tied him to a nearby coconut tree.

Registration of Crime:

On the same day, Anandan approached the police and gave information at 12 noon, based on which, Crime No. 283/2006 was registered under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 302 of the IPC.

Investigation:

The investigation was taken over by PW20 on May 14, 2006. He received information that the appellant had been apprehended by local residents and, based on this information, arrived at the scene to take the accused into custody. Ext.P12, the inquest report, was subsequently prepared, documenting the injuries found on the body, which was then sent for autopsy. On the same day, Ext.P2, the scene mahazar, was drawn up, and objects found at the crime scene were seized. The arrest of the accused was formally recorded at 7:15 p.m. on the same day, as per Ext.P15 arrest memo. Based on the disclosure statement provided by the accused, MO4 (the knife) and MO2 (the kaili worn by the accused at the time of the incident) were also seized. Forensic experts were brought to the scene to collect samples. The investigation was later handed over to PW21, the Circle Inspector of Police, Varkala, who subsequently submitted the final report to the court.

Committal proceedings and Trial before the Court of Session:

After complying with the procedure, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Varkala committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram. The case was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge - VI, Thiruvananthapuram. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 447, 323, 324 and 302 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 21 to prove its case. Exts.P1 to P25 were exhibited and marked. MOs 1 to 16 were produced and identified. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials arising out of the prosecution evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him and maintained his innocence.

A detailed statement was filed under Section 313(5) of the Cr.P.C., where the appellant stated that his mother passed away in 1988 while undergoing treatment for cancer. To settle the family's debts, the appellant sold 16 cents of his property, and using the proceeds, purchased the house where Soman and his family had previously been residing as tenants. As a result, Soman and his family had to vacate the house. They then purchased 10 cents of land nearby and built a thatched house, where they began living. Initially, the relationship between the two families was cordial, and the appellant even provided financial help to Soman. However, as the appellant's financial situation worsened, he was not in a position to offer financial help. This led to a serious strain in the relationship. Soman and his family began taunting the appellant whenever they saw him, accusing him of ogling at women. The appellant lodged a complaint before the local Councilor, requesting that Soman and his family be cautioned. On the day of the incident, around 8.00 a.m., when the appellant's father went to the northern side of their house, PW2 and her daughters verbally abused him. When the appellant intervened, Soman also abused him. Later, when the appellant's father went to the market, Soman confronted him with a knife in his hand and started to abuse him. The appellant had to intervene and he managed to wrest the knife from Soman's hands. PW1 also joined the fray. In the course of the tussle, the appellant sustained injuries on his hand. Fearing further harm, he ran back to his house. The appellant asserted that he did not inflict any injuries on Soman. He stated that he was unable to seek medical treatment at the time as a large crowd had gathered outside his house. It was only after the police arrived that he and his father were rescued. He further added that while he was in judicial custody, his father passed away.

Findings of the learned Sessions Judge:

The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluating the entire evidence, arrived at a finding of guilt against the appellant. In reaching this conclusion, the court placed significant weight on the testimonies of PWs 1 to 3, the father-in-law, wife, and daughter of the deceased. The evidence tendered by PWs 5 and 10, who were witnesses to the occurrence, was also found to be credible. The learned Sessions Judge further concluded that there is no reason to doubt the recovery of MO4 (knife) and MO2 (lunki) based on the disclosure statement of the accused. The bloodstains found on the walls at the entrance of the appellant's house were also found to cement his involvement. On the basis of the above materials, the court was satisfied that the prosecution had successfully proven the occurrence through the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 3, 5, and 10. It was also held that the accused was not entitled to the benefit of any of the exceptions under Section 300 of the IPC. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the IPC; to undergo RI for one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC; R.I for one month for the offence under Section 447 of the IPC and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2 Lakhs for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC with a default clause. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Contentions on behalf of the appellant

Sri. Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, argued that the prosecution failed to prove, through credible evidence, that the appellant had trespassed onto the property of the deceased and inflicted the stab injury. According to the learned counsel, the incident occurred in front of the appellant's house, and the deceased and PW1 were the real aggressors. The deceased allegedly trespassed into the appellant's property, armed with a knife, and attempted to attack the appellant's father. The injury sustained by the deceased occurred during the ensuing melee, contended the learned counsel. The learned counsel further urged that the Sessions Judge committed a serious error in relying on the interested testimonies of PWs 1 to 3, especially since their versions before the court were inconsistent. Several omissions, embellishments, and contradictions were highlighted by the defence, which, they argued, severely undermined the credibility of the evidence tendered by these witnesses. It is urged that PWs 5 and 10 were planted witnesses, and their testimonies ought not have been relied upon. The learned counsel also challenged the genuineness and validity of the recovery evidence, and it was contended that the investigating officer had planted the knife in the house of the appellant and stage-managed a recovery to link the appellant with the crime. Lastly, it was submitted that the explanation provided by the accused in his statement under Section 313 was ignored by the Sessions Judge, and instead accepted the prosecution version without subjecting the same to a proper evaluation.

Response of the Public Prosecutor:

In response, Smt. Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that although PWs 1 to 3 are related to one another, they are natural witnesses whose presence at the crime scene cannot be doubted. They provided a detailed account of how the incident unfolded, culminating in the murder of Soman by the appellant. Their testimony was corroborated by PWs 5 and 10 as well in material particulars and also by the evidence provided by the Doctor who conducted the autopsy. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the contentions raised by the defence is falsified by the sequence of events and the testimony of the witnesses.

We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides.

Evaluation of the Evidence:

The prosecution witnesses stated that the injuries leading to Soman's death were inflicted on May 14, 2006, at 10:15 a.m. PW18, the Doctor from the Taluk Hospital in Varkala, testified that Soman was brought dead to the hospital by 11:30 a.m. on the same day. The autopsy was conducted by PW16, the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine at the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. PW16 recorded nine ante-mortem injuries, with Injury No. 2 being particularly significant.

It was an incised, penetrating wound measuring 2 x 0.8 cm, obliquely placed on the left side of the chest. The upper inner end, which was sharply cut, was 2.5 cm from the midline and 8.5 cm below the collarbone, while the lower outer end was rounded. The chest cavity had been penetrated, cutting through the 5th costal cartilage and the adjoining sternum, transfixing the pericardium and the right ventricle at the atrioventricular junction, 1.5 cm below the pulmonary valve, and terminating in the cavity of the right ventricle. The left chest cavity contained 150 ml of fluid blood, while the right chest cavity contained 200 ml of blood-stained fluid. A mediastinal hematoma measuring 19 x 7.5 x 3.5 cm was observed. The wound was directed downwards, backwards, and to the right, with a minimum depth of 3.3 cm. The doctor confirmed that Injury No. 2 would have been fatal in the ordinary course of nature.

He also stated that the other injuries could have been caused by a weapon like MO4. In view of the above uncontroverted evidence, we hold that Soman’s death was a case of homicide.

The learned counsel for the defence pointed out a discrepancy between the findings of PW18 and PW16 regarding the nature of the injury. PW18 described it as an irregular spindle-shaped injury, whereas PW16 characterized it as elliptical. However, there is no significant difference between a spindle-shaped and an elliptical injury, as the shapes resemble each other. Both Doctors agreed that the injury could have been caused by the MO4 weapon.

Now, we shall come to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. His first contention is that PW1 to 3 are related witnesses and that their evidence contains serious discrepancies. He also contended that PW5 and 10 are planted witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their evidence.

PW1, the father-in-law of Soman, arrived at the scene during the second phase of the incident. The first phase occurred when the accused came to the house of the deceased, abused PW2, and, when she objected, slapped and kicked her, causing her to fall. Several persons in the locality intervened and they managed to send the appellant back to his house. PW1 stated that he was working on a well, about 100-300 meters away, when he heard his daughter’s cries. At the time of giving evidence in 2017, PW1 was 77 years old. Hearing his daughter's cries, he rushed to the spot. On arrival, he saw the accused holding a knife and engaged in a scuffle with the deceased. When the accused stabbed the deceased, Soman blocked the blow, suffering an injury to his hand. The second stab was aimed at the deceased’s neck. PW1 also sustained a minor injury on his hand while attempting to wrest the knife from the accused. After allegedly stabbing the deceased in the abdomen, the accused returned to his house. Joshy and Ani were witnesses to the incident. PW1 took the deceased to the hospital, and after the deceased was declared dead, he lodged the FIS at the Police Station. PW1 also mentioned the accused's continuous misbehavior towards PW2 and her daughters and stated that both he and the deceased had repeatedly asked the accused to stop. He identified the weapon and the clothes worn by the accused. During cross-examination, it was revealed that PW1 had not previously informed the police about the accused's inappropriate behaviour towards women. He maintained that when he reached the scene, the accused was about to stab the deceased. PW1 denied the defence’s suggestion that Soman was the aggressor and that the incident occurred in front of the accused's house.

PW2, the wife of the deceased, was an eyewitness to both phases of the incident. She testified that she, her husband, and their three children lived at Kanjiravilakom and that the accused lived just above their house. The accused frequently abused her and her children. On May 14, 2006, a Sunday, PW2 and her family were at home. The accused, intoxicated, entered their courtyard and threatened that he would kill Soman. When PW2 and her husband confronted the accused, trying to deescalate the situation, the accused suddenly slapped PW2 and kicked her to the ground. She and her children cried for help, and when Soman came to her aid, a fistfight ensued between him and the accused. At that point, Ani (PW11), Kuttappan (PW10), and Babu, who were thatching the roof of Thankamma's (PW9) house, intervened and took the accused away. At that time, the accused was wearing only a bath towel. He then returned to his house, changed into a lungi, tied the towel around his waist, and came back with a knife. He proceeded to stab her husband multiple times, causing fatal injuries. PW2’s father arrived at the scene after hearing her cries and also sustained minor injuries while trying to intervene. PW2 stated that her husband had often warned the accused against misbehaving with their children, and it was due to this enmity that the accused attacked him. She identified the weapon used by the accused and the clothes her husband was wearing at the time of the incident. During cross-examination, she asserted that her family had only been living in the area for 3-4 months before the incident. She denied the suggestion of the defence that an earlier incident had occurred at 8.00 a.m. that day and stated that she later went to the hospital, where she informed the doctor about her pain and injuries.

PW3  (Sini),  the  daughter  of  the  deceased,  testified  that  the incident leading to her father's death occurred on May 14, 2006. She stated that the accused, in an intoxicated state, trespassed onto their property and verbally abused her parents. He had previously threatened to kill her father. When her parents asked the accused to leave them alone, he followed her mother and slapped her in the face before kicking her to the ground. When the children cried for help, Ani (PW11), Babu, and Kuttappan (PW10) arrived and removed the accused from the scene. The accused later returned, now wearing a kaily and a bath towel tied around his waist, and brought a knife with him. By this time, PW1 had also arrived at the scene. A scuffle broke out between the deceased and the accused when Soman tried to take the knife from him. The accused overpowered Soman and stabbed him with the MO4 knife. Soman blocked the attack, but sustained injuries to his hand. The accused then inflicted stab wounds on Soman's neck and chest. After the attack, the accused went back to his house. PW3 identified the accused in the dock and the MO4 knife he used. In cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that an earlier incident involving her father and the accused’s father had taken place at 8.00 a.m. She also denied the defence's claim that her family had verbally abused the accused or that the accused had been injured during the scuffle with her father.

PW4 (Mini S.G.), another daughter of the deceased, stated that on May 14, 2006, at around 10:15 a.m., while she was washing dishes in the kitchen, the accused trespassed into their property, and a scuffle broke out between him and the deceased. She immediately went to the nearby colony to seek help from her uncle and younger brother. Upon returning, she saw that PW1 was being taken to the hospital in an autorickshaw. PW4 also denied that an earlier incident had taken place involving the accused's father and the deceased earlier that morning.

PW5 (Mohanan), was present near the scene of crime on 14.5.2006. He stated that at about 10.00 a.m. on the said day, he heard a cry and when he went to the spot, he saw PW2 sitting on the floor by the house and one Anil Kumar was found taking away the accused from the place. When he enquired, he was informed by Kuttappan (PW10) that the accused had abused PW2. When the accused was taken away, he was wearing a bath towel. The witness went to the nearby paddy field to drain out the water. Then he heard a cry, and returned back to the scene of crime. The deceased was lying on the ground and the accused was seen stabbing by sitting on the chest. When the deceased tried to stand up, he fell down. The injured was shifted to the hospital immediately thereafter. He stated that one hour after inflicting the injury, the accused changed his clothes and attempted to flee from the place with his father. While he was running away, he fell down and suffered some injuries. One Sathyan, Balachandran, and PW5 caught him and tied him to a palm tree situated nearby. The Ward Member was asked to inform the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that he had not witnessed the scuffle between the accused and the deceased. When he reached the spot, he had seen the accused sitting on the chest of the deceased and was inflicting stab injuries. Ext.D2 contradiction was brought out that in his previous statement, he had not stated to the police that he and others had intercepted the accused while he was fleeing.

PW6 had taken the deceased to the Government Hospital, Varkala, where he was pronounced dead by the Doctor who had examined him. PW7 is an attestor to the Scene Mahazar. PW8 is the attestor to Ext.P3 Recovery Mahazar. He stated that the accused had led the police officer to his residence, from where MO2 Kaily and MO4 Knife were seized as per Ext.P3 Mahazar. Thankamma (PW9) is residing near to the house of the deceased. She stated that she had witnessed the incident in which Geetha had suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. On hearing their cry, she and the employees thatching her hut, rushed to the house of the deceased and pushed the accused away. Later, she went to purchase some material and when she returned, she saw Soman being taken away to the hospital. She stated that Babu, Anil, and another person had worked in her house. She denied that she was a near relative of the deceased.

Kuttappan (PW10) is a resident of the Laksham Veedu Colony. He is a coolie by profession. He is aware of both the deceased as well as the accused. On the date of the incident, he went to the house of Thankamma to thatch the roof. While he had got down from the roof to have snacks, he heard a cry from Soman’s house. He along with Anil Kumar went to the house where the cry was heard. He saw the accused wearing a bath towel and abusing Geetha. When Geetha questioned his acts, the accused is alleged to have slapped on her face. He and Anil Kumar intervened and pushed the accused away. The accused went back to his house and the witness also went back to the house of Thankamma. While he was thatching, sitting on the roof of the house, he saw the accused coming down to the house of the deceased, wearing a kaily, with a bath towel tied on his waist. He then witnessed a scuffle between Soman and the accused. Both of them fell down on the ground and the accused was seen wielding a weapon in his hand. The accused stabbed Soman with the weapon. Though the witness and Anil Kumar tried to separate the accused and the deceased, he threatened them by flashing the weapon. At that time, PW1 rushed to the spot and tried to intervene. He also suffered injuries on his hand. Ashokan left the place thereafter. The injured was then shifted to the hospital, and the witness along with the others went back to their job. In cross-examination, the witness stated that his house was situated about 5 meters from the place of occurrence. He stated that he commenced the work at 6:30 a.m. He stated that at 8:00 a.m. an incident had occurred. He then stated that Ashokan came again at 10:30 a.m. He asserted that when Ashokan had come the 2nd time, he had a knife in his hand.

PW12 is the Assistant Surgeon attached to the Taluk Hospital, Chirayinkeezhu. He stated that on 14.05.2006 at 2:00 p.m., he had examined PW2, and issued Ext.P5 certificate. He had noted tenderness in the front of her neck. The history noted is that at 8:00 a.m., somebody had fisted and kicked her.

PW13 is the Assistant Director (Biology), Forensic Science Lab, Thiruvananthapuram. He stated that on 15.05.206, he had examined House No.V/129 of Varkala Municipal Corporation which is owned by the accused. He stated that the said house was situated about 9 meters from the house of the deceased. He noted a blood stain of area 7x6 cms on the outer side of the main entrance door of the house. The stain was seen at a height of 111 cms from the floor. He also stated that the house of the accused is situated in an elevated land of about 190 cms in relation to the house of the deceased. The scene of occurrence was on the low-level land and close to the house of the deceased, at a distance of 9.35 cms towards the north-west at House No. V/129. Blood was detected in the soil.

PW14 is the Village Officer, who prepared Ext.P7 site plan.

PW17 is the Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Varkala. On 15.05.2006, she examined the accused at 11:45 a.m. and issued Ext.P9 wound certificate. She has noted the following injuries:

a) Multiple abrasion on the left side of the chest;

b) Linear abrasions on middle and lower part of right thigh;

c) Abrasion 10/1 cm and 2/1 cm on the upper side of back.

She stated that the injuries noted on the body of the accused could be caused when the body comes into contact with the rough surface. The cause of injury noted is that the injured tried to flee and that he was tied down by the local people.

PW18 is the Civil Surgeon attached to the Taluk Hospital, Varkala. She had examined PW1 on 14.05.2006 at 11:20 a.m., and issued Ext.P10 certificate. The injuries noted are:

a) A linear incised wound about 3x3 cms over the tip of the right index finger;

b) Puncture of wound about 5x5 cms on the interior abdominal wall.

The Doctor had also examined the deceased on the same day at 11:10 a.m., noted the injuries found on his body, and had issued Ext.P11 certificate. In cross-examination, he was asked whether injuries with shapeless ends can only be termed as an elliptical injury. He stated that there were deep cut injuries to the muscle and ribs and an elliptical wound can be an incised injury. He denied that only a double-edged weapon can cause an elliptical injury. He added that the injuries noted in Ext.P11 could be caused by MO4.

PW19 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Varkala Police Station, who recorded the First Information Statement and registered Ext.P1 (b) FIR.

On the side of the defence, Dr. Radhakrishnan was examined as DW1. He was examined to produce the wound certificate of PW2. However, he said that no documents were available, as he requested the injured to seek treatment from the Taluk Hospital. DW2, Surendran stated that he is having acquaintance with both the accused and the deceased. According to him, he had helped the accused in purchasing the house in which he was living now. According to him, on the date of the incident, he went to meet the accused. He found the deceased in front of the house of the accused and they were engaged in a scuffle. The deceased had a knife in his hand. An old person was there along with the deceased. The accused suffered an injury on his left palm. He stated that all three persons suffered injuries. He denied that any of the persons had sustained a stab injury. Later, when he went to the Medical College Hospital, he became aware that the accused was taken away by the police.

The prime contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that PWs 1 to 3 are interested witnesses and no reliance can be placed on the same. However, we are not in a position to agree. The term ‘interested’ postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in ensuring that the accused person is somehow or the other convicted either because he had animous with the accused or for some other reason. It has been held time and time again that a witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness had caused, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be the last person to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is, of course, true that when feelings run high and there is a personal cause for enmity, there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but the foundation must be laid for such criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth. We find that the PWs 1 to 3 have given a truthful version of what had transpired on 14.5.2006 . The evidence of PWs 5 and 10 corroborates their evidence in material particulars. Shorn of a few embellishments here and there, their testimony has a ring of truth, a colour of consistency, and a sense of straightforwardness as a result of which, their evidence inspires great confidence. They have given a graphic description of what had transpired on 14.05.2006 from 10.00 a.m. onwards. The evidence of PWs 5, 9, 10 and 11 corroborate their evidence in material particulars. PWs 1 to 3 are the natural witnesses whose presence at the scene of crime, which is in the courtyard of their own house, cannot be disputed. PW13, the Forensic Expert, has detected the presence of blood on the wall of the house of the accused and also at the scene of crime. The evidence tendered by the medical doctors supplements in no small measure evidence tendered by the eyewitnesses. There is also evidence of recovery of the weapon effected based on the disclosure statement given by the accused. As is borne out from the case of the prosecution, after the infliction of the stab injury, the accused went back to his house, changed his clothes, and attempted to flee and it is at that point of time that the people of the locality apprehended him, as spoken to by PW5. The accused was later arrested by the police. In that view of the matter, there is no reason to doubt the recovery of the knife from his residence.

The next contention advanced by the learned counsel is with regard to the omissions, embellishments, and contradictions brought out by the defence while cross-examining the witnesses. It was pointed out that PW5 stated that the deceased was pushed down and the accused had sat on his chest and stabbed. However, PW’s 1 to 3 have no such case. However, it needs to be borne in mind that the witnesses to the case are rustics and so their behavioural patterns and perceptive habits have to be judged as such. PW5 was thatching the roof of Thankamma’s House when the incident took place. As held in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793, a too sophisticated approach familiar in courts based on unreal assumptions about human conduct cannot obviously be applied to those given to the lethargic ways of the villages. When scanning the evidence of the various witnesses, the Apex Court has advised the trial courts to inform ourselves that variances on the fringes, discrepancies in details, contradictions in narrations and embellishments in inessential parts cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony provided, there is the impress of truth and conformity to probability in the substantial fabric of testimony delivered. The irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions. The approach to be adopted is, if the evidence of a witness is read in its entirety, and the same appears to have in it, a ring of truth, then it may become necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly, keeping in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the said evidence as a whole, and evaluate them separately, to determine whether the same are completely against the nature of the evidence provided by the witnesses and whether the validity of such evidence is shaken by virtue of such evaluation, rendering it unworthy of belief. Having evaluated the entire evidence, we are of the view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving by credible evidence that the relationship between the deceased and the accused was strained due to persistent misbehavior by the appellant towards PW2 (Geetha, the deceased’s wife) and her children. The evidence has also established that on 14 May 2007, the appellant trespassed onto the courtyard of the deceased's house, initiating an altercation which fact has been corroborated by PW2, PW10, PW11 and that he had assaulted PW2 by slapping and kicking her. Independent witnesses have also spoken about the physical skirmish with the deceased and the appellant when the deceased had come to rescue his wife. Immediately thereafter, the appellant returned back to his home and after changing his clothes rushed back armed with a knife with premeditation to the deceased. PW2, PW3, and PW1 have spoken to this fact which was supported by PW5 and PW10, the independent witnesses. The prosecution has also established by credible evidence that the appellant fatally stabbed the deceased multiple times in the chest and neck and in the course of the said transaction caused injuries to PW1. The independent witnesses have also stated about the attempt made by the appellant to flee from the scene with his father which was thwarted. The evidence of the medical witnesses has corroborated that the stab wounds on the deceased were inflicted with MO4 knife seized from the house of the appellant which has also further confirmed the version of events spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. The consistency of the injuries with the nature of the assault and the timing supports the prosecution version.

We are not inclined to accept the evidence tendered by DW2, the witness who spoke about the case of the defence. His evidence that the deceased was the aggressor and it was the deceased who initiated the quarrel by going to the courtyard of the house of the accused is not supported either by the independent witnesses or by the forensic evidence. No reliance can be placed on the same.

We shall now advert to the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the act of the appellant causing the death of the victim does not come within the purview of murder envisaged under Section 300 of the I.P.C. According to the learned counsel, the evidence clearly shows that there was an extended scuffle between the appellant and the deceased and if that be the case, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 or 4 of Section 300 of the IPC. The sequence of events would show that the appellant came down to the house of the deceased and slapped his wife at 10.00 a.m. while in an inebriated state. Good samaritans who were present there intervened and the accused was taken back to his house. Without wasting any time, the accused changed his clothes and after arming himself with a knife came to the courtyard of the house and again picked a quarrel.  Three incised injuries were inflicted on the neck, chest, and on the inner aspect of the left hand.

The facts and circumstances under which culpable homicide tantamounts to murder, and the principles governing the field, are dealt with exhaustively by the Apex Court in State of Uttarakhand v. Sachendra Singh Rawat [(2022) 4 SCC 227]. The Apex Court held that the intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances. They are:

(i) Nature of the weapon used;

(ii) Whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot;

(iii) Whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;

(iv) The amount of force employed in causing injury;

(v) Whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free-for-all fight ;

(vi) Whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any pre-meditation;

(vii) Whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;

(viii) Whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;

(ix) Whether it was in the heat of passion;

(x) Whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner;

(xi) Whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows;

As far as the present case is concerned, the weapon used is MO4 knife, a dangerous weapon, which the accused had fetched from his house immediately after the first phase of the incident. The nature of the injury suffered by the deceased would reveal that two incised injuries were inflicted on the neck and chest, which are very vital parts of the human body. When the deceased blocked the stab with his hands, the incised wound was sustained on the palm. Infliction of multiple injuries shows that the accused had taken undue advantage on an unarmed person and thereby acted in a cruel manner. PW1, a man advanced in age, tried to intervene and he was also not left alone. The minor abrasions on the body of the accused were caused when he fell down while attempting to flee and when he was tied by the locals to a coconut tree. Exception 1 would apply only when the accused whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. Under no circumstances can it be said that the first exception to Section 300 I.P.C has any applicability in the facts and circumstances of this case. The benefit of Exception 4 can be extended if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be satisfied. The benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 I.P.C cannot be extended in the case on hand since the quarrel ignited by the appellant cannot be termed as one which broke out without pre-meditation leading to the commission of the crime in a sudden fight in the heat of passion. ‘Fight’ postulates a bilateral transaction in which blows are exchanged. The deceased was unarmed. He did not cause any injury to the appellant but was merely trying to rescue his wife. Furthermore, not less than three fatal injuries were inflicted by the appellant with a sharp knife, which is a formidable weapon on the unarmed victim. The appellant is, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of Exception 4, either.

In view of the discussion above, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt, conviction, and sentence of the appellant passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Thiruvananthapuram, in S.C.No.447 of 2013 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324 and 447 of the IPC.

Resultantly, Crl. Appeal No. 1137 of 2022 is dismissed and Crl. Appeal No. 807 of 2022 filed through the legal aid counsel is closed.