Balan. K.G. vs State of Kerala

P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.—The accused in S.C. No. 273 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Ad hoc)-1, Kottayam, is the appellant. He has been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, hereinafter, referred to as ''the IPC'', for short, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

The case of the prosecution is that on account of previous enmity, on 11.06.2008, at about 7.30 p.m., the accused stabbed one Suresh to death at a place in front of the house of Suresh. A case was registered by Erumely Police in connection with the death of Suresh based on the information furnished by PW 1, the brother of Suresh. PW 15 investigated the case and PW 16 filed the final report against the accused, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

On appearance, the accused pleaded not guilty. Consequently, the prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence in the matter. The prosecution, thereupon, examined 15 witnesses as PW 1 to PW 15 and marked 12 documents as Exts. P1 to P12. 21 material objects were also caused to be identified by the witnesses. In the course of the trial, Exts. D1 and D2 case diary statements of the witnesses were also marked at the instance of the accused. After the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concerning the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. He denied those circumstances and maintained that he is innocent. Since this was not a case of no evidence for the prosecution, the accused was called upon to enter on his defence, but he chose not to adduce any evidence.

The Court of Session, on a meticulous analysis of the evidence on record, found that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

The point to be considered in this appeal is whether the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

We have heard the learned counsel Sri. Sibi Chenappadi, for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

Ext. P3 is the post mortem certificate issued by PW 6, the Assistant Professor and Deputy Police Surgeon, attached to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Injury No. 1 noted on the body of deceased, as recorded by PW 6 in Ext. P3 post mortem certificate, reads as follows:

"Incised penetrating wound 2.7x0.5 cm, oblique on the left side of front of chest with its upper inner sharply cut end, 7.5 cm below the front fold of armpit and 18 cm outer to midline, the other end was blunt. Cutting through the fourth left intercostal space and lower border of fourth rib, the wound entered the chest cavity, transfixed the inner border of upper lobe of left lung, pierced the pericardial sac (2.5x0.5 cm) and terminated by incising the front wall of left ventricle of heart (3 x 0.5 cm) in its whole thickness. The wound was directed backward, downward and to the right for a total minimum depth of 10.5 cm. The left chest cavity contained 1.5 litres of blood mixed with clots. The left lung was pale and collapsed."

It is certified in Ext. P3 that the death of Suresh was due to the penetrating injury sustained by him in his chest PW 6 has given evidence that the injury found on the body of the deceased could be inflicted with a single edged knife and the said injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Ext. P3 certificate and the evidence tendered by PW 6 would establish that the death of Suresh was a homicide.

The question now is as to the complicity of the accused in the crime. The deceased was an employee of BSNL. There is no direct evidence in this case for the overt act attributed against the accused. The prosecution relies on circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused. PW 1, the brother of the accused, was examined only to prove the lodgment of Ext. P1 First Information Statement. PW 2 was a neighbour of the deceased. He is a toddy tapper by profession. PW 2 deposed that on the relevant day while he was going home from the toddy shop in an auto rickshaw, he saw the deceased, when his auto rickshaw overtook the bike of the deceased. According to PW 2, he got down from the auto rickshaw at a place called ''shop padickal'' and from there while he was proceeding to his house, he saw the bike of the deceased coming from behind and the accused coming from the opposite direction. PW 2 has explained that immediately after the accused passed trough him, he heard the deceased uttering loudly that Balan stabbed him. According to PW 2, when he turned back, he found the accused running towards the main road.

PW 3 is another neighbour of the deceased. He deposed that on the relevant day, while he was going towards the residence of the deceased, he saw the accused coming from the opposite direction. He has also stated that when he went further, he found the bike of the deceased lying on the side of the road and the wife of the deceased telling that the accused stabbed the deceased. PW 4 is the wife of the deceased. She deposed that on the relevant day, while she was watching Television, she heard the sound of the bike of her husband first and then the sound of that bike falling down. According to her, when she proceeded to that place, she found the deceased with the injury on his body. PW 4 deposed that the deceased told her that the accused stabbed him. She has also deposed that she saw somebody moving from that place towards the main road at that time. She has explained that there was a dispute between the accused and the deceased some time ago in connection with a money transaction and the deceased had beaten the accused once in connection with the said dispute. In cross-examination, she has stated that she knew about the dispute only from the deceased. Even though it was suggested to PW 4 that the deceased could not talk at all after sustaining the injury, she denied that suggestion.

PW 6 was the doctor who conducted the post mortem. He deposed in cross-examination that the injury noted in Ext. P3 certificate may not cause instantaneous death. He denied having stated to the police that the death is expedient on the place of occurrence itself, if one gets an injury in the nature of one noted on the body of the deceased. He has also stated that a person with an injury in the nature of one referred to above, may or may not speak, depending on other factors. He has further stated that some may walk with such an injury a little further and some may fall down instantaneously.

PW 13 is the witness to Ext. P8 mahazer, by which MO1 knife was recovered from the accused. He has stated that he saw the accused tracing out a knife from the property of one Baby and handing over the same to the police. PW 14 was the Sub Inspector of police who arrested the accused. In cross-examination, PW 14 has stated that he had summoned and questioned three persons by name ''Balan'' in connection with this case. PW 15, the investigating officer deposed that when he questioned the accused, he disclosed to him that he has kept the knife used for stabbing the deceased near the plantain in the property of one Baby and pursuant to the said disclosure, the accused was taken to that place and he took out MO1 knife concealed by him from that place and handed over to him. Ext. P8 is the mahazar prepared in connection with the recovery of MO1 knife. PW 15 has also deposed that the clothes worn by the accused at the time of occurrence were also recovered from him as per Ext. P9 mahazar. PW 15 has further proved Ext. P11 forwarding note prepared in connection with the despatch of material objects for chemical examination and Ext. P12 report of the Chemical Examiner.

As stated above, there is no direct evidence for the overt act attributed against the accused, and the prosecution is relying on circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused. The evidence of PW 2 would indicate that he saw the accused coming from the opposite direction, while the deceased was coming from behind and after the accused passed through his side, he heard the deceased crying aloud uttering that accused stabbed him. Similarly, the evidence of PW 2 would indicate while he was going towards the residence of the deceased, he saw the accused coming from the opposite direction, immediately after the occurrence. The evidence of PW 4 would indicate that the deceased told her that the accused stabbed him when she met the deceased after the occurrence. The depositions of Pws. 2 and 3 that they are residing in the vicinity of the residence of the deceased are not seen challenged in their cross-examination. As they are residing in the vicinity of the residence of the accused, they are natural and probable witnesses. Both of them had identified the accused, though they have not seen the occurrence. Nothing was brought out in their cross-examination to suspect the veracity of their evidence. There is nothing unusual or improbable also in their evidence. Coming to PW 4, her definite version is that the deceased told her that Balan stabbed him. PW 4 also did not see the occurrence. The suggestion made to PW 4 in the cross-examination that the deceased could not have talked after the injury is not of any significance, in view of the evidence tendered by PW 6 the doctor that a person with such an injury may or may not speak. The evidence tendered by PW 4 is natural and convincing. The evidence tendered by PW 4 that the deceased told her that Balan stabbed him, being the statement of a person as to his cause of death, the same is admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Further, the evidence of PW 13 and PW 15 would establish beyond doubt that MO1 knife was recovered based on a disclosure made by the accused. PW 6, the doctor who conducted the post mortem had given evidence that the injury noted on the body of the deceased could be inflicted with MO1 knife. Item No. 14 in Ext. P12 report is MO1 knife. Ext. P12 recites that MO1 contained human blood of Group B, as contained in items 1 to 3 in the report which were the clothes worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence.

The aforesaid circumstances established conclusively in evidence are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the same exclude every possible hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. Further, the same constitute a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that PW 2 cannot be believed at all, as his conduct in leaving the scene in search of a person called Jayadevan, immediately after the occurrence does not appear to be a natural human conduct. He has also contended that the conduct of PW 2 in getting down from the auto rickshaw in which he was coming and then walking towards his house would show that he is a planted witness. As regards the evidence tendered by PW 4, the learned counsel pointed out that she did not see the occurrence and therefore, it cannot be inferred from her evidence that accused is the Balan referred to by the deceased. He has also relied on the evidence of PW 14, the Sub Inspector of Police and contended that had PW 4 been specific in her version, the police would not have summoned other persons named Balan also to the police station for interrogation. He has further argued that though the accused was arrested on 12.06.2008, the recovery of MO1 is seen effected only on 16.06.2008 and the delay casts suspicion on the ground of the alleged confession. The attack on the evidence of PW 2 is feeble. The evidence tendered by PW 2 would indicate that on the relevant day, he came in an auto rickshaw through the main road up to the point from where he has to take a concrete road first, and a mud road thereafter, to reach his house. As such, there is nothing unusual in his conduct in getting down from the auto rickshaw at the point where the concrete road starts. Likewise, there was nothing unusual in the conduct of PW 2 calling one of his friends when he saw that a person is lying down, after suffering a stab injury. Coming to the attack to the evidence of PW 4, merely for the reason that the police summoned a few persons named Balan to the police station, it cannot be said that the person named Balan mentioned by PW 4 is not the accused, especially when she was not cross-examined as to the identity of the person named Balan disclosed by the deceased. As regards the contention as to the genuineness of the recovery of the weapon, it is seen from the records that the accused who was arrested on 12.06.2008 was produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody. Later, police custody of the accused was sought for and the application for custody was allowed only on 16.06.2008. Ext. P8 mahazar would indicate that the recovery of MO1 was effected on 16.06.2008. There is, therefore, nothing unusual or improper in the recovery of the weapon effected, as per Ext. P8 mahazar also.

The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Tarseem Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administration, and contended that in the absence of any evidence for the motive, the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable in law. It is true that in a case rests on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance, but that does not mean that in the absence of satisfactory evidence for the motive, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. The learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the Apex court Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab, and contended that oral dying declaration is a weak kind of evidence, where the exact words uttered by the deceased are not available. Paragraph 15 of the said judgment would indicate that that the aforesaid observation was made by the Apex Court in the context of basing the conviction of the accused solely on dying declaration. Further, in the case in hand the exact words uttered by the deceased are very much available on record. Again, the finding of guilt was not rendered solely on the dying declaration.

For all the aforesaid reasons, we agree with the finding of the Court of Session that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the complicity of the accused in the crime. There is, therefore, no merit in the Criminal Appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.