Balasubramanian vs State of Kerala

Sasidharan Nambiar, J.—Appellant was tried for the offences u/s 449, 511 of Section 376, 302, 324 and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code by Additional Sessions Court, (Adhoc-I), Manjeri in S.C.91 of 2009. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 449 of Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence u/s 506 (i) of Indian Penal Code. All the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. He was acquitted of the offence u/s 511 read with 326 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that PW1 Saraswathy and PW19, Chandramathi and deceased Thankam, the sisters were residing in House No. 6/305 of Valavannoor Grama Panchayat and their mother died earlier. Though PW1 was married, her husband is no more. Similarly, PW19 though married, the marriage was dissolved. Though she was employed, later due to illness, her right side was paralysed and she was not in a position to walk of her own. On the morning of 20.10.2007, PW1 had gone out of the house and only PW19 and the deceased were in the house. It is alleged that PW19 was lying on the side room and the deceased was making ready food in the kitchen. Appellant trespassed into the house with the intention to commit rape and in the attempt, when the deceased resisted it, appellant hit on her head with Mo7 handle of an axe and caused her death. On hearing the sound when PW19 crawled from that room and reached the passage leading to the kitchen and witnessed the incident, appellant with Mo7 handle of the axe, hit on her left wrist and threatened her not to disclose the incident and kept Mo7 in the store room attached to the kitchen and left the house. Hearing the cry of PW19, PW2, the brother of appellant, who was passing along the way near to the house reached the house and found the body of deceased Thankam lying in the kitchen half naked and also found PW19 crying on the passage to the kitchen. PW2 informed the incident to PW9, a retired Sub Inspector who informed it to the police over phone. PW18, S.I getting the phone message, reached the house. By that time, PW1 had returned to the house. PW1 saw PW19 crying and the body of deceased lying on the floor of the kitchen, having sustained head injury and people gathered everywhere. PW1 asked PW19, what happened. Due to paralytic stroke, PW19 was not in a position to speak and she used to communicate with PW1 by writing in Ext.P3 note book which was kept with her. PW19 conveyed what happened there by writing in Ext.P2 piece of paper. PW1 furnished Ext.P1 First Information to PW18, who recorded it. PW1 also produced Ext.P2 letter written by PW19. Based on Ext.P1, PW18 registered the crime after preparing Ext.P1(a) FIR. PW20, Circle Inspector of Police took over the investigation. He prepared Ext.P5 inquest report and seized Mos 1 to 4 and 7 from the scene. Mo7 was seized from the adjoining store room. With the assistance of the scientific assistant, the scene of occurrence was got examined and the blood stains and hairs found were collected and later produced before the court and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The body was sent for autopsy. PW12, the Professor of Forensic Medicine conducted the autopsy and prepared Ext.P13 post mortem certificate. PW12 found that the death was caused due to the head injury. PW19 was examined by PW10, the Doctor who prepared Ext.P11 wound certificate. PW17, ASI took the appellant into custody on that after noon and produced him before PW20, who recorded his arrest and sent him for potency test before PW11, who issued Ext.P12 potency certificate. After completing the investigation, charge was laid before the Magistrate who committed it to the Sessions Court. When the case was made over to Additional Sessions Court and charge for the offence was framed and read over, appellant pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 20 witnesses and marked 27 exhibits and identified 16 material objects. At the time of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, Ext.D1 to D5 portions of the statements of Pws 1,2,5,6 and 16 recorded u/s 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure were confronted and marked. Though appellant was questioned u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he only denied the evidence tendered against him and did not explain any circumstance or give his version of the incident. Finding that it is not a case for acquittal u/s 232 of Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Sessions Judge called upon the appellant to enter on his defence and adduce evidence. Appellant did not adduce any evidence. Learned Sessions Judge, on the evidence, found him guilty, convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier. It is challenged in this appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. The argument of learned counsel appearing for appellant is that the only eye witness to the incident is PW19 and the learned Sessions Judge should not have relied on her evidence. The argument of the learned counsel is that PW19, due to paralytic stroke could not speak, the prosecution would contend that she could convey messages by writing and though PW1 deposed that in Ext.P2, PW19 had conveyed what happened in the house on the fateful day resulting in the death of Thankam, Ext.P2 does not disclose the details and based on Ext.P2, the evidence of PW19 cannot be accepted. The learned counsel argued that according to the prosecution, Ext.P3(a) and Ext.P3(b) writings were written by PW19 later and her statement was recorded by the Magistrate u/s 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, though it is not marked and at the time of evidence when she was examined in court, she had given a detailed version of the incident which is the result of tutoring. Learned counsel argued that as is clear from the evidence of PW1, PW19 cannot move of her own and as she was lying inside the room and the incident occurred at the kitchen, she had no occasion to witness the incident and her evidence that she crawled from that room and reached the passage leading to the kitchen and witnessed the incident cannot be believed. Learned counsel would argue that if the evidence of PW19 is disbelieved, there is no evidence connecting the appellant with the incident. It was pointed out that though Mo5 and Mo6 dresses were recovered, allegedly based on the confession made by the appellant, Cra 1963/2009 9 and as lead by him, Ext.P27 report of the Forensic Science Laboratory does not show that the dresses of the appellant contained blood of the same group of the deceased so as to connect the appellant with the incident and there was no blood stains in the shirt at all. It was also argued that the evidence of the other witnesses, even if believed, will not connect the appellant with the incident and therefore the conviction is unsustainable.

Learned Public Prosecutor argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW19 and though handicapped and was not in a position to speak, PW19 had witnessed the incident and had given evidence as to what she saw on that fateful day. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that evidence of PW2, the brother of the appellant corroborates the evidence of Pw19 that she saw the incident from the passage leading to the kitchen, as PW2 deposed that hearing the cry, when he reached the house, he found PW19 in the passage leading to the kitchen, looking at the kitchen, and when PW2 asked PW19, she pointed out the deceased in the kitchen. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW1 with Ext.P3 establishes that PW1 used to communicate by writing in Ext.P3 note book and the evidence of PW1 establishes that PW19 handed over Ext.P2 paper writing what transpired in that house, in the absence of PW1. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that the writings in Ext.P2 is not clear as PW19 was terrorised due to what she witnessed and also because of the attack on her and the threat held by the appellant to her warning not to disclose it. It is argued that PW2, brother of the appellant had no reason to depose against the appellant and his evidence that he reached the house of the deceased as there was no answer when he called the deceased and when he reached near the house, he heard the cry and found PW19 on the passage leading to the kitchen and in such circumstances, learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellant for the offences u/s 302, 449 and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code.

The evidence of PW12, the Professor of Forensic Medicine who conducted the autopsy with Ext.P13 Post mortem certificate establish that the death was caused due to the head injury. The first injury noted in Ext.P13 reads:-

Lacerated wound 6x1.5 cm, vertical on back of head 6cm away from midline, towards left side of head, 11cm above root of neck. Scalp contusion internally 10x10x0.3 cm around the laceration, extending to left side of neck. Skull was in tact. Brain showed subdural bleeding on convexties of brain and subarachnoid bleeding on entire surface

PW12 also noted fracture of 5th and 6th vertibra resulting in the tearing of spinal code underneath. From the evidence, it is conclusively proved that the death of Thankam was caused due to the head injury sustained by the deceased. Hence it is a homicide. On that aspect, there was no challenge.

The only question is whether the said injury was inflicted by the appellant. The evidence of PW1 and PW19 that they were living along with the deceased and PW19 and the deceased alone were there in the house, when PW1 left the house on the morning of 20.10.2007 is not disputed. The evidence of PW1 is that when she was walking from the house, she met the appellant on the way and appellant asked her where she is going and she revealed him that she is going to the market to purchase vegetables and at that time appellant was wearing Mo5 and Mo6 dresses. This aspect was not challenged in cross examination. The evidence of PW1 therefore establishes that when she left, only deceased and PW19 were there in the house. The evidence of PW2 who is none other than the brother of the appellant establishes that between 12 and 1 pm, while he was walking along the side of the house of PW1, as usual, he called the name of PW19. As there was no response, thinking what happened, he went towards the house. His evidence is that he heard a cry from inside the house and on entering the house, he found PW19 sitting on the passage leading to the kitchen, crying and looking into the kitchen where the deceased was lying half naked with bleeding injury. It is the evidence of PW2 that he immediately went to the house of PW9, a retired S.I, who informed the police over phone and along with PW9 he came back to the house. The evidence of PW2 and PW9 establish that PW1 reached there later and by that time, police has also arrived. The evidence conclusively establish that when PW2 saw the deceased, only PW19 was there in the house apart from the deceased Thankam. It is therefore clear that only PW19 could convey what transpired there on that day.

The evidence of PW1 that PW19 had a paralytic stroke and her right side was paralysed and though PW19 had, earlier an employment, lost it and due to illness she cannot move and needs assistance even for her primary needs and PW19 used to communicate by writing in Ext.P3 note book were not challenged. The evidence of PW1 shows that she asked PW19 what transpired and she had written Ext.P2 and furnished it to PW1 which was handed over to PW18 the S.I, who recorded Ext.P1 F.I.Statement of PW1. While furnishing the statement PW1 entrusted Ext.P2 to the police. The evidence of PW18 corroborates that evidence.

PW19 was examined by the learned Sessions Judge after satisfying that she knows the value of oath and also finding that she was capable of answering the questions in writing. The evidence of PW19 shows that while she was lying in the room, she heard a sound from the kitchen and suspecting that something happened, she crawled from that room and reached the passage and looked into the kitchen from the passage and found her sister, the deceased lying and Cra 1963/2009 16 appellant standing near her with Mo7 handle of an axe. She also deposed that she found the appellant beating the deceased with Mo7 handle and thereafter finding that PW19 had witnessed it, he threated her not to disclose it and hit on her left hand. According to PW19, appellant thereafter threatened her not to disclose it to anybody and took the handle of Mo7 axe and kept it in the store room and thereafter left the house. The evidence of PW20, C.I establishes that Mo7 was seized from the store room and blood stains were found in Mo7. The question is whether the evidence of PW19 is believable and trustworthy.

Though learned counsel vehemently argued that the evidence of PW19 cannot be believed, on going through her entire evidence and her conduct, and the fact that she had, on the date of the incident itself, communicated it, though not elaborately, the name of the accused as well as the name of the assailant and the weapon used for inflicting the injuries were stated in Ext.P2, we find that she is a natural and trustworthy witness. We find no reason whatsoever to disbelieve her evidence especially when appellant has no case that PW19 had any axe to grind against him.

The evidence of PW2 shows that the appellant was found changing the dress and going out of the house, before he left the house and reached near to the house of PW1. We find no other circumstances to point out that the injuries were inflicted by anybody else other than the appellant. Though, for the absence of materials to find the appellant guilty for the offence u/s 511 of 376 of Indian Penal Code, he was acquitted, that does not mean that the motive alleged is disproved. The position of the body of the deceased, the fact that the saree was removed, the skirt was raised above the waist and the underwear was partly removed, point out that the intention of the appellant was to commit rape, though rape was not committed evidently, as deceased resisted the attempt. Hence a scuffle occured and in that scuffle, the other injuries noted in Ext.P13 Post mortem certificate were caused. The evidence of PW12 establishes that those injuries are possible in a scuffle and these facts also support the prosecution case that there was motive, for inflicting the injuries on the deceased. The evidence conclusively establish that as the appellant knew that only the deceased and PW19 were there in the house and PW19 being laid up due to paralytic stroke, was not in a position to move of her own, appellant thought to utilize the occasion for the fulfilment of his lust. In that attempt, appellant trespassed into the house and with the evil intention, caught hold of the deceased and when she resisted, there was a scuffle and appellant with Mo7 handle of axe hit the deceased on her head inflicting the head injury which resulted in her death. The question is what are the offences proved. The nature of the injuries inflicted on the head, the force with which the injuries were inflicted causing fracture of the 5th and 6th vertibrea and tearing of the spinal chord, establish that the intention was to cause her death. None of the exemptions provided u/s 300 of Indian Penal Code applies to the facts. Therefore learned Sessions Judge was perfectly correct in finding the appellant guilty for the offences u/s 300 punishable u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code, for intentionally causing the death of deceased Thankam, sister of PW1 and PW19 and also for the offence u/s 449 of Indian Penal Code and the offences u/s 506(i) for threatening PW19. The conviction is therefore confirmed. The sentence awarded is also reasonable and warrants no interference. Appeal is dismissed.