Peethambharan vs State of Kerala

V. Chitambaresh, J.—Old age is a curse especially when one is sick and is not looked after by children. The instant case reveals the sordid story of an ailing mother being smothered to death by her son. The incident is alleged to have taken place on 30.03.2006 at the residence of the son. The court below has convicted the accused for offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The accused has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year on default to pay fine. The appeal is filed challenging the conviction and the sentence imposed by the court below.

The son-in-law of the deceased, who lodged Ext.P1 First Information Report has been examined as PW1. The neighbours, who heard quarrelling sound from the house of the deceased was examined as PW2. The attesting witness to Ext. P2 scene mahazar has been examined as PW3. The grandson of the deceased, who preferred Ext. P3 compliant against the accused was examined as PW4. The doctor, who issued Ext.P4 postmortem certificate was examined as PW5. Another neighbours, who is a witness to the frequent quarrels is examined as PW6. The scientific assistant, who detected traces of blood in the nails of the accused was examined as PW7. The wife of the accused, who was declared hostile was examined as PW8. A neighbor, who heard the cry of women in the house on the fateful night was examined as PW9. The attestor to the recovery mahazar of cotton bunch was examined as PW10. The police officer, who prepared Ext.P9 inquest report was examined as PW11. The photographer, who took Ext.P10 series of photos of the deceased was examined as PW12. The Sub Inspector of police, who registered Ext.P1(a) First Information Report was examined as PW13. The Circle Inspector of police, who conducted the investigation was examined as PW14. The village officer, who prepared Ext.P15 site plan was examined as PW15. The Circle Inspector of police, who laid the charge against the accused was examined as PW16. The accused when questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied all the circumstances that appeared in evidence against him.

The first parameter of the prosecution case is that it is a homicidal death. The evidence of the doctor (PW5) clinches the fact that the `death was due to smothering and blunt injuries sustained to head and neck''. There were as many as 11 antemortem injuries and some of them were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. There can therefore be no escape from the conclusion that this is a case of homicidal death.

The second parameter of the prosecution case is that the deceased was an unwelcome guest at home. The evidence of the son-in-law (PW1) and the grandson (PW4) of the deceased amply reflected the same. They testified that the mother used to go from the house of one child to another. The grandson had even preferred Ext.P3 petition to the police complaining that the accused was not looking after his mother. The deceased had fractured her leg during her stay in the house of one of her daughters. The evidence in the case clinches that the accused entertained his mother at his house only due to pressure from police and relatives.

The third parameter of the prosecution case is that only the accused was present in the house at the material time. The neighbours examined as PW2 and PW6 categorically stated that the accused came home drunk on the fateful evening. He abused his mother and manhandled her. The neighbours when rushed to the house on hearing cries could see only the accused with the deceased.

The fourth parameter of the prosecution case is that the deceased was seen alive by her daughter-in-law (PW8). True it is that she was declared hostile by court at the request of the prosecution. But her testimony is categoric that the mother was sleeping on the cot. The evidence of the neighbours also indicates that the accused was doing `something'' on the deceased as told by PW8. The evidence indicates that the deceased was alive till the accused came to the spot.

The fifth parameter of the prosecution case is about the conduct of the accused. The neighbours (PW6) testified that the accused had drawn up his hands gesturing that ''everything was over''. The nearby residents who rushed to the house had tied the accused in a corner of the room. All these indicates that the guilt pointed towards the accused only.

The sixth parameter of the prosecution case is the recovery of cotton bunch from the backyard of the house. No doubt the recovery instills confidence in the light of the evidence of PW10. But cotton can as well be used to clean the wounds when the deceased had bed sores. We are therefore not attaching much significance to the recovery of blood stained cotton.

All the circumstances aforementioned unmistakably link the accused with the crime. The chain of circumstances is complete and excludes any hypothesis of innocence. The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed by the court below is rested on evidence.

The criminal appeal fails and is hence dismissed.