Ramakrishnan vs State of Kerala

Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.—1. Bhaskaran, a 29 year old toddy tapper, was allegedly stabbed to death by the appellant, late in the evening of 19.9.2005. He was in the said circumstances indicted and tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. As per judgment dated 13.12.2011, he was found guilty and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The above finding of guilt, conviction and sentence are assailed in this appeal.

The synopsis of the prosecution case is as follows:--

"Bhaskaran is a toddy tapper by profession. On 19.9.2005 at about 10.00 p.m, PW 1 Pushpan overheard someone hurling abuses standing towards the north western side of his house. He came out of his house to enquire and found that it was the accused who was hurling abuses. The deceased-Bhaskaran came out of his house and questioned the acts of the accused. There was a hot exchange of words between the deceased and the accused. Without batting an eyelid, the accused took out a folding knife from his loin and inflicted multiple stab injuries on the deceased which fell on his chest and back. Surprised at the onslaught, the deceased cried out and slumped to the ground. PW1 and the other neighbours rushed to the scene. Seeing them, the accused ran towards the east carrying the knife. Though the neighbors rushed Bhaskaran to the District hospital, Kollam, his life could not be saved."

On the basis of the information given by PW1-Pushpan, PW16, the Sub Inspector of police recorded Ext. P1 FI statement based on which Ext. P1(a) FIR was registered. Investigation was taken over by PW17, the Circle Inspector of police on 20.9.2005. He went to the District Hospital and conducted Ext. P2 inquest over the dead body of the deceased. MO4 series clothes worn by the deceased were seized. The body was sent for autopsy to ascertain the cause of death. PW15-Dr. Rema, the Forensic Surgeon, conducted postmortem and issued Ext. P9 certificate. Thereafter, PW17 went to the scene of crime and prepared Ext. P6 scene mahazar. He seized certain items which were found at the scene of crime as per Ext. P6 mahazer. The clothes worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence, were seized as per Ext. P7 seizure mahazar. Search conducted in the house of the accused did not unearth anything. The accused was arrested at 8.00 pm on 20.9.2005. On the basis of Ext. P8(a) disclosure statement given by the accused MO 1 knife was seized from under a rock at ''Engineer mala'' as per Ext. P8 seizure mahazar. Thereafter, witnesses were questioned and as per Ext. P13 forwarding note, MOs were sent to the Forensic Laboratory for analysis. Ext. P10 is the FSL report received from the Lab. The investigation was thereafter, taken over by PW12, the Circle Inspector of Police. The said officer after completion of investigation, laid charge before Court.

The Court before which the final report was laid took cognizance of the offence. Finding that the offence was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the said Court committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Kollam, under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C after complying with all the formalities. The said Court on receipt of records made over the case to the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam, for trial and disposal. The latter Court, on receipt of records and appearance of the accused, framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed that he be tried.

On the side of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW17 and Exts.P1 to P14 were marked. MO1 to MO5 were produced and identified. On the side of the defence, Ext. D1 was marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him. He denied having committed any act which would constitute an offence and maintained that he was innocent.

Finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C, he was asked to enter on his defence. The Assistant Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board (Electrical Section) was examined as DW1.

The Court below, impressed by the evidence let in by PW1 to 4, came to the conclusion that their testimony would prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the deceased was brutally stabbed by the accused late in the evening on 19.9.2005 in the courtyard of the house of PW 3. It was further held that the prosecution had successfully established the recovery of MO1 knife at the instance of the appellant and the presence of blood in MO1 weapon of offence and in the clothes of the accused resembling that of the blood of the deceased was a clinching circumstance. It was thus held that the accused was guilty of the offence charged and was convicted accordingly.

Faced with inability to appoint a counsel of his choice, the appeal was preferred from jail by the appellant himself. When the matter came up for admission, this Court had directed the registry to ensure that the service of a Legal Aid counsel be made available to the appellant. Consequently Adv.Bindu Sreekumar was appointed as State Brief to prosecute the appeal.

We have heard Smt. Bindu Sreekumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

The learned counsel at the outset itself submitted that the court below has faltered in appreciating the evidence let in by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel, the evidence was appreciated in a mechanical manner without considering whether the evidence of the witnesses goes against the natural human conduct and probabilities. According to the learned counsel, PW 1 and PW 3 are related witnesses and therefore, quite interested in the success of the prosecution case. Their evidence should have been subjected to severe scrutiny. In so far as the evidence of PW 2 goes, the witness had not supported the prosecution case in its entirety. His evidence, according to the learned counsel, would bring out the fact that none of the other witnesses had occasion to witness the incident. According to the learned counsel, though PW 1 and PW 3 stated that they had occasion to see the incident, the topography and extent of vegetation of the area would falsify their version.

Referring to the evidence of PW1, it was specifically pointed out that he could not have witnessed the incident, which according to the prosecution had taken place on the south eastern side of the courtyard of the house of CW3-Meenakshi.

It was thereafter submitted by the learned counsel that the recovery allegedly made at the instance of the accused could not have relied upon. The recovery was effected from a place accessible to all and the witnesses examined to prove the recovery had not supported the prosecution case. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the recovery of MO1 weapon at the instance of the appellant was quite doubtful in view of the evidence tendered by PW 2 to the effect that the murder weapon was shown to him later in the evening on the date of incident. It was further pointed out that though the recovery was effected on 21.9.2005 at 8.30 pm, a perusal of Ext. P8 mahazar would reveal that the disclosure statement was made by the accused on the previous day. According to the learned counsel, this was yet another circumstance to doubt the alleged recovery.

It is further submitted by the learned counsel with vehemence that it has come out from the evidence that the deceased was in an inebriated condition, and that there had occurred an altercation between the deceased and the accused. These aspects were suppressed by the prosecution and according to the learned counsel, true facts have not been placed by the prosecution before Court, the benefit of which, necessarily has to be extended to the accused.

The learned counsel relying on Ext. P10 chemical analysis report would submit that at the time of incident, as is revealed from the certificate, the percentage by volume of ethyl alcohol in blood was 143.75 mg and the percentage by volume of ethyl alcohol in urine was 230 mg., which probabilised the case of the defence that the deceased had sustained injuries in some other manner at the hands of some other person.

The learned Public Prosecutor refuting the contention of the learned counsel would submit that the evidence of PW1 and 3 are clinching and the evidence of PW2 would corroborate the version of PW1 and 3. The learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that PW4, had stated in unmistakable terms that he had come to the scene of crime on hearing the cries and had occasion to witness the accused leaving the place of occurrence. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that there is absolutely no challenge insofar as the presence of the accused in the scene of crime is concerned. Pw1 and 3 emphatically stated that they had occasion to see the incident from the precincts of their respective houses and they had come to the scene only when they had heard the cries of the deceased. It is further pointed out that there is no reason to doubt the recovery effected at the instance of the accused. Moreover, the serology report in respect of the clothes and MO1 knife would reveal that the same contained blood which is similar to that of the deceased. It is also submitted that any infirmities in the evidence of PW10 would clearly be overridden by the evidence tendered by PW17, the Investigating Officer, who had spoken in unmistakable terms as to how the recovery was effected on the basis of the disclosure statement given by the accused. It is further submitted that there cannot be any doubt with regard to the weapon used for commission of crime, as PW15, the doctor who conducted postmortem, had, after perusing MO1, stated that the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased could be caused by MO1 folding knife. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that based on the available materials and the clinching evidence of PW1 to 3 and also the report of the Serologist, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in coming to the conclusion that it was the accused who had inflicted the injuries on the body of the deceased and there was absolutely no reason to interfere with the considered findings.

The first question to be considered is as to whether the prosecution has established that the death of Bhaskaran was homicidal or not. The prosecution relies on the evidence of PW1 to 3 to bring home the point that the deceased was inflicted stab injuries on 10.00 p.m on 19.9.2005 in the courtyard of the house of PW 3 - Ramesan. The injured was immediately taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. Ext. P2 is the inquest report prepared by PW17, which reveals the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. Thereafter postmortem was conducted by PW15 who had issued Ext. P9 postmortem certificate which reveals the following ante mortem injuries.

"(i). Incised penetrating wound 4 x 1.5 cm obliquely placed on right side or back of chest with its upper inner sharply cut and 1 cm to right of midline and 15 cm below root of neck. Its lower outer end was rounded in shape. The right chest cavity was seen penetrated after cutting the seventh intercostal space and the back aspect of lower lobe of right lung punctured for a depth of 8.5 cm. The wound was directed forwards and downwards for a total minimum dept of 11.5 cm, right chest cavity contained 900 ml of fluid blood and 100 gm of blood clot. Right lung partially collapsed.

(ii). Incised penetrating wound 1.8 x 0.8 cm, obliquely placed on the left side of chest its upper front sharply cut end 5 cm below front fold of armpit. Its lower back end was rounded in shape. The chest cavity was seen penetrated after cutting the third intercostal space. The wound was directed downwards and to the right for a total minimum depth of 1.5 cm.

(iii). Incised penetrating wound 4.5 x 2 cm vertical on the left side of front of chest with its upper sharply cut end 9.5 cm to left of midline and 18 cm below collar bone. Its lower end was round in shape. The left chest cavity was seen penetrated after cutting the sixth intercostal space, pierced diaphragm and transfixed left lobe of liver for a depth of 3 cm and terminated in the perennial tissue close to the spine with a perennial haematoma 0.5 cm thick. The wound was directed backwards, downwards and to the right for a total minimum depth of 5 cm. Left chest cavity contained 400 ml of fluid blood.

(iv). Incised penetrating wound 2.8 x 1.2 cm, obliquely placed on the left side of the front of trunk, its upper inner sharply cut end 6.5 cm to left of midline and 22 cm below collar bone. Its lower outer end was rounded in shape. The abdominal cavity was seen penetrated after cutting the tenth rib, transfixed left lobe of liver for a depth of 2 cm, cut the mensentery of small intestine and the outer wall of jejunum for a length of 1.5 cm. The wound was directed backwards and downwards for a total minimum depth of 3 cm. Abdominal cavity contained 600 ml of fluid blood and 150 g. of blood clot.

(v). Incised wound 3.5 x 1 x 1.5 cm oblique on the inner aspect of left arm 8 cm below armpit.

(vi). Abrasion 3 x 2 cm on the back of left forearm 3 cm below elbow.

(vii). Incised wound 4x0.2x0.1 cm oblique on the left side of chest, its upper back end 6 cm below armpit.

(viii). Abrasion 3x 0.5 cm on the outer aspect of right shoulder.

(ix). Abrasion 3x2 cm on the back of right arm 1 cm above elbow.

(x). Healing wound 1x1 cm on the inner aspect of left ankle."

PW15 has stated that the death was caused due to penetrating injuries sustained to chest and abdomen and injury Nos. 1 to 4 are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

PW17 proved Ext. P10 chemical examination report as per which it was found that the blood group of the deceased was B RH+ve. PW15 has stated in unequivocal terms that injury Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 could be caused with MO1 knife. The version given by PW15 as also Ext. P2 inquest and other materials would establish that Bhaskaran had met with a homicidal death as a result of the inflicted injuries.

The next point which arises for consideration is whether the prosecution was able to establish that it was the accused who had inflicted injuries on the body of the deceased. To prove this particular aspect the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW1 to 4 and it is therefore, necessary to refer to the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses in some detail.

PW1-Pushpan is a tapper by profession. He is also residing in the Vadakkekkara Nirappil colony. He is having acquaintance with the deceased as well as the accused. He would say that Bhaskaran had met with his death on 19.9.2005 at 10.00 p.m at the hands of the deceased. According to the said witness, he had heard abuses being hurled by the accused standing at the courtyard of the house of CW3 on the date of incident. When he came out of his house and he saw Bhaskaran coming out of his house and going towards the accused and when Bhaskaran asked the accused to restrain himself, there occurred an exchange of words which led to an altercation between the accused and the deceased. Immediately thereafter, the accused took out a knife which was kept by him in his loin and inflicted stab injuries on the chest and back side of the deceased. Bhaskaran slumped to the ground and he was shrieking loudly. Without losing any time, PW1 went towards Bhaskaran and he supported him. The accused, according to PW1, had fled from the scene carrying the weapon of offence with him. PW2-Unni and PW3-Ramesan came there and they summoned a vehicle and took the deceased to the hospital. The doctor after examining the deceased, declared him dead. He spoke about the presence of light. After hearing about the death of Bhaskaran, he returned back home and on the next day at 7.00 a.m, went to the Pooyappally police station and gave Ext. P1 FI statement based on which Ext. P14 was registered. He identified the weapon as well as the clothes worn by the accused at the time of occurrence. He also identified the clothes worn by the accused. He would say in his evidence that the incident occurred in the courtyard of the house of PW3-Ramesan. He also stated that Bhaskaran and Ramesan were all residing in the same colony.

According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, if the evidence of PW1 is read as a whole, it would be revealed that he had no occasion to witness the incident. It was pointed out that the witness had stated that he had witnessed the stabbing standing near to his house and due to the presence of trees and vegetations, one cannot have a clear view of the place in which the incident had taken place standing in the precincts of his house. It was also pointed out that, in cross examination PW1 had stated that he had only occasion to see Bhaskaran lying on the ground. When a question was put to the witness as to how the injuries were inflicted at Bhaskaran, PW1 had stated that the had not seen the specific acts committed by the accused.

We have evaluated the evidence of PW1 and we do not find any reason to doubt the same. The court below was also impressed with the evidence of PW1 and the aspersions cast by the learned counsel is misconceived. Further more, the evidence of PW1 is amply corroborated by the contents of Ext. P1 FI Statement as well. Though the witness was cross examined in extenso, the defence was not able to bring out any aspect to doubt his version of the incident.

The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW2-Unni who is also a neighbour. He deposed that on hearing the cry of Bhaskaran, he came out of the house and saw the deceased lying on the ground and the accused proceeding towards east with the knife in his hand. He saw PW1 also at the scene of crime. However, while he was cross examined, the witness resiled from his earlier version and asserted that he had no occasion to witness the incident.

PW3 is one Ramesan. He would say that the incident had happened in the Vadakkekkara colony where he also resides. The deceased is a near relative. According to PW3, on 19.9.2005 at 10.00 p.m, the incident had taken place in front of his house near the electric post. He heard abusive words being exchanged between the accused and the deceased. On hearing the same, he had come out of his house. He would further depose that the accused had taken out a knife from his loin and inflicted injuries on Bhaskaran. Immediately after the incident, he rushed towards Bhaskaran. He spoke about the presence of PW 1 and 2 as well. He would say in unmistakable terms that multiple stab injuries were inflicted on the chest and back side of the deceased by the accused.

PW4 is one Narayanan and he testified that he had come to the scene of crime hearing a cry and saw the deceased lying on the ground. He also deposed that the accused was seen fleeing from the scene.

After evaluating the evidence of PW1, 2 and 3, the court below was impressed and came to the conclusion that their evidence clearly revealed the origin, development and culmination of the incident. After independently reevaluating the evidence, we concur with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.

Based on Ext. P8(a) disclosure statement MO1 to MO3 were recovered at the instance of the accused. The contention of the learned counsel is that the recovery was effected from a place accessible to all. Evidence reveals that the MOs were recovered from underneath a stone at a place called ''Engineer mala'' and this fact is revealed from Ext. P8 mahazar. The contentions raised by the learned counsel challenging the evidence of recovery is merit less, according to us. More importantly, the recovery of weapon of offence and the clothes of the accused will obtain a seal of authenticity in view of the presence of blood on them as revealed from the scientific evidence.

PW17, the investigating Officer had dispatched MO1 knife, MO2 series which are the dress of the deceased, MO3 series - dress of the accused and MO4 series - clothes seized from the body of the deceased at the time of inquest and the blood stained soil from the scene of crime to the Forensic Science Lab, Thiruvananthapuram, for analysis. At the time of postmortem, the internal organs and blood of deceased Bhaskaran also was examined Ext. P10 report reveals that the blood group of deceased Bhaskaran was B RH+ve and it also revealed that his blood and urine contained a high percentage of alcohol. Ext. P3 is the report of chemical analysis of the Assistant Director, Serology. Ext. P3 reveals that the clothes of the accused, MO1 knife, the clothes of the deceased and also the sand seized from the place of occurrence contained blood of human origin belonging to group ''B''. This is yet another clinching circumstance which points to the complicity of the accused. This would also add credence to the evidence of the eye witnesses and the evidence of recovery.

The court below has considered the entire materials in considerable detail and has come to the conclusion that the evidence of PW1 to PW3 coupled with the evidence of recovery and the scientific evidence are sufficient to hold the accused guilty. After having independently evaluated the evidence on record, we do not find any reason to doubt the evidence of PW1 and 3. The evidence of PW2 and 4 had corroborated the evidence of PW1 and 3. We concur with the conclusions arrived at by the court below and hold that the prosecution has successfully established its case as against the appellant herein.

In the result, we find no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the court below. The appeal is without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.

The appellant shall be entitled to set off as provided u/s. 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the period he has been in custody in this case, subject to the orders passed by the authority u/s. 432/433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.