S.S. Kumar vs State

N. Arumugham, J.—The appellant herein is the convicted accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil in

Sessions Case No. 69/87 dated 11-12-87, finding the accused guilty under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code and convicting him thereon to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for his life. The appellant has filed this appeal to canvass the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment above

referred.

P.W. 1 by name Rajasekaran and P.W. 2 by name Shrikumar are the residing of Ponmani village in Kanyakumari district, within the jurisdiction

of Thakkalai police circle and the former one was having a shop dealing with rubber sheets at Pillathur and the latter was doing work in the rubber

plants. He was also a member of the 2nd ward of the Panchayat concerned. The deceased Sundaresan was also a resident of the same place. It

was the claim of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that at about 11:00 a.m. on 20-2-87, they had been to the condolence of one Padmanaba Pillai of that village,

alone with the accused. The funeral ceremony of the said Padmanaba Pillai, was over by 10:00 p.m. on that day. Afterwards, it is claimed that the

accused returned from the place by his bicycle, followed by P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased Sundaresan. When they reached at a point situate

north west of the house of one Kuttan Pillai in the Ponmani road, proceeding from the grave-yard, they saw the accused Kumar coming in the

opposite direction from north to south. It was at about 10:30 p.m. The deceased Sundaresan demanded the accused to return the amount of Rs.

50/- which he borrowed from him, by way of loan, for which the prosecution witnesses 1 and 2 claim that the accused said towards the deceased

(vernacular matter is omitted) (one fellow has been ascribed of his final funeral and the next is due to you). By so saying, the accused took the knife

M.O. 1 from his waist and unfolded it and by saying ""don''t ask money hereafter"", gave a stab on the right side of his chest with force. On receipt

of the said blow, Sundaresan raised hue and cry. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 tried to catch the accused, he ran away towards south with the weapon of

offence. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 came and saw the injured Sundaresan, he was covering his wound with his towel. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 removed

the towel they saw the intestine protruding out through the wound. P.Ws. 1 and 2 tied the towel over the injury, by which the towel became

soaked with blood. They stopped the car which came from south and took the injured to Kulasekarapattinam Police Station and reached there by

11:00 p.m. and there, injured Sundaresan gave an oral statement to the writer of the station P.W. 10 to his narration, which was reduced to writing

and read over to him and admitted by him and his signature was affixed. Ex.P. 2 is the signature in the complaint Ex.P. 1. Then the injured was sent

to Kulasekaram Government Hospital by the police and with the said information, P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to know that the injured was sent through a

trucker. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the doctor at Kulasekaram, they were informed that the injured was taken to Nagercoil Head Quarters

Hospital by a trucker, they went to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil by taking a taxi. At about 1:00 a.m., they came to know that the injured

was dead and his body was put in the mortuary. P.Ws. 1 and 2 further claim that the street lights were burning during the occurrence at about 100

ft. and 250 ft. away on the north east and south, they identified in court the weapon M.O. 1 and blood stained dhoti M.O. 2 blood stained towel

of the deceased M.O. 3 blood stained towel of P.W. 2 M.O. 4 chappals M.O. 5 were by the deceased during the time of occurrence.

P.W. 3 on hearing the death of the deceased, after attending the funeral ceremony of Padmanaba Pillai, reached his house and found P.Ws. 1

and 2 and others. P.W. 4 Gopakumar claimed that on 21-2-87 at about 11:00 a.m. when he along with one Narayana Nair went near the house

of one Kuttan Pillai, the Inspector of Police. Thakkalai came with his party and prepared observation Mahazar Ex.P. 2 in the presence of

witnesses and he prepared rough sketch Ex.P. 3 showing the topography of the scene of crime and recovered M.O. 5 series under the cover of

Mahazar Ex.P. 4 and got it attested by him.

P.W. 5 by name Indira is the wife of the deceased Sundaresan, who in her testimony, before the Court had claimed that about 20 days prior to

the occurrence the accused borrowed Rs. 50/- from her husband, promising to return the amount on the next day, but he did not repay the amount

and her husband was insisting the accused to return the money.

When P.W. 6 by name Srikandan, along with one Krishnan Thambi were standing near the bus-stand at Thakkalai at about 3:30 p.m. on 22-2-

87, the Inspector of Police came along with his party to the said place and took them and stopped near the rubber factory situate at Pullathur and

arrested the accused, while the accused was standing in front of the factory. On enquiry, the accused voluntarily gave a statement, which was

reduced into writing and the admissible portion of his statement is marked as Ex.P. 5 and the statement was attested by P.W. 6. The accused took

the police and this witness near a cattle shed at Pullathur and from the roof of which, he took M.O. 1 and produced it to the Inspector of Police,

who in turn, recovered it under cover of Mahazar Ex.P. 6 and the Mahazar was attested by P.W. 6.

P.W. 7 by name Mani, the driver of the car bearing Registration No. TNK 997 has claimed that the owner of the car is Padmanaba Nair, who

belongs to Ponmani and that by 10:30 p.m. on 20-2-87, when he was coming from Valiyatrumugam in Ponmanai road, his car was stopped by

P.Ws. 1 and 2 near the house of one Kuttan Pillai thereafter he took the injured along with P.W. 1 to Kulasekaram Police Station and P.Ws. 1

and 2 took the injured Sundaresan to the Police Station.

P.W. 8 Natarajan, the driver of the trucker bearing Registration No. TNK 6030 has stated that his vehicle was used to be parked opposite to

the Police Station and at about 11:00 p.m. on 20-2-87 at the request of the police, he took the injured Sundaresan along with a constable to the

Government Hospital, Kulasekaram, where the medical officer was not available. So, he took them to Government Hospital. Kottar, where the

doctor was brought to the trucker and the doctor examined the injured and declared that he was dead. It was 12.15 midnight at that time. Then the

dead body was taken from the trucker.

P.W. 9 by name Rajan, the Head Clerk attached to the Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabapuram, has stated that on 9-3-87, he received the

requisition from the Inspector of Police, Kulasekaram, in Crime No. 76/87 and on the basis of which, the case properties were duly packed and

sealed and sent to the Chemical Examination under the cover of the original of Ex.P. 8 and received the Chemical Examiner''s Report Ex.P. 9 and

the Serologist''s Report Ex.P. 10. He has further stated that the First Information Report was handed over to the Magistrate at 6:00 a.m. 21-2-87

and the Express Report was handed over to the Magistrate at 8:50 a.m. on the same day. The Inquest Report was handed over to the Magistrate

at 8:45 p.m. on the same day.

P.W. 10 by name Murugan, Cr.I Police Constable attached to the Kulasekaram Police Station, has claimed that at about 11:00 p.m. on 20-2-

1987, when he was on duly in the Police Station, P.Ws. 1 and 2 brought the injured Sundaresan, who gave an oral statement, which was reduced

into writing, to his narration and read over to him and admitted by him and after obtaining his signature Ex.P. 2 in Ex.P. 1, he registered the same in

Crime No. 76/87 for the offence under S. 307 of Indian Penal Code. Ex.P. 11 is the printed First Information Report. He sent the injured

Sundaresan to the Government Hospital, Kulasekaram, for treatment along with the Police Constable P.W. 11. Ex.Ps. 1 and 11 were despatched

to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Padmanabapuram and to other higher officials. The passport handed over by P.W. 11 to P.W. 10 is

marked under Ex.P. 12.

P.W. 11 by name Rajagopal, the constable attached to Kulasekaram Police Station claimed that at about 10:00 p.m. on 20-2-87, he was

entrusted with a medical memo and the injured Sundaresan, to take the injured for medical treatment and he claimed that he took the injured to the

hospital in the trucker, bearing Registration No. TNK 6030 and the medical memo given to him was Ex.P. 14. He obtained O.P. Ticket in the

Government Hospital, Kulasekaram, which is marked under Ex.P. 13 and as there was no medical officer available, he took the injured to the

doctor''s house, where the doctor, after examining him, stated that the condition of the injured was precarious and instructed him to take the injured

to the Government Hospital, Kottar, and accordingly he took him in the same trucker to the Government Hospital, Kottar and showed Ex.Ps. 13

and 14 to the doctor at the Government Hospital at Kottar. The doctor, examined the injured in the trucker and declared that he was dead

already, and he wrote the said facts in Medical Memo and in the passport under Ex.Ps. 15 and 16. Then he took the dead body and placed it in

the mortuary. P.W. 11 further claimed that he returned to the Police Station by 12.30 midnight and intimated the death of Sundaresan, and on

receipt of the said information, the Sub-Inspector of Police instructed him to guard the dead body. The Sub-Inspector of Police went to the

hospital at 3:00 p.m. on the next day and the passport and O.P. Ticket were handed over to him. The Inspector of Police, Thakkalai came there at

about 8 a.m. on 21-2-87 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Sundaresan and gave a requisition to conduct autopsy at

about 10:00 a.m. on that day. P.W. 11 escorted the dead body, throughout the autopsy and after taking M.Os. 2 to 4 from the dead body, he

handed over the dead body to the relatives after the post-mortem.

P.W. 12 by name Prabhakaram, the Constable attached to the Police Station, Kulasekaram, has stated that, after getting the First Information

Report and the tapals relating to the Crime No. 76/87 at 11:30 p.m. on 20-2-87 he started to Parvathipuram at 5:00 a.m. on the next day since

there was no bus facility in the night, and handed over the letter to the Magistrate at Parvathipuram, at 6:00 a.m.

P.W. 13 by name Rangasamy, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Kulasekaram Police Station, claimed that when he was on duty at

12.30 midnight on 20-2-87, he received the death intimation of the deceased Sundaresan from the Kottar Police Station, he gave necessary

instructions and went to the Government Hospital, Kottar and received the Ex.Ps. 12 to 14 from P.W. 11. Then he came to the Kulasekaram

Police Station at about 5:00 a.m. and altered the section of the crime as 302 of Indian Penal Code and prepared the Express Report Ex.P. 17 and

through P.W. 14 he sent Ex.Ps. 12 to 14 to be handed over to the Magistrate, P.W. 14 by name Gnanadas the Constable attached to the

Kulasekaram Police Station claimed that after having received the Express Reports in Crime No. 76/87 at about 6:30 a.m. on 21-2-87, he handed

over the same to the Inspector of Police, Thakkalai, by about 8:30 a.m. on that day and served the tapals to the Judicial Magistrate at about 8:50

a.m. on the same day.

P.W. 15 Dr. Santhanam attached to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil has stated that at about 12.15 midnight, the Police Constable 419

brought one Sundaresan and when he examined him, he found him dead and Ex.P. 12 is the passport and Ex.P. 13 is the O.P. Ticket given by the

Government Hospital at Kulasekaram and Ex.P. 18 is the Medical Memo given by the Kulasekaram Police Station and Ex.Ps. 15 and 16 are the

death intimation prepared by this witness.

On receipt of requisition Ex.P. 19, Dr. Thangavel who was examined as P.W. 16, attached to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil, did the

autopsy over the dead body of Sundaresan at 2:00 p.m. on 21-2-87 and found the following injuries on his body :

(1) A stab injury spindle shaped on the right side of abdomen 2"" above the lateral to the umbilicus transversely placed 4 cms. x 1.5 cms. through

which omentum was protruding cut.

On dissection of the said injury it was found :

The injury was found to be penetrating through the right rectum muscle. The peritoneum was found to have been penetrated to a size of 6 cms. x 4

cms., transversely placed.

A tear in the transverse mesocolon by about its middle 4 cms. x 3 cms. The transverse colon was found penetrated through to a size of 3 cms. x

1/3 cms. anteroposteriorly (wound was lying transversely).

The mesentery of small gut was found. The mesentery of small gut was found to have been penetrated through and through transversely 6 cms. x 5

cms. x 1 cm. 3"" about its lower end.

The mesentery of ileum was torn through and through to a size of 7 cms. x 6 cms. x 1 cm. 12"" from the ileocaecal junction close to the margin of

ileum, 1"" near to the previous wound, another penetrating wound involving the mesenteric border of the ileum 2 cms. x. 1.5 cm.

Extensive retro peritoneal haematoma was found in that area.

Abdominal cavity contained 2 litres of dark coloured blood which was drained out.

Abdominal cavity contained faecal material extending through the penetrating injuries of colon and ileum.

According to him, the death would appear to have occurred 12 to 16 hours prior to the autopsy and the deceased would have died of shock and

haemorrhage due to the penetrating injuries to colon and mesentery and would further say that the said injuries would have been caused by

stabbing with weapon like M.O. 1 and that the said injuries are ante-mortem and likely to cause death in its ordinary course of nature.

P.W. 17 by name Swaminathan was the Inspector of Police in the Thakkalai circle at the time of occurrence. He has stated that he, on receipt

of the copy of the First Information Report through the Police Constable No. 565 in Crime No. 76/87 of Kulasekaram Police Station and on

receipt of the altered Express Report, proceeded to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil, and found the dead body in the mortuary, escorted by

one constable of Kulasekaram Police Station. At about 8:00 a.m. on that day he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of

Panchayatdars and by examining the witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 prepared the Inquest Report Ex.P. 22 and entrusted the dead body to conduct

autopsy, through the police constable No. 419 along with a requisition to conduct autopsy Ex.P. 21 and sent the Inquest Report as well as the

statements recorded during the course of inquest through the police constable 734 on that day. Then he went to the scene of crime and prepared

the observation Mahazar Ex.P. 2 in the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and rough sketch Ex.P. 3, showing the topography of the scene of crime and

recovered M.O. 5 under the cover of Mahazar Ex.P. 4. He has further stated that he examined further witnesses in this case and he also examined

P.W. and others in the Kulasekaram Police Station. Then he arrested the accused at 3:30 p.m. on 22-2-87 at Pullathur and as the accused gave a

voluntary statement, which was reduced into writing in the presence of witnesses and the admitted portion of that confession statement is marked

as Ex.P. 5 and on the basis of which, the accused took all of them to the cattle shed and took M.O. 1 and produced it to him, in the presence of

the same witnesses and he in turn, recovered it under the cover of Mahazar Ex.P. 6 attested by the witnesses. Then he returned to the station along

with the accused and sent him to the judicial custody. Then he gave a requisition to the court to subject the material objects for chemical

examination and after having thus examined all the witnesses and completed investigation, he laid the final report against the accused in the court on

21-5-1987.

The accused had denied every one of the claim and allegations made by the prosecution witnesses, when he was examined under S. 313(1)(b)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence available against him and would tell further that P.Ws. 1 and 2

are the relatives of the deceased Sundaresan and P.W. 1 is running a rubber-sheet shop at Ponmani and in connection with the purchasing of

rubber-sheets in retail, there was enmity between him and P.W. 1 and when P.W. 2 stood for election of Panchayat member, he had worked

against him, and therefore, there was enmity existed between the accused and P.W. 2 and therefore P.Ws. 1 and 2 have deposed obviously

implicating him. To substantiate the contention of enmity, 5 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the accused.

D.W. 1 by name Kumarasamy, a medical officer attached to the Government Hospital, Kulasekaram claimed that, between 10:30 p.m. and

12.00 midnight on 20-2-87, he was not on duty in the hospital and that he had not seen Ex.P. 13 or 18 and that he did not examine the injured.

D.W. 2 by name Gopinathan, the Headmaster, attached to Government High School a Mangalam has stated that a student named I. Anuja

was admitted in the school on 1-6-78 and the application given for admission is marked under Ex.D-1 which contains the signature of her father C.

Sundaresan Nair. He has written his name C. Sundaresan in Malayalam and has signed in English.

D.W. 3 by name Mohan Nair, an Assistant Engineer working in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at Seruppalur division, has stated in his evidence

that during the time of occurrence in the instant case, the maintenance of street lights in the area of crime was vested with the Panchayat

administration and to operate the street lights there were separate switches, which can be operated either by the staff of Panchayat or by private

persons and to operate such switches there was a workman appointed by the Electricity Board.

D.W. 4 by name Vijayakumar has stated in his version before the court that on 20-2-87 at 9:30 p.m. he had been to the funeral procession of

one Padmanaba Pillai and that nearly 1000 persons had come for that ceremony and that the deceased Sundaresan Nair also came there and that

his house was situate 50 ft. away in the south from his house and that he and the deceased Sundaresan were returning to their houses at about

10:00 p.m. and at that time, the street light were not burning and he directed Sundaresan to go to his house, D.W. 4 went to his house, and that the

shops were closed, in view of Padmanaba Pillai''s death.

D.W. 5 by name Mancharan claimed that on 20-2-87 Padmanaba Pillai died and he had been to the condolence at about 8:00 p.m. and the

ceremony was over by 9:30 p.m. and that when, he along with P.W. 1 came to the house and took bath in the nearby tank and went to his house

and he (D.W. 5) took a torch light and gave it to P.W. 1. It was 1:00 p.m. on that day and that there were 12 street lights in that area and to

operate those lights, there was only one switch available there.

After having recorded the oral testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 17 on behalf of the prosecution and D.Ws. 1 to 5 on behalf of the accused, marked

documents Exs.P. 1 to 21 on behalf of the prosecution and Ex.D-1 on behalf of the accused, with the marking of 5 material objects, and after

having an elaborate discussion in a detailed manner of all the adduced legal evidence and circumstances of the rival contentions, the learned

Sessions Judge, appears to have discussed the matter from paras 29 to 57 of his impugned judgment and ultimately found the accused guilty for the

offence under S. 302 of Indian Penal Code as the prosecution has established the guilt and complicity of the accused, beyond all reasonable

doubts and accordingly convicted the accused and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for his life as aforesaid, by rendering the

impugned judgment and it is this judgment, being canvassed of its correctness and validity in this appeal.

We have heard the rival contentions of the Bar of the Appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State respondent,

assailing and justifying the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

Mr. K. V. Sridharan, the learned counsel appeared for the appellant first contended that the learned trial Judge has virtually failed to note the

habit of the deceased Sundaresan in putting his signature in English and writing his name in Malayalam, as evident from Ex.D-1 and it was totally

unusual to find that it was not in Ex.Ps. 1 and 2, when, it was particularly claimed that when the deceased Sundaresan had given the complaint to

the Kulasekaram Police Station, by setting the law in motion. Therefore, the learned counsel would contend that the First Information Report,

Ex.P. 1, in this case is not a genuine document and it would have been a cooked-up one, with the signature of the deceased at a latter stage and

since this aspect has not been considered by the learned trial Judge in the proper legal perspective, the impugned conviction and sentence has

become vitiated and that, therefore, the whole of the prosecution case suffers very much. This contention was pedant and controverted very

strenuously by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the context of the whole materials and legal evidence available before us, we have heard

with care and caution, perused Ex.P. 1 in its original as well as Ex.D-1. It is seen that in Ex.D-1, the contents were written in Malayalam, however

his signature was found in English. But it was significantly on 1-6-78. After a lapse of nearly nine years from that date. Ex.P. 1 came into existence

and that too, in a precarious condition of the deceased. It was the persistent claim of the prosecution that P.Ws 1 and 2 took him in a car and

reached the Kulasekaram Police Station within half an hour from the time of occurrence and the injured himself gave the statement orally to the

police and to his narration of the sequences of events, and the same was reduced into writing, read over to him and admitted by him as correct and

as a token of his acceptance, he has affixed his signature and it was attested by P.Ws. 1 and 2. It is the common knowledge that the signature of a

person varies year to year, month to month and necessarily bears differences and distinctions and that it is not proper to except the exact similarity

of a signature right through out his life. Moreover, in this case, it is seen that the signature of the deceased Sundaresan in English, as found in Ex.P.

1 and Ex.D-1 do not differ in any way, both remain the same. There is no iota of evidence or materials on behalf of the circumstances, to suspect

the truth and genuineness of Ex.P. 1 and that the owner of the signature Ex.P. 2 is the deceased, because of the contents of Ex.P. 1 was not found

in Malayalam, but for the reason above referred. Since it was reduced into writing in Tamil by the constable attached to Kulasekaram Police

Station the defence cannot be allowed to take advantage of it and say that Ex.P. 1 is not correct and genuine and for the said reasoning, enough for

us at this juncture to say that the first contention raised by the counsel for the appellant with regard to Ex.P. 1 or about its author and the contents

therein, is nothing, but an attempt to say something, which has no meaning at all. Therefore, we are inclined to reject the first contention of the

counsel for the appellant.

The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution case suffers for the reason of the unnecessary delay

caused in providing the medical treatment to the deceased and for which, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were the eye-witnesses, do not

render any help and that therefore, the version of prosecution ought to have been rejected. On the other hand, it was contended by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, in contra justifying the various findings given by the learned trial Judge. The accounting of P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the

occurrence happened at about 10:30 p.m. on 20-2-87 in the scene of crime till they reached Kulasekaram Police Station in a taxi and made the

deceased lodge the complaint and set the law in motion within half an hour is cogent and convincing and quick in succession, prove that they are

genuine and true evidence as evident from the acknowledgment Ex.P. 2 subscribed in Ex.P. 1. It is also noted at this juncture that after setting the

law in motion to proceed further with the investigation properly as provided by the rules of law, it must be incumbent on the part of the

Investigating Agency to provide the treatment to the lingering injured who sustained injuries. Accordingly, it is seen that with the medical memo

Ex.P. 18 the constable, attached to Kulasekaram Police Station, had accompanied the injured to the hospital, the cumulative effect of the

prosecution evidence in this regard, would show that the doctor was not available and even though at the other end, the doctor was met at his

residence for the reason of the precarious nature of the injured, he was advised to be taken to the Government Hospital, Kottar, where he was

found dead and consequently the death intimation was sent to the police and the section of the offence was altered and further investigation was

done accordingly. But, unfortunately in the meanwhile, the injured was found dead for the reason of his haematoma, caused to him by the fatality of

the injury caused by the accused in the course of offence. It is, therefore, under the circumstances, after having considered the pros and cons of the

adduced legal evidence and the established circumstances, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant fail to impress upon us and we,

therefore, reject his contentions in this regard also.

The next attempt projected before us is even, if the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 could have been believed, the prosecution produced no

adequate motive for the accused to stab him, and even if so, it was only a single stab and the overt acts of the accused neither attracts the culpable

homicide, amounting to murder nor any offence under S. 300 or 299 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel would therefore, submit, while

persuading us to accept the above contention that the accused and the deceased were friends, even prior to the occurrence, there nothing

untoward has happened even prior to the occurrence and that therefore, the aiming of the stab of the accused on the deceased at the time of

occurrence was due to a sudden impulse, not even intended on pre-meditated and that, therefore, the learned counsel would persuade us to note

that the learned trial Judge went to the extreme in rendering the impugned judgment.

After hearing both the sides and considering the established circumstance in the context of oral evidence adduced, particularly evidence of

P.Ws. 1 and 2 and P.W. 5, the wife of the deceased, we are totally unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel on behalf of the

appellant, for the very reasoning that the fact that the accused had borrowed a hand-loan of Rs. 50/- long before the occurrence and did not return

it at all, and that the claim of the prosecution that the accused borrowed the loan, promising to return on the next day, however, he never returned,

despite several repeated demands made by the deceased and in that sojourn, it is seen that on the funeral ceremony of one Padmanaba Pillai the

deceased happened to meet the accused and the deceased seems to have demanded his money is not at all disputed. But the response for his

demand on the part of the accused was, according to the prosecution.

(Vernacular matter omitted.)

One fellow is ascribed with his final funeral, and the next is due to you), added with, ""Don''t demand for money, hereafter'' the accused took M.O.

1 and stabbed him on the right side of his stomach, with the result that the injury so caused proved to be fatal and the deceased succumbed to the

same. The gravity of the offence, the Doctor would however, say that it is fatal and it is likely to, cause death in its ordinary course of nature and in

this case, the stab was very severe to the extent that the momentum of the stomach came out, through the external injury, that resulted in

haematoma, followed by his death. Though as single stab was aimed at the deceased, the words uttered by the accused, immediately proceeding

such an overt act, magnifies the gravity of the offence for no response on the part of the deceased, except demanding the money. Therefore, the

concept or element of provocation dealing with the single stab, without any knowledge to cause any injury instantly or on the spur of the moment

are not there for the very reasoning of the circumstances, the words claimed to have been uttered by the accused and the taking of the weapon of

offence from his waist, followed by the returning from his house in the opposite direction, after attending the funeral ceremony Padmanaba Pillai,

clearly projects the very intention of the accused and that therefore, having considered the above stated established circumstances, we have no

hesitation of any kind in our mind to hold that the accused was found with every preparation to cause injury to the deceased and that though it was

a single blow, it proved to be fatal and took away the life of the deceased and under these circumstances, the said established circumstances and

legal evidence clearly land the accused under thirdly of S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Judge was perfectly correct in assessing

the entire adduced legal evidence and established circumstances and in identifying the area and exactitude of the offence committed by the

accused. As such, we hold that the findings several in number, and the conclusions arrived at by the trial Judge, against the appellant herein, rather

numerous in character, kind and in number, are purely valid in law, based on the materials and evidences alone, and thus found to be on par with

law. To this extent, having bestowed our attention meticulously into each and every one of the aspect, placed before us, we are fully satisfied to

endorse our views with the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Judge and we reject the contentions made by the Bar, on behalf

of the appellant.

The learned counsel for the appellant would also lay some emphasis with regard to the claim that D.Ws. 4 and 5, in connection with the alleged

accompanying of the deceased, after attending the funeral ceremony of Padmanaba Pillai, just prior to the occurrence and that there was no street

light burning on that day, we are totally unable to accept the above contention, based on the evidence of P.Ws. 4 and 5, for the simple reason that,

firstly, their evidence lacks cogency, secondly, their evidence does not appear to be true evidence and from their attributed versions, it is deducible

that they are false in order to oblige the accused and if their versions are true, when P.Ws. 1 to 3 came to the box, they would have been

confronted with the circumstances, claimed by D.Ws. 4 and 5, which is totally and altogether a different one. But the prosecution witnesses seem

to have not been cross-examined on that score. Further, if the version of the defence witnesses are to be believed, then it is seen that, no where in

their evidence, they have shown that, how the deceased sustained that fatal injury. But, however, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt

and complicity of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The place of occurrence and the scene of crime seems to have been clearly fixed by

the Investigating Officer in the Observation Mahazar Ex.P. 2 and Rough sketch Ex.P. 3. The recovery of the Material Objects, near the scene of

occurrence at about 2 feet away by the Investigating Officer and sending of the Material Objects to Court and then subjecting the same for

chemical examination, not only demonstrate full support and corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, but also, falsifies the defence theory,

particularly as spoken by D.Ws. 4 and 5. The defence has not examined any Panchayat staff to show that the street light were not burning at the

relevant time. It is for all the foregoing reasons, though 5 witnesses have been examined, on behalf of the defence, which itself is a false

phenomenon, however, in our esteemed view, there is no importance in the case of defence. After having thus, carefully gone into the

circumstances specially, claimed by the defence witnesses, we are constrained to hold that the defence witnesses, have failed to establish the

circumstances, adverse to the claim of prosecution, with the result, added every strength and support and corroboration to the claim of P.Ws. 1

and 2. On this score also, we are at difficulty to accept the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant.

As there was no other point to raise, by and on behalf of the respective parties, we have gone through the entire impugned judgment, rendered

by the trial Judge, from paras 29 to 57, meticulously, and we do not come across any iota of material to differ with the same and that therefore, we

have necessarily to hold that the prosecution in the instant case has established the guilt and complicity of the accused, beyond the realm of any

doubt, in causing death of the deceased by homicidal violence and that, therefore, the relative circumstances established clearly lands, the accused

under 3rdly of Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, for which the sentence awarded by the learned trial Judge is perfectly valid in law and correct

and as such, we do not want to interfere with this impugned judgment. Thus this appeal has become non-meritorious.

In the result, for all the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed, Consequently, the conviction and sentence rendered

by the learned trial Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagarcoil in Sessions Case No. 69/87 dated 11-12-1987, against the accused is hereby confirmed and

maintained. Bail Bonds, if any, executed, by and on behalf of the accused are hereby ordered to be cancelled forthwith.

Appeal dismissed.