Vinodan vs State of Kerala

P. Bhavadasan, J.—The accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 325 of Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty on both counts and therefore, convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence u/s 325 of I.P.C. Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Set off was awarded u/s 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the prosecution the incident occurred on 6/11/2003 at about 8 p.m on the road near to the house of the deceased. The allegation is that on the day of the incident the accused came to the road which was situated near to the house of the deceased and abused him loudly. Hearing that the deceased came out of his house and asked the accused to go home. At that time, the accused had taken a chopper and beaten on the chest of deceased with its blunt portion and the deceased fell down and thereafter the accused with a knife stabbed on the left thigh of the deceased. Hearing his cry, PW1 his wife reached the place. The accused then attacked and beat her with chopper and she fell down. At that time, Asokan, and some other persons who heard the hue and cry reached the place and saw the accused ran away. The injured and PW1 were taken to the hospital by the children of the deceased. PW5 examined the deceased in C.H.C. Hospital, Perambra and prepared Ext. P3 wound certificate at 10.20 p.m on the same day and finding that the deceased could not be managed there, he was referred to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. PW1 who was also injured taken by her son to Medical College Hospital on the next day and she was attended by PW9 doctor and prepared Ext. P7 wound certificate. While undergoing treatment in the Medical College Hospital, on 9/11/2003 PW11 reached the hospital and recorded Ext. P9 FI statement furnished by the deceased and he registered crime as per Ext. P9(a) FIR. PW12 took over the investigation. He filed Ext. P10 report stating that offence u/s 307 is made out. Accused surrendered on 17/11/2003 and based on the confession statement said to have been given by the accused, Mos.1 and 2 were recovered by PW12 under Ext. P1 mahazar. Learning about the death of the injured Chappan Nair, he filed Ext. P13 report on 21/11/2003 incorporating the offence u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code. PW14 Circle Inspector of Police took over the investigation. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and furnished Ext. P5 inquest report. The articles seized during investigation by PW12 sent to the Court which were forwarded for chemical analysis. Ext. P18 is the chemical analysis report. He recorded statements of witnesses, completed investigation and laid the charge before the Court.

On finding that the offence is exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the case was referred to the Sessions Court, u/s 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The committal Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 302 and 325 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore examined Pws.1 to 14 and marked Exts. P1 to P19. Mos.1 and 2 were got identified and marked. After closing the prosecution evidence accused was questioned u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and mentioned that he is innocent. According to him the deceased who is the younger brother of his father and he was residing near to his house. He would say that there was no enmity or ill feeling towards Chappan Nair the deceased but he thought that deceased Chappan Nair had grudge against him. Accused admitted that Chappan Nair had sought original of partition deed which he had already pledged in the bank and therefore, he could give only the photostat. He would further say that the accused was not personally invited for the marriage of the daughter of Chappan Nair and hence he did not go for the marriage. On 6/11/2003, learning that Jyothi, wife of PW2 has been bitten by a snake, he went to the house of deceased to visit her. When he reached the house, mother of PW2 objected his entering the house since he did not come for the marriage and asked the accused as to why he came there and pushed him out of the house. His further case is that later in the evening when he was returning from market to his house at about 9 p.m when he reached near the water tap near to his house somebody had thrown stones at him. When he asked who was throwing the stones, Chappan Nair and his sons Mohanan and Manojan came scene. The accused told that Chappan Nair was just like his father and why he was throwing stones at him. Thereafter Chappan Nair asked that why he had come to his house when he was not there and hit him on the eye with a stone. Manojan, son of Chappan Nair tried to inflict injury on the accused which was warded of by him. That caused injury on his hand. He would say that by that time some people gathered at the place and snatched the chopper and threw it away. According to the accused when Chappan Nair approached him with a knife taken out from his loin and attempted to stab, he caught hold of Chappan Nair and there was scuffle. In the scuffle both of them fell down and at that time knife might have been hit on the body of Chappan Nair. Accused denied that he had inflicted any injury on Chappan Nair. He would also say that when he attempted to save himself, the knife might have touched the body of Chappan Nair.

On finding that the accused could not be acquitted u/s 232 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he was asked to enter on his defence. Accused himself examined as DW.1 and two other witnesses as Dws.2 and 3 and marked Exts. D1 to D3. On appreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the accused and therefore, convicted and sentenced him as already mentioned.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that even assuming that the prosecution case is true and correct, offence u/s 302 of I.P.C can never be attracted to the facts of the case. An attention was drawn to the fact that as soon as the accused saw Chappan Nair the first words uttered by him was that Chappan Nair was just like his father. But Chappan Nair and his sons threw stones and approached the accused with a chopper and tried to attack and cause stab injury on him. Learned counsel also pointed out that the prosecution case is that first attack was with blunt portion of the chopper and it fell on the chest of Chappan Nair which resulted only in a contusion. That act could not have been with an intention of causing death. Other injuries were on the thigh. Even though it is stated by PW10 that corresponding internal injury to injury No. 3 on the chest is sufficient to cause death, a reading of Ext. P8 postmortem certificate will not reveal any internal injury, which would have been sufficient to cause death. Learned counsel also submitted that if the intention was to cause death, accused would have used sharp portion of the weapon and would not have been used blunt portion of the weapon to inflict injuries on the chest of the deceased. Therefore, it is contended that the accused had no intention either to cause the death or to cause that that particular injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

Learned counsel would point out that as far as the evidence regarding the incident is concerned, the prosecution has examined only Pws.1 to 3 who were all interested witnesses. Even when the prosecution has a case that there were independent witnesses at the time of the incident, none of them was examined by the prosecution and that itself shows that if they had been examined, it would go against the prosecution and so an adverse inference will be drawn against the prosecution. Referring to Ext. P9 first information statement, learned counsel pointed out that totally a different version for the incident was given by Pws.1 to 3 when they were in the witness box. Referring the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 learned counsel pointed out that their evidence is inconsistent and contradictory. It is also pointed out that prosecution witnesses namely, Pws.1 to 3 were reluctant to admit that accused also had suffered injuries and it is evident from the defence evidence, namely, evidence of DW3 and Ext. D3 that he had suffered injuries and was admitted in the hospital on the same day at about 11 p.m. The prosecution has not offered any explanation for the injuries suffered by the accused. It is pointed out that non examination of the independent witnesses who could have spoken about true version of the incident is therefore fatal. Attention was drawn to the fact that incident had occurred on 6/11/2003 and FIR was lodged only on 9/11/2003. No explanation is given for the delay and that makes prosecution case doubtful. It is therefore pointed out that conviction and sentence passed by the Courts below are equally unsustainable in law.

Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand pointed out that the trial Court has considered the evidence in detail and found the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 sufficient to show that injuries were inflicted by the accused as alleged by the prosecution. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the injuries inflicted are sufficient to cause the death of Chappan Nair and therefore, offence clearly fall u/s 302 of I.P.C. It is pointed out that there would be contradictions and inconsistencies between the evidence of witnesses and infirmity in the first information statement. It does not affect the prosecution case, as those contradictions and inconsistencies are not so relevant and needs to be given undue importance to disbelieve the witnesses. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that even assuming that a portion of statement of a witness is unacceptable, Court can accept that portion which is trustworthy and is in tune with the prosecution case. A reading of the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 clearly shows that the incident has taken place as alleged by the prosecution and the aggressor is the accused. It is also pointed out that the evidence adduced by the accused shows that he had suffered only minor injuries in which case the prosecution was not bound to explain the injuries on the accused. Unless it is shown that the injuries suffered by the accused are serious injuries, the prosecution has no duty to explain the injuries sustained by the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor further pointed out that merely because independent witnesses have not been examined, prosecution case cannot fail. According to the learned Public Prosecutor it is not quantity of the evidence but quality of evidence that matters and there is nothing to show that evidence of Pws.1 to 3 are untrustworthy or fake and cannot be accepted. It is therefore, contended that findings of the court below that it was the accused who had inflicted injuries was proper and conviction and sentence do not call for any interference at all.

Ext. P9 first information statement was recorded by PW11 on 9/11/2003 on 9/11/2003 from Medical College Hospital while the deceased was undergoing treatment there. The version given in Ext. P9 is that on the day of incident accused at about 8 p.m, while the deceased was at home, came to the road near to his house and shouted and abused him. The deceased came out of his house and approached the accused and asked him to go home. Without any further provocation, the accused attacked him with a chopper and hit him with blunt portion of chopper which made him fall. Further statement is that when he tried to get up accused stabbed him on his left thigh twice. Hearing his cries when his wife came to his rescue, accused beat her with chopper and she also happened to fall down. At that time, Asokan and others came to the spot and deceased and PW1 were taken to the hospital. It is further stated that when the deceased was examined at C.H.C Hospital, since it was found that he could not be managed at C.H.C Hospital he was referred to Medical College Hospital.

Evidence of PW1 shows that deceased and accused were not on good terms and accused had not come for the marriage of his daughter. Earlier deceased had asked the accused for the original of the partition deed which was refused by the accused and that resulted in filing a complaint before the police. On 6/11/2003, at about 4 p.m accused had come to her house. She objected to his entry into the house because accused had not come for the marriage of her daughter, in spite of being invited. PW1 would say that at that time her husband was not in the house and accused left the house abusing her. PW1 would say that on the same day at about 8 p.m accused came on the road near to the house of the deceased and threatened that Chappan Nair would be killed by him and also abused him. PW1 would say that when Chappan Nair went out of the house the accused threw stones at him. PW1 claims to have immediately gone to the aid of her husband. According to PW1 at that time accused had a knife in one hand and chopper in other. She would say that when she reached the place accused attacked her husband with blunt portion of the chopper. Receiving a blow her husband fell down. At that time her son and his wife came to the spot. She would say that she tried to remove chopper from the hands of accused, when she was pushed by him and she fell down and she suffered injuries on her left hand. Going by her evidence, chopper was wrested from the accused by Asokan and her son Manojan who was examined as PW2 and they threw the chopper away to a nearby compound. While her sons, namely Pws.2 and 3 were helping her to get up, accused stabbed the deceased in the thigh with a knife in his hand. She would say that soon thereafter her husband was taken to C.H.C hospital, Perambra and from there to Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode. According to PW1 on the next day morning she was taken to the hospital by her son and then it was found that she had suffered a fracture. She would say that her husband passed away on 20/11/2003 at 9.40 p.m. She had identified Mos.1 and 2 weapons which were used by the accused.

Evidence of PW2, who is one of the sons of PW1, is to the effect that when the accused came to the house in the evening of 6/11/2003 to see his wife who had been bitten by snake, his mother and he had objected to him from entering into the house. He would point out that they had exchanged words between them. He would say that at about 8 p.m accused came to the road nearby and abused them. His father asked the accused to go home. At that time according to PW2 accused pelted stones at them. Going by the evidence of PW2, then the deceased, himself, PW3 and wife of PW2 along with PW1 had gone to the road. No sooner than they reached the road accused is said to have attacked the deceased with MO.1 chopper. When PW2 tried to intervene she was pushed aside and she fell down. When Pws.2 and 3 were trying to help PW1 to get up, they saw accused inflicting stab injuries on the deceased. He would say that his father was taken to the hospital in a jeep he had gone along with his father. He also says that his father breathed his last while undergoing treatment in Medical College Hospital.

PW3 is another son of PW1 and the deceased. He also gave almost similar version as PW2.

Going by the versions given by Pws.1 to 3 the incident appeared to be that, first the accused attacked the deceased with blunt portion of chopper which blow fell on the chest and later he stabbed the deceased with a knife. When PW1 went to rescue of her husband she was attacked and she was pushed on the ground.

It is true that the version given by Pws.1 to 3 are not consistent with the version found in Ext. P9. The author of Ext. P9 is no more. However, the fact remains that evidence of Pws.1 to 3 shows that injuries were inflicted by the accused, deceased as well as PW1. True, the prosecution could have examined independent witnesses who were available at the scene of occurrence. Pws.1 to 3 also say others had come at the spot. But merely because the independent witnesses were not examined, that by itself is not a ground to doubt the version given by Pws.1 to 3. True, narration of the incident spoken to by Pws.1 to 3 are slightly different and not uniform and consistent. But as regards the case of the prosecution, there is consistency in their versions. Of course, PW.1 would say that Pws.2 and 3 had come there. But later PW2 and PW3 would say that they come to the spot together. Whatever that be, the fact that deceased had suffered injuries on the hands of the accused and so also PW1.

It is true that accused had suffered injuries in the incident. He seems to have been admitted in the hospital at 11 a.m on 6/11/2003 on the same day as could be seen from Ext. D3 and from the evidence of DW3. On going through Ext. D3 it could be seen that injuries suffered by the accused are minor injuries. He had examined DW2 in support of his case. But going through the evidence of DW2 we find his version cannot be accepted. As rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor prosecution is not bound to explain minor injuries suffered by the accused in the incident. There is nothing to show that the deceased and the aggressor could be said to have provoked the accused to act in self defence. In spite of the inconsistency in the version of Pws. 1 to 3 regarding the sequence of event, the lower court has chosen to accept their evidence for convincing reasons. Though it would have been only proper for the prosecution to examine the independent witnesses, we do not find that evidence of Pws.1 to 3 is totally unbelievable and inconsistent with each other so as to disbelieve the prosecution case. From their evidence, it is clear that it was the accused who had inflicted injuries on the deceased. Even though there is delay in lodging the FIR, neither the Inspector who recorded FI statement nor the Investigating Officer was asked about the delay and there is no suggestion to them whether the delay was deliberate. There is nothing to show that the accused had preferred any complaint. At any rate, even assuming there is some delay it does not appear to be deliberate nor does it show that it has caused any prejudice to the accused.

Next question that arises for consideration is the cause of death of Chappan Nair. Ext. P3 wound certificate prepared at C.H.C. Hospital, Perambra by PW5 doctor where Chappan Nair was taken in the first instance, shows three injuries. Evidence of PW5 to the effect that he referred Chappan Nair to Medical College Hospital after giving first aid as the deceased could not be managed in C.H.C Hospital. Evidence discloses that Chappan Nair was admitted at Medical College Hospital and nearly after 14 days till he breathed his last on 20/11/2003. It is pertinent to note that prosecution did not venture to produce the treatment records relating to Chappan Nair at Medical College Hospital, at least to show the care and nature of treatment given to Chappan Nair.

Ext. P8 is the postmortem certificate issued by PW10 doctor who had conducted autopsy on the body of Chappan Nair. Ext. P8 shows the following antemortem injuries.

Healing wound 1.8x1.5 cm front of abdomen, it covered with yellowish slough, placed 8 cm above hip margin and 11 cm outer to left of midline.

Healing sutured wound 5.5 cm long with 3 sutures in situ, well apposed edges over the outer aspect of left thigh, upper end 19 cm, below hip (anterior superior iliac spine).

contusion 12x5 cm left side of back of lower chest, brownish, inner end 13.5 cm outer to left of midline and lower limit at costal margin.

Sutures wound, curved, with convexity up and outwards, 12 cm long, 5 sutures in situ, gaping 0.5-0.8 cm, infected edges and yellowish slough at base, the upper inner end at 4.5 cm below hip margin and 7 cm outer to left of midline, outer and lower end 12.5 cm below hip margin. Track of this wound traced to left pelvic side wall found to have 11 cm depth, consistent with the direction of the wound. Left pelvic side wall showed healing sutured wound, with sutures in situ, 4 cm long.

Contusion, soft tissue over posterior abdominal wall 8x1.5 cm, right side in relation to right common iliac artery.

Healing sutured wound, 3 sutures insitu, 5.2 cm long, 0.5-1 cm gaping, transversely placed 15 cm below injury 4, placed 8 cm above natal cleft.

Healing sutured wound 4 cm long 0.8 cm gaping at upper end, the remaining apposed well (3 sutures-this injury placed 14 cm below injury 6).

The opinion given by PW10 the doctor as to the cause of death of deceased are due to the complications following injuries sustained. Evidence of PW10 shows that complications made mentioned of in Ext. P8 are massive blood loss, septicemia result in Acute respiratory distress syndrome. Of course, evidence of PW10 shows that injury No. 3 which is found on the chest of the deceased is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor however, says that injury No. 3 which though by itself is not sufficient, with corresponding internal injury is sufficient to cause death. The doctor was not asked by the prosecution to clarify which is the corresponding internal injury to external injury No. 3. We are also unable on a reading of Ext. P8 to discern which is the corresponding internal injury referred to by PW10 in his deposition. Therefore, death of Chappan Nair can be taken to be as only as resulted massive blood loss, septicemia due to the injuries followed by acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, it is clear that death of Chappan Nair was as a result of the injuries suffered by him and death was homicidal.

Next question to be considered is what is the offence committed by the accused. As long as there is nothing to show that external injury No. 3 which is on the chest of the deceased is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it would not be said that accused had intention to cause the death of Chappan Nair or he intended to inflict that particular injury which is sufficient to cause death. If the intention was to cause death or inflict a fatal injury the accused would not have used that portion of the chopper. Other injuries are on left thigh. The stab injuries are not on the vital parts of the body and it could not be said that accused had intention to inflict those injuries with the intention of causing death of Chappan Nair. Going by the evidence on records, we are unable to say how the acts of the accused even if they are taken as proved as alleged by the prosecution would fall u/s 300 of I.P.C. It is difficult to come to the conclusion that accused had inflicted injuries with the intention of causing death of Chappan Nair or had intention to inflict those particular injury/injuries which are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Chappan Nair.

However, accused must be credited with the knowledge that the injuries inflicted by him on the deceased is sufficient to cause death and hence the act should therefore, fall within Section 299 of Indian Penal Code. Since there is no intention to cause death and only knowledge could be attributed to him, he is found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code. We therefore, are of the opinion that even though accused cannot be found guilty of the offence u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code. He is guilty of the offence punishable u/s 304 part II of Indian Penal Code.

In the result, appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence passed by First Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode in S.C.684/2005 for the offence u/s 302 is set aside. The accused is found guilty of the offence punishable u/s 304 part II as well as Section 325 of Indian Penal Code. He is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence u/s 304 Part II and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The substantive sentence and fine awarded by the court below for the offence u/s 325 of the Indian Penal Code is retained. However, it is made clear that the sentence shall run concurrently and he is entitled to set off as per law.