IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU
TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1940
CRL.A.No. 772 of 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 115/2012 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
COURT-II (SPECIAL), KOTTAYAM DATED 29-01-2015
CP 6/2012 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-
I,KANJIRAPPALLY
CRIME NO. 485/2011 OF PALLIKKATHODE POLICE STATION
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RAJESH
AGED 34 YEARS
S/O.PURUSHOTHAMAN, KALATHIPPADIKKAL HOUSE,
CHANNACOLONIYIL, PAKKAYAM BHAGOM, THIDANADU
KARA, KONDOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.MIJI JOHN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:2:-
2 CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
PALLIKATHODU POLICE STATION (CRIME NO.485/2011
OF PALLIKATHODU POLICE STATION)
BY ADV.SR. PP SRI. ALEX M. THOMBRA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18.02.2019, THE COURT ON 26.2.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:3:-
JUDGMENT
Shaffique, J.
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant Rajesh
challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge – II (Special) by which
the appellant is found guilty for offences under Sections 450, 302
and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’) and was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
`1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a default stipulation of
rigorous imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 302
of I.P.C. and also sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to
pay a fine of `50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a
default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months for
offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and further sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of
`25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with a default
direction of rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence
under Section 450 of IPC. All sentences were directed to run
concurrently. It was further directed that if fine amount is
realized, `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) should be paid to
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:4:-
PW2 as a compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C’).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 29/10/2011 at
06.30 P.M., the appellant/accused with an intention to commit
murder, criminally trespassed upon the house of the deceased
Gopi Mohanan which was situated at Elampally kara in Anickadu
village and that he with the knowledge and intention of causing
death of Gopi Mohanan, attacked him with a weapon like chopper
and inflicted fatal injuries over his forehead, chest, stomach and
other parts of his body while he was in his bed room near to the
kitchen of the house and caused the death of Gopi Mohanan and
further that the appellant/accused inflicted fatal injuries to PW2
who is the wife of the deceased Gopi Mohanan with the same
weapon with the intention and knowledge that his acts would
cause death of PW2 and thereby attempted to commit murder of
PW2.
3. Prosecution examined PW1 to PW18 as witnesses,
marked Exts.P1 to P16 series and identified material objects MO1
to MO9. During 313 examination, the appellant herein submitted
that he is innocent and that he was falsely implicated by PW1 to
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:5:-
PW3 due to their enmity towards him. While examining
prosecution witnesses, Exts.D1 and D2 were marked. No defence
evidence is adduced.
4. Learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the
appellant Smt.Miji John argued that the appellant is innocent in
this case. He is falsely implicated. Witnesses of the prosecution
are highly interested witnesses and they were on inimical terms
with the appellant. The nature of incident shows that the attack
on the victims was one done by more than one person. The
alleged recovery is a fabricated one. Trial Court erred in its
appreciation of evidence. She pleaded for extending benefit of
doubt to the appellant and argued for an acquittal. She placed
reliance on the verdict of the Supreme Court in Kuna @ Sanjaya
Behera v. State of Odisha (AIR 2017 SC 5364) and also the
judgment of the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in
Jagjeet Ram and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh (2018 KHC
4587) to support her arguments.
5. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri.Alex
M.Thombra submitted that prosecution proved the case against
the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. PW2 and PW3 deposed
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:6:-
how the appellant unleashed brutal attack on the deceased and
PW2. The injuries were brutal. Direct evidence is sufficiently
corroborated by medical, scientific, recovery and other evidence.
All the material available proves beyond doubt the involvement
of the appellant in the crime. He mercilessly butchered his own
father-in-law. Court below is justified in finding the appellant
guilty for all the charged offences and also in awarding of
sentence and hence he pleaded for non-interference by this
Court.
6. Evidence adduced by the prosecution, in short, are as
under:-
PW1 is the son of the deceased and PW2. He gave Ext.P1
FIS based on which PW17 registered Ext.P10 FIR on 30/10/2011 at
03.00 A.M. PW2 is the wife of the deceased and an injured eye-
witness. PW3 is the daughter of the deceased and the wife of the
appellant. She is an eye-witness to the incident. PW4 helped PW1
to take the injured to the hospital. PW5 is an autorickshaw driver
in whose auto the appellant had travelled from Neyyattusseri
junction to Oorali bhagom immediately after the incident. It is to
PW6 a neighbour that the appellant had allegedly given an extra-
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:7:-
judicial confession soon after the incident. PW7 proved Ext.P2
mahazar prepared for the seizure of sim card used by the
appellant. PW8 is an attestor to Ext.P3 scene mahazar. PW9 is an
attestor to Ext.P4 inquest report prepared by PW18. PW10 is the
Doctor who examined PW2 at 07.30 P.M. on 29/10/2011 and
issued Ext.P5 wound certificate. Ext.P16 series case records from
the hospital and Ext.D1 contradiction are marked through PW10.
PW11 is an attestor to Ext.P6 mahazar for the recovery of MO3
weapon. He is declared hostile to the prosecution. MO2 is also
proved through this witness. PW12 is the one who helped the
police to recover the weapon from the well after emptying the
well. PW13 is a social worker who is an attestor to Ext.P7
mahazar for the seizure of MO1, MO2 and MO4. PW14 is the
Village Officer, Anickadu who prepared Ext.P8 scene plan. PW15
is the Doctor who conducted the autopsy of the deceased and
issued Ext.P9 certificate. PW16 is the Scientific Assistant of FSL
Unit attached to DCRB, Kottayam. He visited the place of
occurrence and collected five items from the spot and handed
them over to the investigating officer. PW17 recorded Ext.P1 FIS
of PW1 and based on the same registered Ext.P10 FIR. He took
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:8:-
Ext.P1(a) body note of PW2 at Medical College Hospital. Ext.D2 is
the death intimation from Medical College to the police. PW18 is
the C.I. of Police, Ponkunnam. He took over the investigation on
30/10/2011 and prepared Ext.P4 inquest report at 09.00 A.M. on
the same day. Ext.P3 is the scene mahazar prepared at 03.30 P.M.
through which MO5 to MO8 were seized. On 01/11/2011 at 10.45
A.M, he recovered MO3 from the well of the appellant and it was
seized as per Ext.P6 mahazar. With the help of PW12 he
recovered MO1, MO2 and MO4 based on Ext.P7(a) confession
statement of the appellant. Ext.P7 is the mahazar prepared for
the same. Ext.P13 series is the property list. Ext.P14 is the FSL
report and Ext.P15 is the chemical analysis report. He completed
the investigation and filed the charge-sheet.
7. There is no dispute to the fact that the deceased
herein is Gopi Mohanan who is the husband of PW2, father of PW1
and PW3 and father-in-law of the appellant. Ext.P4 is the inquest
report. PW15 is the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem
examination of the deceased on 30/11/2011 at 1.50 P.M. and
issued Ext.P9 certificate. He deposed that he noted the following
ante-mortem injuries on the corpse of Gopi:-
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:9:-
“1. Incised wound 4×0.5 cm muscle deep obliquely placed
on forehead, its lower front end 4 cm above inner end of
left eyebrow and 1 cm outer to midline.
2. Incised wound 1×0.2 cm muscle deep obliquely
placed on the right side of forehead 1.5 cm outer to mid
line and 0.5 cm above eyebrow.
3. Incised wound 2.5×0.5 cm muscle deep on the right
upper eyelid.
4. Incised wound 7×1-1.2 cm bone deep horizontally
placed on the right side of face its inner end 3 cm outer to
ala of nose. The maxilla bone underneath was seen cut.
Brain showed subarachnoid haemorrhage involving right
parietal lobe.
5. Incised wound 5×1 cm muscle deep obliquely placed
with bevelled margin on the right side of back of head and
neck, its upper outer end 6 cm outer to midline and 8 cm
above root of neck.
6. Incised penetrating wound 4×1.5 cm obliquely
placed on the left side of front of chest its upper outer
sharply cut end 14 cm below collar bone and 5 cm inner to
the nipple at the 8 O’clock position. Penetrating through
fifth left intercostal space, the wound terminated by
making an incision 3 cm long on inner border of lower lobe
of left lung. The left lung was pale and collapsed. The
pericardial sac of heart showed infiltration with blood. Left
chest cavity contained 500 ml. of blood. The track of the
wound was directed backward, downward and to right for
a depth of 5 cm.
7. Incised penetrating wound 7×2 cm obliquely placed
across the front of chest with its right lower front sharply
cut end at the level of costal margin and 19 cm below
collar bone. The left back upper end showed two parallel
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:10:-
tailing 1.5 cm long, 0.5 cm apart. Penetrating through the
right lower costal margin and abdominal wall the wound
terminated by cutting the left lobe of liver 7×1 cm
involving its full thickness. The wound was directed
backward, downward and to the left for a total minimum
depth of 10 cm. Abdominal cavity contained one litre of
blood.
8. Curved superficial incised wound 23 cm long skin
deep obliquely placed across the right side of front of
shoulder and left chest its right upper end 1.5 cm above
collar bone.
9. Superficial incised wound 5 cm long oblique on the
right side front of abdomen, its upper inner end 0.5 cm
outer to midline and 2 cm below costal margin.
10. Incised wound 2.5x 1 cm, muscle deep horizontal on
left side of front of lower abdomen 7 cm outer to midline
and 4 cm below upper prominence of hip bone.”
According to him, the injuries sustained to the head, chest and
abdomen resulted in the death of Gopi Mohanan. He further
opined that all the injuries noted on the body of the deceased
could be caused by MO1 chopper. Injury nos. 4, 6 and 7 are
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also
stated that it is possible to inflict stab wounds using MO1. Hence
from these evidence, it can safely be concluded that the death of
Gopi Mohanan was a homicide.
8. PW10 is the Doctor who examined PW2 in the Medical
College Hospital, Kottayam on 29/10/2011 at 07.30 P.M. Ext.P5 is
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:11:-
the wound certificate issued by her. She deposed that the
following injuries were noted on PW2:-
“1. Incised wound 5x2x2 cm x right parietal region
2. Incised wound 5x2x2 cm posterior part of right side of
neck”
9. According to her, the injuries noted are on the vital
parts of the body and they are grave in nature. Those incised
wounds could be caused by MO1. Ext.P16 series is the case
record of her treatment in Medical College Hospital. Ext.P1(a) is
the body note of PW2 prepared by PW17 in Medical College
Hospital. Even keeping the oral testimony aside, these evidence
clearly shows that PW2 had sustained fatal injuries on her body
on 29/10/2011 during the course of the same transaction in which
attack was unleashed on the deceased.
10. The only question remaining is who caused the said
fatalities on the above victims. It can be seen that the appellant
is convicted for offence under Section 302 for murdering Gopi
Mohanan who is his father-in-law. He is also found guilty for
offence under Section 307 for attempting to murder PW2
Ponnamma who is his mother-in-law. He was sentenced to suffer
life imprisonment for both offences. As far as Section 450 is
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:12:-
concerned, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
10 years. All sentences were with fine and default imprisonment
stipulation. To arrive at its conclusion, Court below inter alia
heavily relied on the oral evidence of PW2 and PW3. The most
important question under consideration is whether the Court
below is justified in arriving at its verdict in the backdrop of
available evidence.
11. Coming to the evidence in detail, PW2 is the wife of
the deceased and mother-in-law of the appellant. She is an
injured eye-witness. She stated that the incident happened on
29/10/2011 at 06.30 P.M. Herself, her husband, son and daughter
were living in Mohanavilasom Veedu. The appellant married her
daughter Nisha (PW3) in the year 2006 and during 2011 they
were living separately. There were frequent quarrels between
them. Initially, both of them resided in the house of the appellant.
Later, they shifted to Vanchimala on rental basis. There the
appellant tried to commit suicide. PW3 was taken back home. A
case was registered against the appellant. Later, as per the
direction of the Court, for the purpose of reconciliation, they
stayed together in a house near to the house of PW2. There also
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:13:-
the appellant continued his quarrelsome attitude. One day,
hearing the hue and cry, PW1 rushed to the house of the
appellant. The appellant inflicted cut injuries on PW1 and a
criminal case was lodged in connection with that incident.
Thereafter, PW3 was staying in PW2’s house. A divorce petition
was filed before the Family Court, Ettumanoor. On the date of
incident, PW2 along with her daughter PW3 had gone to the
Family Court in connection with the said case. The appellant was
also present in Court. It is her version that the appellant
threatened both of them. They told the same to her husband (the
deceased herein). Then her husband told her that at around
03.30 P.M. on the same day, the appellant had called him over
phone and threatened. At about 06.30 P.M., her husband was
taking coffee and she went to grind coconut near the stone kept
for the purpose which was near the kitchen of the house. PW3
was present in the kitchen at that time. At that time she saw the
appellant standing there. She asked the appellant why he was
standing there. Then the appellant took a weapon which
resembled a chopper used for slicing meat and inflicted cut
injuries on the right side of the neck of PW2. PW3 tried to save
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:14:-
her by attempting to take her to the kitchen. Then the appellant
inflicted a cut injury with the same weapon on the upper part of
the right ear of PW2. PW3 managed to draw PW2 into the kitchen.
At that time her husband (the deceased) rushed to the spot. As
he reached kitchen, the appellant had pushed him to the cot and
started cutting him with the chopper indiscriminately. It is her
version that the appellant had inflicted cut and stab injuries on
the face and chest of the deceased, stabbed at the forehead and
also on the chest. First stab was inflicted on the chest and the
chopper was drawn back. Thereafter he was stabbed on the
abdomen also. Seeing the horrible stabbing and cutting, PW3
went into the nearby room and closed the door. PW2 got into
another room near the hall and closed the door. The appellant
had broken the door of the room in which PW3 had entered. Then
PW3 ran away. The appellant made a hole in door of the room in
which PW2 had entered. He had broken the glass of the window
on the back side. After sometime, as there was no noise, PW2
came out and went near to her husband and sat with him. Her
husband was seen lying on the cot in a pool of blood. After
sometime, PW1 her son reached there with some people and her
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:15:-
husband was taken to hospital. She was also taken to the
hospital. It is her version that the appellant was wearing a cream
colour shirt and white dhothi at that time. She identified MO1 as
the weapon used for inflicting injuries on them. According to her,
the reason for the attack was the filing of Court case against the
appellant by her daughter(PW3). There was electric light at that
time in their house. She was treated as in-patient in hospital for 5
to 6 days. During cross-examination, she denied the suggestion
of the defence that the attack on them was done by a group of
people and not the appellant. Questions were directed to the
effect that there was no light at the relevant time and that the
witnesses were not able to identify who the assailants were. PW2
categorically denied the said suggestion. She also denied the
suggestion that the injuries on her was sustained as a result of
her being jammed between the door and doorpost. She stood
firm in her version in the chief examination.
12. PW3 is the daughter of the deceased and PW2. She
was the wife of the appellant. Their marriage took place on 30 th
April 2006. She stayed at her matrimonial home for a few years.
A child was born in the wedlock. Then they shifted to Vanchimala
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:16:-
for rent. According to her, the appellant was in the habit of
quarrelling with and beating her after consuming alcohol. During
their stay at Vanchimala, the appellant came in a drunken state
and quarrelled and attempted to commit suicide. So, she went
back to her parental home. She filed a petition for divorce and
there was a family counselling also. As they were advised to live
together, a house was taken for rent near to her parental house
and they began to stay there. But the appellant continued his
alcoholism and assault on PW3. On 16/07/11, the appellant came
after consuming alcohol and started manhandling her. PW1 who
is the brother of PW3 came there and the appellant had inflicted
cut injuries on the lower leg of PW1. The appellant thereafter left
the house. PW3 and the child began to live with her parents. A
case was registered against the appellant by PW3 for harassment
and cruelty. According to PW3, the incident happened on
29/10/2011. PW3 and PW2 went to the Family Court in connection
with the case on that day. The appellant was also present there.
They were called for counselling. After the same, the appellant
threatened PW2 that he would ‘show’ them. Both PW2 and PW3
left the Court taking a different route. They got into a bus and
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:17:-
reached home. At that time her father was not there at home. By
06.00 P.M., her father reached there. They told the incident to
father. At that time her father told her that the appellant had
called him at about 03.30 P.M. on the same day and threatened
him also. Thereafter, PW3 went to the kitchen. PW2 gave a cup of
coffee to Gopi Mohanan (the deceased). Then PW2, for grinding
coconut, went out through the kitchen door. It is the version of
PW3 that she heard her mother PW2 telling “Why are you
standing here?” It was about 06.30 P.M. As she went there, she
saw the appellant inflicting cut injuries on the neck of PW2 using
a chopper resembling one used for slicing meat. She caught hold
on the left hand of PW2 and pulled her inside. She tried to close
the door also. But PW2 did not fully get in, as her head was still
outside. At that time the appellant had inflicted cut injury on the
upper part of the right ear. PW3 pulled her mother into the
kitchen. The appellant forcefully pushed the kitchen door open
and entered in. Hearing hue and cry, her father came to the spot.
The appellant stabbed him on his abdomen. Then he pushed him
on to the cot and began to stab on the forehead, chest and on
different parts of the body. She also deposed that she had seen
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:18:-
some other weapons also with the appellant. PW2 ran into a
nearby room on the eastern side and closed the door. PW3 also
ran into another room on the western side. At that time the
appellant had broken open the door of the room in which PW3
was. Her father told her to raun away. As the appellant’s attention
was diverted, PW3 ran for her life and reached the house of CW4.
She stated the incident to CW4. CW4 called PW1 and told the
incident. After some time, PW1 came to the house of CW4 along
with Roy. She narrated the incident to PW1. PW1 went to the
place of incident and had taken the injured to hospital. She
identified MO1 as the weapon used for inflicting injuries on the
victims. According to her, the appellant committed all these
violence because of his enmity developed towards her parents
out of the conception that it were her parents who persuaded her
to lodge case against the appellant. She stated that MO1 was
shown to her by the police. Nothing material is brought out in
evidence to discredit her version regarding the over act, motive
and conduct of the appellant.
13. This is a case in which there is evidence of eye-
witnesses. PW2 and PW3 are natural and probable witnesses. The
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:19:-
incident happened in the dwelling house of the victims and that
too at 06.30 P.M. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that no independent witnesses from neighbourhood
were examined is flimsy and is only to be discarded in the facts
and circumstances of this case. It is settled that the prosecution
has the prerogative to examine or not to examine any witness to
prove a fact and can even give up any witness. S.134 of the
Evidence Act is clear on the aspect that it is not the number of
witnesses but the quality of their evidence that matters.
Testimonies of PW2 and PW3 corroborate each other in material
particulars. They deposed the incident in detail. Their evidence is
credible and reliable. The said evidence are amply corroborated
by evidence of PW1, PW4 and PW5 in other aspects as detailed
earlier.
14. As far as the identity of the assailant is concerned, the
defence put forth a case that the attack was carried out by more
than one person and the witnesses were not able to identify the
assailants as there was no light available. To hold their argument,
the defence relied on Ext.P5 issued by PW10 Doctor who treated
PW2 on 29/10/2011 at about 07.30 P.M. which is the most
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:20:-
contemporaneous document. In Ext.P5, it is recorded that assault
was by identifiable persons. Counsel for the appellant argued that
Ext.P5 clearly shows that the actual assailants were other
persons, not the appellant herein. But we do not find any reason
to agree with the said argument in the light of available evidence.
PW10 deposed that the said history was not spoken to by PW2.
She recorded the same based on hearsay. PW2 also did not have
a case that she deposed to PW10 about the identity of the
assailant. That apart, no trace of evidence is placed on record to
show that more than one person is involved in the commission of
offence. On the other hand, evidence available shows that it was
the appellant who committed the overt acts as alleged by the
prosecution. The case of the appellant is that he was not even
present at the time of offence at the place of occurrence. It is
proved to be false.
15. Appellant was also found guilty by the trial Court for
attempting to murder PW2. First and second limb of Section 307
of IPC reads as follows:
“307. Attempt to murder.–Whoever does any act with
such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances
that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
Crl.Appeal No.772/15-:21:-
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any
person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to
[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is
hereinbefore mentioned.”
16. It is well established that for attracting offence under
Section 307 of IPC, it is not necessary that injury capable of
causing death should have been inflicted. The most crucial factor
to be considered is whether the facts and circumstances of the
case reveal the guilty intent or knowledge of the accused to
commit offence as detailed in Section 307 of IPC. It is a question
of fact to be gathered from the attending circumstances of each
case. It is in evidence that the appellant herein inflicted injuries
on the vital part of the body of PW2 i.e., neck and head with a
deadly weapon like MO1 chopper. It is also in evidence that he
was carrying more than one weapon with him. There was no
provocation at all from the victims. Obviously, PW2 is an injured
eye-witness. She suffered fatal injuries on the vital part of her
body in the incident. Evidence would show that after attacking
the deceased brutally, the appellant tried to break the door of
the room in which PW2 was sheltered herself. What would have
happened had he been succeeded in opening the door we do not
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:22:-
know. His acts and subsequent conduct as deposed to by the
witnesses would show that he had the intention to kill PW2
though could not succeed. She lost her husband in the incident.
We don’t think she would falsely implicate another person by
sparing the real culprit. We are of the view that in the case at
hand, the circumstances under which the attempt to inflict fatal
injuries were carried out would bring the deeds of the appellant
under Section 307 of IPC.
17. On appreciation of evidence, it can be seen that
motive for the crime is clearly established by the prosecution
through the evidence of PW1 to PW3. Evidence on record would
show that the appellant had premeditation to commit the offence.
He planned it in such a way that he carried with him four deadly
weapons (MO1 to MO4), lurked near the dwelling house of the
victims by the dusk of the day and attacked the victims
indiscriminately. It can be seen that the appellant had broken
open the door of the room in which PW3 was locked herself up.
He tried to assault her also. Luckily for the appellant, no charge
was framed by the trial Court for the said offence.
18. The appellant was not staying with the victims herein.
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:23:-
He was at loggerheads with them. He threatened PW2 and the
deceased on the date of incident. There is no cross-examination
on that point. It is also in evidence that the appellant carried
weapons of offence with him to the house of the victims. These
acts of the appellant and the ultimate result of his trespass into
the house loudly speak of his intentions and the purpose with
which he entered into the dwelling house of the victims. Hence
we would conclude that the Court below is justified in convicting
the appellant under Section 450 of IPC.
19. Having gone through the evidence of two eye-
witnesses PW2 and PW3 and other materials on record, we are of
the view that the prosecution proved the case against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It is crystal clear that it was
the appellant who had broken into the dwelling house of the
victims, it was he who had inflicted fatal injuries on PW2 who is
his own mother-in-law and it was he who had inflicted as many as
nine incised wounds which resulted in the death of his father-in-
law. Medical evidence already detailed would corroborate the
detailed oral testimony of the witnesses. The weapon of offence
was recovered at the instance of the appellant from a well. The
Crl.Appeal No.772/15
-:24:-
place of concealment is revealed by the disclosure statement of
the appellant. The weapon is found to be stained with human
blood. Court below did not rely on the alleged extra-judicial
confession made by the appellant to PW6 which we also do not
rely. The evidence of PW1 and Ext.P1 FIS given by him sufficiently
corroborate the evidence of PW2 and PW3 to the extent that PW2
was seen injured with the deceased who was lying in a pool of
blood in the house in which the incident took place. Evidence of
PW5 shows that the appellant hired his autorikshaw to travel from
Neyyattusseri junction which is near the scene of occurrence to
Oorali bhagom soon after the incident. We do not find any error in
the finding of the trial Judge. The incident was so unfortunate.
Appellant acted in a cruel manner. No interference is called for.
The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
A.M.SHAFFIQUE
JUDGE
Sd/-
A.M.BABU
Rp True copy JUDGE
P.S. To Judge