Raman Vs. State of
Kerala [2008] INSC 1394 (20 August 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1308 OF 2008
[Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1304 of 2008] Raman .....
Appellant Versus
State of Kerala ..... Respondent
Lokeshwar Singh
Panta, J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Appellant
has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2005 passed by
a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal
No.60/2004 [C] confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life
in respect of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
[for short `IPC'] and a fine of Rs.15,000/- with a default stipulation of
simple 2 imprisonment for one year awarded by the Fast Track Court No.-II,
Manjeri on 12.12.2003 in Sessions Case No.439/2001.
3.
Brief
facts, which led to the trial of the accused, are as follows:
Raman-appellant
herein, Narayanan (PW-1), Nadi (PW-6) and Unnikrishnan @ Bapputty-deceased were
living at Edayattur, District Mambarakunnu. On 21.04.2000 at about 8:00 p.m.,
PW-1 and PW-6 were chatting by the side of the road when they heard the
appellant and the deceased indulging in wordy quarrel. PW-6 intervened and
separated them. Unnikrishnan then proceeded to his house and the appellant went
towards the house of PW-6. PW-6 returned to the courtyard of the house of PW-1
along with Unnikrishnan.
The appellant alleged
to have uttered abusive language against Unnikrishnan who in retaliation pulled
the appellant's shirt collar. The appellant is alleged to have stabbed
Unnikrishnan in his abdomen with knife (MO.1).
Unnikrishnan
collapsed on the spot and uttered that he was finished. PW-6 bandaged the wound
of Unnikrishnan. PW-1 3 informed Velayudhan (PW-2), the younger brother of
Unnikrishnan about the incident who arrived at the spot where Unnikrishnan was
lying on the embankment by the side of the road. PW-2 and others took
Unnikrishnan to the District Hospital, Manjeri, where the Casualty Medical
Officer examined him but he was declared dead.
4.
PW-6
went to Melattur Police Station and made statement on the basis of which First
Information Report (Ext. P4) came to be registered by Abdulla (PW-9),
Sub-Inspector.
After registering the
case, K. Manoharakumar, Circle Inspector (PW-10) went to the Hospital and
conducted Inquest Report (Ext. P1) on the body of Unnikrishnan-deceased. The
Investigating Officer seized clothes (MO2) of the deceased. He sent the body of
the deceased to the Medical College Hospital, where Dr. Cyriyac Jose (PW-13)
conducted post mortem examination. PW-10 visited the place of occurrence and
prepared scene-cum-seizure mahazar (Ext.P2), recovered blood-stained soil and
stones (MO 3). He arrested the appellant and the clothes (MO 4) worn by him
were taken into possession under Seizure Mahazar (Ext. P3). At the instance 4
of the appellant, knife (MO 1) was recovered. Further investigation was
conducted by D. Rajan (PW-11) and Majeed (PW-12), both Circle Inspectors. PW-11
and PW-12 recorded the statements of the witnesses. On receipt of post mortem
report (Ext. P8) and report of chemical analysis (Ext. P7), PW- 12 filed a
charge sheet against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302,
IPC.
5.
The
trial court found a prima facie case against the appellant and, accordingly,
charged him for the murder of Unnikrishnan. During trial of the case, the
prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. The appellant in his statement
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied his
involvement in the commission of the crime. He pleaded that on the day of
occurrence when he was going to his house, the deceased took quarrel with him
and it was PW-6 who intervened and separated them. He stated that Unnikrishnan
came back from his house to the place of occurrence and he was holding a knife
in his hand and suddenly held his neck. A scuffle ensued between them, in which
the knife accidentally struck into the abdomen of the 5 deceased. He pleaded
that due to fear he ran away from the scene of occurrence.
6.
The
learned trial Judge, on analysis of the entire oral and documentary evidence on
record, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302
IPC and accordingly sentenced him as aforesaid.
7.
Being
aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, which came to
be dismissed by a Division Bench.
Hence, the appellant
has filed this appeal by special leave questioning the correctness and legality
of the judgment of the High Court.
8.
We
have heard Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Advocate for the appellant, and Mr. R.
Sathish, Advocate for the respondent- State and with their assistance examined
the material on record.
9.
It
is not in dispute that Unnikrishnan @ Bapputty died because of knife injuries
caused to him. PW 13, Dr. Cyriyac Jose in the post mortem Report has given the
details of the injuries noticed in the abdomen of the deceased. In the opinion
of the doctor, the injuries found on the body of the 6 deceased could be
caused by knife (MO 1). PW-6 is the eye- witness of the occurrence who has
given the entire description of the incident in the First Information Report
(Ext. P4), which has been corroborated by him in his deposition before the
Court. It is his evidence that on the day of occurrence at about 8.00 p.m. when
he was chatting with PW-1 by the side of the road, the appellant came there and
in front of the house of Unnikrishnan, the appellant and Unnikrishnan indulged
in a wordy quarrel. He and PW-1 intervened and separated them who were locked
in a push and pull war. PW-6 advised both of them to go to their respective
houses. He stated that he went with PW-1 and when they reached in front of the
house of PW-1, the appellant and Unnikrishnan again started hurling abuses
against each other and in the process Unnikrishnan pulled the collar of the
shirt of the appellant who in retaliation stabbed Unnikrishnan in his abdomen
with a knife and as a result thereof Unnikrishnan uttered that he was finished.
He also stated that the appellant ran away from the scene of occurrence with
the knife. He carried the injured Unnikrishnan with the help of PW-1 and laid
him on the 7 raised portion in front of the house of PW-1. Intestine of
injured Unnikrishnan had been protruded through the wound and he bandaged the
said wound. PW-2, the brother of injured Unnikrishnan, was also called at the
spot. They took the injured to the hospital where he was declared dead by the
doctor.
10.
PW-1
deposed that on the day of occurrence he was in the kitchen of his house, he
heard a commotion outside and when came out on the road side, he noticed the
appellant and Unnikrishnan quarrelling with each other. PW-6 intervened and
separated them and at that time he saw Unnikrishnan collapsing on the road and
uttered that he was stabbed by Raman. He along with PW-6 carried injured
Unnikrishnan and laid him on the raised portion near his house and thereafter
he informed PW-2, the brother of the deceased, about the incident. The evidence
of this witness corroborates the presence of PW-6 on the spot, whose evidence
has been found sufficient, cogent and convincing by the courts below.
The prosecution has
proved the recovery of knife from the possession of the appellant at his
instance. The evidence of 8 PW-6 has not been shattered or impeached by the
appellant.
PW-6 has given
truthful narration of the events leading to the unfortunate death of the
deceased at the hands of the appellant. The testimony of PW-6 is consistent and
convincing which finds corroboration from the evidence of PW- 1 and the medical
evidence of the doctor. The appellant has not disputed the presence of PWs-1
and 6 on the scene of the occurrence. He has also not disputed the recovery of
knife (MO 1). The trial court and the High Court both have disbelieved the
defence version of the appellant that in the process of scuffle the knife had
accidentally struck the body of the deceased and, in our view, the finding and
reasoning recorded by the courts below to that extent cannot be found faulty.
11.
This
Court on 15.02.2008 issued notice to the respondent limited to the question of
sentence. On independent scrutiny of the oral evidence of PWs-1 and 6, as
noticed above, we find that it was the deceased who first pulled the collar of
appellant's shirt and tried to press his neck, but in the process, the
appellant inflicted knife blow in 9 the abdomen with a view to escape from the
clutches of the deceased, but the appellant clearly exceeded the right of
private defence. In these circumstances, his case fell under Section 304 Part I
IPC. We, accordingly, convict the appellant under Section 304 Part-I IPC for
causing the death of Unnikrishnan @ Bapputty and sentence him to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default
of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for one
month.
12.
In
the result, for the afore-said reasons, this appeal is partly allowed to the
extent of holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section
304 Part-I, IPC, and imposing the aforesaid sentence upon him. The judgment and
order of the High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant under
Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay
a fine of Rs.15,000/- shall stand modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.
........................................J.
(R. V. Raveendran)
........................................J.
(Lokeshwar Singh Panta)
New
Delhi,
August
20, 2008.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
