State of Kerala Vs. Vasudevan Pillai
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 1992
Petitioner: State of Kerala
Respondent: Vasudevan Pillai
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 660 of 1992
Judges: R.C. LAHOTI & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 20, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 302, 324, 447 with Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Acquittal by High Court – Wife and daughter of ac-cused seriously injured – Indoor patients for 22 days – No dis-closure or explanation of injuries to them by prosecution – Material eye-witness not cited or examined, though admitted by Investigating Officer – Incident taking place inside the compound of accused – Genesis of incident concealed. Held, that High Court has rightly recorded acquittal and there are no grounds to interfere Appeal dismissed. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The accused-respondent and his wife faced trial on charges under Section 302, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The wife was acquitted by the trial court. The accused-respondent was found guilty of the offences charged and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for one year and simple imprisonment for three months respectively for the three offences. The accused respondent filed an appeal before the High Court putting in issue his conviction. The High Court has allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused respondent. Feeling ag-grieved, the State has come up in appeal by special leave.
2. We have carefully perused the judgment of the trial court as also of the High Court and other material available on the record and heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that no case is made out for interfering with the judg-ment of acquittal recorded by the High Court.
3. The incident happened at about 8.30 a.m. on 17th December 1987. According to the prosecution, on the previous evening of the date of the incident, Jagadamma was abused by the respondent and his wife. A little before the time of the incident, the deceased – Chandran accompanied by his nephew – Anil Kumar (PW-1) visited Jagadamma and were apprised of what had happened the previous evening. The deceased – Chandran and Anil Kumar (PW-1) reached near the house of respondent. Chandran asked the accused and his wife as to why they had abused his sister. After some verbal exchange, the respondent opened an attack with a knife. The first blow of the knife was warded off by the deceased with his hands but he fell down. Then the respondent sat on the belly of the deceased and inflicted a forceful blow of the knife which landed on the chest of the deceased. The deceased was rushed to the hospital but was found dead. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged at 10 a.m. by Anil Kumar (PW-1). Krishna Badran (PW-9), Circle Inspector of Police investigated the offence whereafter the accused were challaned. The plea taken by the accused-re-spondent was that in fact the deceased, his sister and Anil Kumar (PW-1) had attacked the respondent, his wife and their daughter. In order to defend themselves, the accused respondent had bran-dished a knife and then he ran away throwing away the weapon on the way. The respondent further pleaded that a Police Officer attached to Pooyappally Police Station was a close relative of Jagadamma and that is why the investigation was not objective and impartial; it was one-sided and under the influence of the com-plainant and the accused-respondent along with his wife were falsely implicated.
4. The High Court on a re-appraisal of evidence has found that the wife and daughter of the respondent had sustained injuries at or about the time of the incident for the treatment of which they were admitted in the hospital and remained in patients for 22 days. The record of the injuries sustained by the wife and daugh-ter of the accused was not placed before the Court so as to form an opinion as to the nature of the injuries sustained by them. The prosecution offered no explanation as to how and in what manner the injuries were sustained by the wife and daughter of the accused respondent and, therefore, the High Court concluded that material facts relating to the genesis of the incident were withheld from the Court. The respondent’s daughter was examined in the court as a defence witness. The Investigating Officer admitted that one Sumathy, an independent witness, had witnessed the incident and had told about the details as to how and in what manner the wife and daughter of the accused had sustained inju-ries. This Sumathy was neither cited as a witness by the prosecu-tion nor produced in the Court for examination. A very material admission made by the Investigating Officer was that the incident had taken place in the compound inside the house of the accused-respondent. It is the cumulative effect of these factors, as above said, which persuaded the High Court to disagree with the findings arrived at by the sessions court and to hold the accused respondent not liable to conviction. In our opinion, if the genesis of the incident was concealed from the Court, the inju-ries sustained by the wife and daughter of the accused respondent at or about the time of the incident were not disclosed, much less explained, and a material independent eye-witness was with-held from the Court without offering any explanation for non-examination, then recording a finding of not guilty is a reason-able view that could have been taken by the High Court and has been rightly taken.
5. We do not find sufficient ground having been made out for interfering with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal recorded by the High Court. The appeal is held liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The acquittal of the accused respond-ent, as recorded by the High Court, is affirmed. The accused respondent is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.
1. The accused-respondent and his wife faced trial on charges under Section 302, 324 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. The wife was acquitted by the trial court. The accused-respondent was found guilty of the offences charged and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, rigorous imprisonment for one year and simple imprisonment for three months respectively for the three offences. The accused respondent filed an appeal before the High Court putting in issue his conviction. The High Court has allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused respondent. Feeling ag-grieved, the State has come up in appeal by special leave.
2. We have carefully perused the judgment of the trial court as also of the High Court and other material available on the record and heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that no case is made out for interfering with the judg-ment of acquittal recorded by the High Court.
3. The incident happened at about 8.30 a.m. on 17th December 1987. According to the prosecution, on the previous evening of the date of the incident, Jagadamma was abused by the respondent and his wife. A little before the time of the incident, the deceased – Chandran accompanied by his nephew – Anil Kumar (PW-1) visited Jagadamma and were apprised of what had happened the previous evening. The deceased – Chandran and Anil Kumar (PW-1) reached near the house of respondent. Chandran asked the accused and his wife as to why they had abused his sister. After some verbal exchange, the respondent opened an attack with a knife. The first blow of the knife was warded off by the deceased with his hands but he fell down. Then the respondent sat on the belly of the deceased and inflicted a forceful blow of the knife which landed on the chest of the deceased. The deceased was rushed to the hospital but was found dead. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged at 10 a.m. by Anil Kumar (PW-1). Krishna Badran (PW-9), Circle Inspector of Police investigated the offence whereafter the accused were challaned. The plea taken by the accused-re-spondent was that in fact the deceased, his sister and Anil Kumar (PW-1) had attacked the respondent, his wife and their daughter. In order to defend themselves, the accused respondent had bran-dished a knife and then he ran away throwing away the weapon on the way. The respondent further pleaded that a Police Officer attached to Pooyappally Police Station was a close relative of Jagadamma and that is why the investigation was not objective and impartial; it was one-sided and under the influence of the com-plainant and the accused-respondent along with his wife were falsely implicated.
4. The High Court on a re-appraisal of evidence has found that the wife and daughter of the respondent had sustained injuries at or about the time of the incident for the treatment of which they were admitted in the hospital and remained in patients for 22 days. The record of the injuries sustained by the wife and daugh-ter of the accused was not placed before the Court so as to form an opinion as to the nature of the injuries sustained by them. The prosecution offered no explanation as to how and in what manner the injuries were sustained by the wife and daughter of the accused respondent and, therefore, the High Court concluded that material facts relating to the genesis of the incident were withheld from the Court. The respondent’s daughter was examined in the court as a defence witness. The Investigating Officer admitted that one Sumathy, an independent witness, had witnessed the incident and had told about the details as to how and in what manner the wife and daughter of the accused had sustained inju-ries. This Sumathy was neither cited as a witness by the prosecu-tion nor produced in the Court for examination. A very material admission made by the Investigating Officer was that the incident had taken place in the compound inside the house of the accused-respondent. It is the cumulative effect of these factors, as above said, which persuaded the High Court to disagree with the findings arrived at by the sessions court and to hold the accused respondent not liable to conviction. In our opinion, if the genesis of the incident was concealed from the Court, the inju-ries sustained by the wife and daughter of the accused respondent at or about the time of the incident were not disclosed, much less explained, and a material independent eye-witness was with-held from the Court without offering any explanation for non-examination, then recording a finding of not guilty is a reason-able view that could have been taken by the High Court and has been rightly taken.
5. We do not find sufficient ground having been made out for interfering with the well reasoned judgment of acquittal recorded by the High Court. The appeal is held liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The acquittal of the accused respond-ent, as recorded by the High Court, is affirmed. The accused respondent is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.
