Pappu and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 206-207 of 1991
Petitioner: Pappu and Ors.
Respondent: State of Kerala
Apeal: Criminal Appeal Nos. 206-207 of 1991
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R.P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 18, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAWS
Indian Penal Code, 1860
(a) Sections 34, 302 – Common intention – Murder – Four accused – One inflicting injury on back of deceased – Two others inflict-ing knife injuries – Fourth, only having a torch and lighting – Alleged to have some grudge – Not armed with any weapon, nor inflicting injury. Held that there is a reasonable doubt about the fourth accused, sharing common intention with others and benefit goes to him. (Para 5)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
(a) Sections 34, 302 – Common intention – Murder – Four accused – One inflicting injury on back of deceased – Two others inflict-ing knife injuries – Fourth, only having a torch and lighting – Alleged to have some grudge – Not armed with any weapon, nor inflicting injury. Held that there is a reasonable doubt about the fourth accused, sharing common intention with others and benefit goes to him. (Para 5)
(b) Sections 302/34 – Murder – Four accused – One inflicting sharp cut injury on back of deceased – Two others inflicting knife injuries – First three injuries cutting vital organs and sufficient to cause death – Injuries consistent with description of occurrence given by eye witnesses. Held that their conviction was proper under Sections 302/34 IPC.
(Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Four persons were arrayed before Sessions Court for the murder of a man called Baby. The trial court convicted all the four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. A Divi-sion Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sen-tence. Those four persons are the appellants before us. Prosecu-tion case is that on 11.10.1986 at about 7.30 p.m. all the four appellants chased deceased Baby and first appellant Pappu in-flicted a cut with a chopper on his back, second appellant, Thomas and third appellant, Sebastian inflicted cut injuries on the neck and chest with knives. Baby fell down and died on the spot. The role attributed to the fourth accused Devassykutty is that he flashed a torch light presumably to provide light to the other assailants to inflict the injuries.
2. The motive alleged for the said murder is that the daughter of first appellant, Pappu was raped by the deceased and she became pregnant and after the pregnancy was absorted, she had to join a nunnery.
3. The deceased Baby was treated by the prosecution itself as a notorious person. The incident was witnessed by three persons (PW. 1 Jayson, PW.2 Paul and PW.3 George). It was PW.1 who lodged the F.I.R. The testimony of those witnesses were considered in detail by the trial court and the High Court found them accept-able. The injuries sustained by the deceased were described by the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination. The first three injuries were on the neck which cut some vital organs and those injuries really caused the death of the deceased. The fourth injury was on the abdomen which penetrated through the liver. The fifth and sixth injuries were not so serious as the other injuries.
4. The injuries described in the post-mortem report are consist-ent with the description of the occurrence given by the eye witnesses. We do not find any cogent reason to disturb the find-ing rendered by the two courts regarding the credibility of three eye-witnesses. Therefore the conviction passed by the courts on the three assailants, who inflicted injuries, cannot be dissented from.
5. But the position of appellant no. 1 Devassykutty is different. Admittedly, he did not inflict any injury at all. Admittedly he was not armed with any weapon, muchless any lethal weapon. All that he possessed was a torch light and all that he did was flash the torch light when the incident took place. He would have flashed the torch light to see the incident in the same way as PW. 1 did. More than that cannot be inferred from the broad circumstances of this case. Of course an attempt was made by the prosecution to show that fourth accused Devassy-kutty had a grudge towards the deceased and therefore he too would have shared the common intention with the other assailants. But the evidence regarding the attributed grudge is too fragile for drawing an inference that fourth accused really entertained a common inten-tion with the other assailants. On the conspectus of the evi-dence, we entertain a reasonable doubt as to the complicity of the fourth accused Devassykutty in the murder of the deceased. The benefit of the said doubt must certainly go to him.
6. In the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence as against A.1 – Pappu, A.2 – Thomas, A.3 – Sebastian but we allow the appeal of A.4 Devassykutty and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him. We acquit him.
7. As the accused were released on bail by this Court by order dated 16.9.1991 we cancel the bail bond and direct the Additional Sessions Judge, N. Parur to take prompt steps for putting A.1 – Pappu, A.2 – Thomas and A.3 Sebastian, back in jail for undergo-ing the remaining portion of the sentence.
8. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
1. Four persons were arrayed before Sessions Court for the murder of a man called Baby. The trial court convicted all the four accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. A Divi-sion Bench of the High Court confirmed the conviction and sen-tence. Those four persons are the appellants before us. Prosecu-tion case is that on 11.10.1986 at about 7.30 p.m. all the four appellants chased deceased Baby and first appellant Pappu in-flicted a cut with a chopper on his back, second appellant, Thomas and third appellant, Sebastian inflicted cut injuries on the neck and chest with knives. Baby fell down and died on the spot. The role attributed to the fourth accused Devassykutty is that he flashed a torch light presumably to provide light to the other assailants to inflict the injuries.
2. The motive alleged for the said murder is that the daughter of first appellant, Pappu was raped by the deceased and she became pregnant and after the pregnancy was absorted, she had to join a nunnery.
3. The deceased Baby was treated by the prosecution itself as a notorious person. The incident was witnessed by three persons (PW. 1 Jayson, PW.2 Paul and PW.3 George). It was PW.1 who lodged the F.I.R. The testimony of those witnesses were considered in detail by the trial court and the High Court found them accept-able. The injuries sustained by the deceased were described by the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination. The first three injuries were on the neck which cut some vital organs and those injuries really caused the death of the deceased. The fourth injury was on the abdomen which penetrated through the liver. The fifth and sixth injuries were not so serious as the other injuries.
4. The injuries described in the post-mortem report are consist-ent with the description of the occurrence given by the eye witnesses. We do not find any cogent reason to disturb the find-ing rendered by the two courts regarding the credibility of three eye-witnesses. Therefore the conviction passed by the courts on the three assailants, who inflicted injuries, cannot be dissented from.
5. But the position of appellant no. 1 Devassykutty is different. Admittedly, he did not inflict any injury at all. Admittedly he was not armed with any weapon, muchless any lethal weapon. All that he possessed was a torch light and all that he did was flash the torch light when the incident took place. He would have flashed the torch light to see the incident in the same way as PW. 1 did. More than that cannot be inferred from the broad circumstances of this case. Of course an attempt was made by the prosecution to show that fourth accused Devassy-kutty had a grudge towards the deceased and therefore he too would have shared the common intention with the other assailants. But the evidence regarding the attributed grudge is too fragile for drawing an inference that fourth accused really entertained a common inten-tion with the other assailants. On the conspectus of the evi-dence, we entertain a reasonable doubt as to the complicity of the fourth accused Devassykutty in the murder of the deceased. The benefit of the said doubt must certainly go to him.
6. In the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence as against A.1 – Pappu, A.2 – Thomas, A.3 – Sebastian but we allow the appeal of A.4 Devassykutty and set aside the conviction and sentence passed on him. We acquit him.
7. As the accused were released on bail by this Court by order dated 16.9.1991 we cancel the bail bond and direct the Additional Sessions Judge, N. Parur to take prompt steps for putting A.1 – Pappu, A.2 – Thomas and A.3 Sebastian, back in jail for undergo-ing the remaining portion of the sentence.
8. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
