M. Thomas @ Joyi Vs. State of Kerala
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 1994
Petitioner: M. Thomas @ Joyi
Respondent: State of Kerala
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 568 of 1994
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 02, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302 – Murder – Evidence of two eye witnesses discarded – Statements of two more witnesses that deceased had told them that accused stabbed him – Acquittal re-versed by High Court – Trial court found inclined to believe that accused inflicted the injury. Held that reversal of acquittal by High Court was proper.(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The Appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. for causing death of Babu. The trial court acquitted him on the ground that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2, who claimed to be the eye-witnesses, was highly improbable. The trial court did not believe the evidence of P.Ws 3 & 4 that the deceased had told them, as soon as they had gone to the arrack shop of the deceased after the incident, that he was stabbed by the Appellant. The trial court further held that even if it was assumed that the accused had inflicted the injury on the de-ceased, it certainly could not have been in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Taking this view, the trial court acquitted the Appellant.
2. On appeal by the State, the High court held that the reasons given by the trial court are not sustainable. After appreciating the evidence of P.Ws. 1& 2, who were the eye-witnesses, the High Court held that their evidence does not suffer from any infirmity and there was no reason to believe that the accused was falsely implicated by them. The High Court held that the trial court’s finding that the version given by P.Ws. 1 & 2 was not ‘proper’ and not at all sustainable. It found that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 stood corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws 3 & 4 who are having shops nearby the place of the incident. The High Court considered the discrepancy pointed out by the trial court and found that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on this point. The evidence if properly read discloses that P.W. 1 had removed the deceased out of the room and that was not done by P.W. 2. The High Court further held that the trial court was not right in disbelieving the evidence of P.W.2 on the ground of his conduct. Soon after the incident P.W.2 had gone to bring a jeep for taking the injured to hospital. That conduct cannot be regarded as unnatural. The High Court, therefore, rightly held that evidence of the two eye-witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 was wrongly discarded by the trial court.
3. It also appears from the judgment of the trial court that it was also inclined to believe that the accused had inflicted the injury on the deceased. But the suspicious approach of the trial court led it to acquit him. We agree with the finding of the High Court that the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 establishes beyond doubt that the Appellant had given a knife blow to the deceased. There-fore, the High Court was right in reversing the findings recorded by the trial court and convicting the Appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
1. The Appellant was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. for causing death of Babu. The trial court acquitted him on the ground that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2, who claimed to be the eye-witnesses, was highly improbable. The trial court did not believe the evidence of P.Ws 3 & 4 that the deceased had told them, as soon as they had gone to the arrack shop of the deceased after the incident, that he was stabbed by the Appellant. The trial court further held that even if it was assumed that the accused had inflicted the injury on the de-ceased, it certainly could not have been in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Taking this view, the trial court acquitted the Appellant.
2. On appeal by the State, the High court held that the reasons given by the trial court are not sustainable. After appreciating the evidence of P.Ws. 1& 2, who were the eye-witnesses, the High Court held that their evidence does not suffer from any infirmity and there was no reason to believe that the accused was falsely implicated by them. The High Court held that the trial court’s finding that the version given by P.Ws. 1 & 2 was not ‘proper’ and not at all sustainable. It found that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 & 2 stood corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws 3 & 4 who are having shops nearby the place of the incident. The High Court considered the discrepancy pointed out by the trial court and found that the trial court has not correctly appreciated the evidence on this point. The evidence if properly read discloses that P.W. 1 had removed the deceased out of the room and that was not done by P.W. 2. The High Court further held that the trial court was not right in disbelieving the evidence of P.W.2 on the ground of his conduct. Soon after the incident P.W.2 had gone to bring a jeep for taking the injured to hospital. That conduct cannot be regarded as unnatural. The High Court, therefore, rightly held that evidence of the two eye-witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 was wrongly discarded by the trial court.
3. It also appears from the judgment of the trial court that it was also inclined to believe that the accused had inflicted the injury on the deceased. But the suspicious approach of the trial court led it to acquit him. We agree with the finding of the High Court that the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 establishes beyond doubt that the Appellant had given a knife blow to the deceased. There-fore, the High Court was right in reversing the findings recorded by the trial court and convicting the Appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
