IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 1958 of 2006(C)
1. MANOJ MATHEW, S/O.MATHAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :07/07/2010
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH &
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Joseph Francis, J.
Crl.A. 1958 of 2006 is filed by the first accused, Manoj
Mathew, and Crl.A. No. 1965 of 2006 is filed by the second
accused, Joby Mathew, in S.C. No. 160 of 2005 on the file of the
Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam. That was a case charge
sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Ramapuram against
accused 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 447,
341 and 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C.
2. The prosecution case is briefly as follows. Accused 1
and 2 are brothers and they are the cousins of deceased Baby
Cyriac. On 22.11.2003 at about 6.45 a.m., accused trespassed
into the Kuzhimanthikandam rubber plantation in Vellilappally
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
2
Village, Edacherrry kara. The first accused caught hold on the shirt
of the deceased, Baby Cyriac, from behind and stabbed below the right
side of the back chest with a rubber tapping knife. When the injured
tried to run away, the second accused caught Baby Cyriac from
behind at his neck and at that time the first accused stabbed him
twice on the front chest and stabbed on the front of left shoulder with a
rubber tapping knife. As a result the injured sustained fatal injuries.
Immediately he was removed to the Govt. Hospital, Pala. On the way
to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on 22.11.2003 at 7.45
a.m.
3. PW1, Joseph, who is the brother of deceased Baby Cyriac,
gave Ext.P1 F.I. Statement on the same day at 11.30 a.m. before the
police, on the basis of which, a case was registered as Crime No.222
of 2003 of Ramapuram Police Station under Sections 341, 447 and
302 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. After the investigation charge sheet was
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
3
filed before the J.F.C.M., Pala, from where the case was committed to
the Session Court, Kottayam. Subsequently the case was made over to
the Addl. Session Court, Kottayam for trial and disposal.
4. In the Addl. Sessions Court, on the side of prosecution, PW1
to PW17 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked and M.Os.1 to
M.O.8 were identified. On the side of the defence, DW1 was
examined. The Additional Sessions Court, on considering the
evidence, found that accused 1 and 2 committed offences punishable
under Sections 447, 341 and 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C. They were convicted
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 r/w.
34 of I.P.C. and S.I. for three months under Section 447 r/w. 34 of
I.P.C. and S.I. for one month under Section 341 r/w. 34 I.P.C. Against
that conviction and sentence the above appeals are filed.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned
Public Prosecutor.
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
4
6. PW1, Joseph, and PW2, James, are the brothers of deceased
Baby Cyriac. Their father Kurian and father of the accused, viz.
Mathai are brothers. Kurian and Mathai had another brother called
Ousepachan, who was an unmarried person and owned some
immovable properties and he died. There was some disputes between
the children of Mathai and children of Kurian with regard to the
partition of the properties belonging to deceased Ousepachan. The
prosecution alleges that accused 1 and 2 committed murder of deceased
Baby Cyriac due to enemity connected with the property dispute.
7. According to the prosecution case, PW1 is an eye witness to
the occurrence. His evidence shows that his father got 2 = acres of
rubber plantation. On 22.11.2003 at about 6.30 a.m. he went to
Puthenkandam rubber plantation for tapping rubber. His elder brother
and the deceased also went to their rubber plantation at about 6.30 a.m.
for tapping rubber. The deceased was tapping in the
Kuzhimanthikandam plantation, which is 50 metres away from the
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
5
Puthenkandam plantation. After tapping 20 trees, PW1 heard the cry
of his brother. ”
Immediately he rushed to the spot from where he heard the cry and he
saw the second accused caught hold on the neck of his brother and
first accused stabbed thrice on his chest with a rubber tapping knife.
As a result the deceased sustained serious injuries on the chest and
shoulder and bleeding from the wound. The accused took the deceased
towards their house to a distance of 50 meters. PW1 cried loudly and
on hearing the cry, PW2 and PW3, his brother’s wife Kusumam and
several other people gathered there. When people gathered there
accused ran away from there with the weapon. After this PW1 came
near the deceased and asked what happened. At that time deceased
told that :
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
6
Immediately PW1 rushed to Ezhacherry junction and brought an
autorikshaw and removed his brother to Taluk Hospital, Pala. After
examination doctor informed that the injured died. PW1 reported the
matter to the Ramapuram police and gave Ext.P1 statement. PW1
identified M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.3, M.O.4 and M.O.5. M.O.1 is the
rubber tapping knife used by his deceased brother. M.O.2 is the rubber
tapping knife used by the first accused for stabbing the deceased.
8. The evidence of PW1 was supported by PW2, who is the elder
brother of the deceased. His evidence shows that on 22.11.2003 at
about 6.30 a.m. he was tapping rubber in his property near his family
house. At about 6.45 a.m. he heard the cry of his brother. On hearing
the cry he went to the place of the occurrence with his wife. When
he reached there, the deceased was found sitting by the side of the
road. When he reached near the deceased, he informed that the first
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
7
accused stabbed him with a rubber tapping knife. Immediately the
injured was removed to the Government Hospital, Pala. When PW2
reached near the deceased, the accused were proceeding towards their
house. PW2 did not see the incident and he was treated as hostile by
the prosecution . He identified M.O.6 and M.O.1
9. PW3, Santhi, is the wife of PW1. PW3 deposed that the
deceased is her husband’s brother and on 22.11.2003 at 6.45 a.m. she
heard the cry of the deceased. Immediately she ran towards the place
of occurrence with PW2 and PW4. When they reached at the place of
occurrence, PW1 informed them that the accused stabbed the deceased.
They found the deceased sitting by the side of the road. The accused
were found running from the place of occurrence to their house. When
she came near the deceased she found two bleeding injuries on the
chest and one injury on the shoulder. The deceased was able to speak.
The deceased told her that accused stabbed him with rubber tapping
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
8
knife. PW3 identified M.O.4, M.O.5 and M.O.6. She cleaned the
injuries with a towel. After this the injured was removed to the
hospital.
10. PW4, Sasi, is a neighbour of the accused. The evidence of
PW4 shows that while he was tapping rubber trees in the property of
Suresh, Paravanparambu he heard a cry and immediately rushed to the
place of occurrence. The deceased and the accused were standing in
the property of the accused. The first accused was carrying a rubber
tapping knife. At that time Pws.1 to 3 and CW4 came there. They
were also standing 50 metres away from the accused. When Pws.1 to
3 and CW4 came near the deceased, accused ran away. PW4
categorically stated that he was the first person who reached near the
deceased and others came there after him. This witness was treated as
hostile by the prosecution.
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
9
11. PW8 deposed that on the date of the incident, at about 6.45
a.m. the first accused informed that the deceased sustained stab injury
and requested him to remove the deceased to the hospital. He
admitted that he heard the hue and cry before 6.45 a.m. from the place
occurrence. When he reached there, the deceased was sitting by the
side of the road leading to the house of accused. PW1 brought an
autorikshaw and the deceased was removed to the hospital.
12. PW12 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem
examination on the deceased and issued Ext.P12 postmortem
certificate. Ext.P12 reads as follows:
General – Body was that of a well nourished and well
built, fair complexioned, adult male of height 173 cm and
weight 84 Kg. Eyes closed. Pupils dilated and equal on
both sides. Conjunctivae and finger nails pale. All other
external body orifices normal. Dry bloodstains on both
hands.
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
10
Injuries (ante mortem)
1. ‘U’ shaped incised penetrating wound obliquely
placed on the right side of the back of chest. Its horizontal
limb was 3 cm long and certical limbs (directed upwards)
1.5 cm each. The inner lower end of its horizontal limb
was 16 cm outet to the midline and 19 cm below top of
shoulder. Right chest wall was penetrated through the 8th
inter costal space and cutting the 8th rib, the wound entered
the right chest cavity and terminated in the lower lobe of
right lung. The wound was directed forwards, downwards
and to the right for a total minimum depth of 7.5 cm. Right
chest cavity contained 780 ml. of blood with clots and right
lung was partially collapsed.
2. ‘U’ shaped incised penetrating wound obliquely
placed on the left side of the front of chest. Its horizontal
limb was 3 cm long vertical limbs directed obliquely
upwards measured 1.5 cm each. The lower inner end of its
horizontal limb was placed 7 cm below collar bone and 13
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
11
cm outer to the midline. Left chest wall was penetrated
through 3rd intercostal space and partly cutting the upper
horder of 4th rib, entered the left chest cavity and
terminated there. Total minimum depth was 4.5 cm. Left
chest cavity contained 800 ml. of blood with clots.
3. ‘U’ shaped incised punctured wound obliquely
placed on the front of left shoulder. Its horizontal limb was
3 cm long and vertical lmbs, obliquely directly downwards
measured 1.5 cm each. The upper right end of the
horizontal limbs was 5 cm above the front fold of armpit.
Cutting the muscles and other soft tissues, the would was
seen terminated in the outer aspect of the left chest wall.
The wound was directed downwards and to the right for a
total depth of 12 cm.
4. Incised wound with multiple side cuts 8x3x1 cm
obliquely placed on the left side of the front of chest. Its
upper outer end was 16 cm below collar bone and 10 cm
outer to the midline.
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
12
5. Multiple linear abrasions over an area 4 x 2 cm
horizontally placed on the front of middle of abdomen 20
cm above public symphysis.
6. Linear abrasion 9×0.3 cm obliquely placed on the
right side of the front of chest its upper inner end was 4 cm
outer to the midline and 10 cm below the collar bone.
Opinion as to the cause death – was due to penetrating injuries
sustained to the chest (injury Nos.1 and 2).
13. PW12 opined that injury Nos.1 and 2 are sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury Nos. 1 to 4 could be
caused by M.O.2 weapon. Injury Nos. 5 and 6 also could be caused by
coming into contact with M.O.2 weapon. Injury Nos.1 to 3 can be
caused by a forcible stab with M.O.2 weapon. At the time of
examination bloodstained cotton was collected and handed over to the
police constable No.4878 in a sealed packet. The horizontal limb of
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
13
injury Nos.1 to 3 must correspond to the width of the weapon. The
width of M.O.2 is 1 mm. less than 3 cm. Allowance of .5 c.m. can be
given for the stretching of the muscle tissue. It is not correct to say
that since the weapon is having vertical blades on both sides the length
of the horizontal limb must correspond to the width of the weapon. If
the remaining portion of the weapon is entered into the body, the
wound will be having more length. PW12 categorically stated that
injury Nos. 1 an 2 are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death. Injury Nos.1 to 4 could be caused by M.O.2. weapon.
14. The defence set up by accused 1 and 2 is contained in the
written statement filed by the first accused while he was questioned
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The second accused adopted the defence
case set up in the written statement of the first accused.
15. The first accused stated that he was tapping rubber trees in
his Kuzhimanthikandam property and the second accused was tapping
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
14
at a short distance. The deceased trespassed into the property of the
first accused with a tapping knife and threatened to murder the first
accused and stabbed several times. He warded off the stabbing and
escaped. The tip of the knife hit on his fingers and sustained injury.
When the first accused felt that the deceased will murder him,
immediately he took a knife and waved against the deceased. There
was scuffle between the deceased and the first accused. On hearing the
cry, the second accused came there are separated them. At that time
the second accused told that the deceased sustained stab injury and
told him to remove the deceased to hospital. Both of them took Baby
Cyriac towards their property and the second accused brought a
vehicle for removing the injured to the hospital and the relatives of the
deceased did not allow it. There was no overtact from their part. The
second accused stated that he is innocent and nothing more to say than
what was stated by the first accused.
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
15
16. PW14 is Dr. Gracy George, who was working as Assistant
Surgeon, Government Hospital, Ramapuram. She deposed that on
24.11.2003 she examined the first accused, Manoj, and issued Ext.P14
wound certificate. She noted a small injury on the left index finger
inner aspect. .5x .5 cm. The linear crusted abrasion extended from the
left ankle of mouth lateral about 1.5 cm. A small abrasion over the
dorsum of left wrist. The alleged cause was :
Opinion – may be as alleged. She stated that injury Nos. 1 to 3 can be
caused by contact with any rough surface. The injury is having an age
of two days. The linear abrasion is the result of contact with some
sharp object. Since the injury is of two days’ age, it is very difficult to
say that injury No. 3 is a linear abrasion or not. She opined that it is
very difficult to say the injuries can be possible with the tip of
M.O.1.
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
16
The wounds are not sutured and the wounds are only skin deep
injuries.
17. On the side of the accused CW8, Binoy was examined as
DW1. He deposed that he is the neighbour of the deceased. On the
day of incident at about 6.45 am., while he was brushing teeth he heard
a cry from Kuzhimanthikandam property. When he rushed to the place
of occurrence, PW2, PW3 and CW4 were proceeding in front of him.
PW1 was coming from Puthenkandam and joined with them. At that
time, accused 1 and 2 were holding the deceased and walking along the
road towards the house of the accused. The deceased was unable to
walk and he sat by the side of the road and in the meantime accused ran
towards their house. PW3 at that time approached the deceased and
PW2 hired a vehicle. The second accused came there with a vehicle
and tried to remove the deceased to the hospital. But PW3 obstructed
this.
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
17
18. The learned counsel for the first accused/appellant
submitted that the first accused is claiming the benefit under exception
4 to Section 300 I.P.C. The learned counsel for the second
accused/appellant submitted that the testimony of PW1, who is the
only alleged eye witness, cannot be believed as PW1 was standing 50
meters away from the place of occurrence and in cross examination
PW1 admitted that total distance between the two properties was more
than 109 meters. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the
judgment of the lower court.
19. To invoke exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. four
requirements must be satisfied, viz. (1) it was a sudden fight upon a
sudden quarrel (2) there was no pre-meditation, (3) the act was done in
a heat of passion and (4) the assailant has not taken any undue
advantage or acted in cruel manner.
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
18
20. In the decision reported in Sukhbir Singh v. State of
Haryana (2002 (3) SCC 327 ) it was held in paragraph 19 that:
The High Court has also found that the
occurrence had taken place upon a sudden quarrel
but as the appellant was found to have acted in a
cruel and unusual manner, he was not given the
benefit of such exception. For holding him to have
acted in a cruel and unusual manner, the High court
relied upon the number of injuries and their location
on the body of the deceased. In the absence of the
existence of common object, the appellant cannot be
held responsible for the other injuries caused to the
person of the deceased. He is proved to have
inflicted two blows on the person of the deceased
which were sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause his death. The infliction of the
injuries and their nature proves the intention of the
appellant but causing of such two injuries cannot be
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
19
termed to be either in a cruel or unusual manner. All
fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as
cruel or unusual for the purposes of not availing the
benefit of exception 4 of section 300 IPC. After the
injuries were inflicted and the injured had fallen
down, the appellant is not shown to have inflicted
any other injury upon his person when he was in
helpless position. It is proved that in the heat of
passion upon a sudden quarrel followed a fight, the
accused who was armed with bhala caused injuries
at random and thus did not act in a cruel or unusual
manner.
21. In the decision reported in Jumman v. State of Punjab
(AIR 1957 S.C 469) it was held that:
Where a mutual conflict develops and there is
no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it
started and as to who was the aggressor. It will not
be correct to assume private defence for both sides.
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
20
Such a case will be case of sudden fight and conflict
and has to be dealt with under Section 300 I.P.C.,
Exception 4.
22. In the decision in Amrithalinga Nadar v. State of Tamil
Nadu (AIR 1976 SC 1133) the Apex Court held that when fatal
injury is caused without premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat of
passion upon a sudden quarrel, exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. will
apply. In that case, in a sudden fight the deceased inflicted knife
injuries on two persons and ran away with the knife. The accused
enraged by this, chased the deceased and inflicted fatal injury on him.
The entire incident was taken in a very short time. It was held that
exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. is attracted and conviction under
Section 302 I.P.C. was altered to one under Section 304 Part I of
I.P.C.
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
21
23. Under Criminal Law an accused person is not called upon
to prove his defence affirmatively. It is enough for the accused to
show either by his own evidence or from statements of prosecution
witnesses themselves that his defence is a probable one. There is no
impediment in law in passing conviction on the testimony of a single
witness, if the court comes to the conclusion that his evidence is
honest and trustworthy. In the present case, PW1 is the brother of
the deceased, who gave Ext.P1 F.I. Statement before the police
immediately after the occurrence and he is the only eye witness
supporting the prosecution case. PW2, who is another brother of the
deceased turned hostile to the prosecution case.
24. The main question to be considered is whether PW1 saw the
entire occurrence from the beginning to the end. From the testimony
of PW1 itself it is evident that he rushed to the scene of occurrence on
hearing the cry of his deceased brother Baby Cyriac and at that time
PW1 was engaged in rubber tapping work in his rubber plantation at a
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
22
distance of about 50 – 109 meters. Ext.P12 postmortem certificate
shows that the deceased had sustained injury No.1, which is a ‘U’
shaped penetrating wound on the right side back of the chest. PW1
has no case that he saw the first accused causing injury No.1 on the
right side of back of chest of the deceased. Therefore it is clear that
PW1 has not seen the beginning of the scuffle.
25. Ext.P14 wound certificate shows that the first accused
sustained injuries on 22.11.2003 at 6.30 a.m. at his
Kuzhimanthikandam property. PW4 deposes that the property
belonging to the accused and deceased are lying as one plot. DW1
deposes that there is no boundary to separate the properties of both the
parties. PW16, who prepared the scene mahazar, deposed that the
scene mahazar was prepared as shown by PW1.
26. DW1 deposed that it is not possible to see
Kuzhimanthikandam property by standing in Puthankandam property
in which PW1 was standing at the beginning of the occurrence. PW4
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
23
deposed that when he came to the scene of occurrence on hearing the
cry, both the accused and the deceased were standing in the property
of the accused. The evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution
would not show how the occurrence started. The evidence on record
shows that there was some property dispute between the accused and
the deceased about 5 years ago. There is no evidence to show the
immediate cause for the scuffle, which resulted in the death of the
deceased.
27. PW8 deposed that immediately after the occurrence, the first
accused informed him that the deceased sustained stab injury and
requested him to take the deceased to the hospital. DW1 deposed that
the second accused brought a vehicle to the scene of occurrence to
take the injured to the hospital.
28. The prosecution produced MO1 as the rubber tapping knife,
which was in the hands of the deceased at the time of occurrence.
MO2 is another tapping knife, which was alleged to have been used by
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
24
the first accused to stab the deceased. PW17 deposed that on
investigation it was revealed that the second accused was carrying
MO7 rubber tapping knife. The prosecution has no case that the
second accused attacked the deceased with MO7 rubber tapping knife.
The recovery of MO1 from the scene of occurrence would make it
possible to infer that the deceased was carrying MO1 with him at the
time of occurrence. On considering all these aspects of the matter, it
is not possible to rule out the possibility of the defence case that it
was the deceased who caused the provocation by stabbing the first
accused with MO1.
29. MO1 is a dangerous weapon which may have been used by
the deceased to attack the first accused and then the first accused in the
heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel caused fatal injuries to the
deceased without premeditation. It cannot be said that the first
accused took undue advantage or acted in cruel manner manner
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
25
and therefore the case of the first accused comes within exception 4 of
Section 300 I.P.C. and he has committed culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. Therefore, we are of the view that the first
accused has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder
punishable under Section 304 Part I of I.P.C.
30. Since there is no clear and unambiguous evidence to show
that the first accused trespassed into the property of deceased, the first
accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 447 I.P.C.
As there is no reliable evidence to show that the first accused
wrongfully restrained the deceased, the first accused cannot be
convicted for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that
sentencing the first accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine
years under Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. would meet the ends of justice.
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
26
31. The allegation against the second accused is that he shared
common intention with the first accused to commit murder of the
deceased. It is true that direct evidence to prove the intention of any
individual is very difficult. It has to be inferred from their action and
conduct or other relevant circumstances of the case. To constitute
common intention, it is necessary that the intention of each one of the
miscreants be known to the rest of them and shared by them. In the
normal circumstances, common intention would be held established
where one of the accused had held the victim and the other accused
stabbed the victim with a knife. In the present case the second accused
has not used MO7 to attack the deceased eventhough the second
accused was possessing that weapon at the time of the occurrence. If
the second accused had the intention to kill the deceased, the second
accused would have definitely used that weapon to stab the deceased.
32. There is no evidence to show that accused 1 and 2 went
together to attack the deceased. It is probable that the second accused
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
27
tried to save the first accused when the deceased attacked the first
accused with MO1 by catching hold of the deceased by his neck.
There is no evidence to show that the second accused asked the first
accused to stab the deceased. The subsequent conduct of the second
accused also must be looked into. Immediately after the occurrence,
the second accused took up a vehicle and tried to take the deceased to
the hospital in order to save the life of the deceased.
33. Considering all these material aspects of the matter, we are
of the view that the prosecution case that the second accused had
common intention with the first accused to murder the deceased
becomes doubtful. There is no reliable evidence to show that the
second accused criminally trespassed into the property of the deceased.
Therefore the second accused is not guilty of the offece punishable
under Section 447 of I.P.C. The evidence on record does not show that
the second accused wrongfully restrained deceased and therefore the
second accused cannot be convicted under Section 341 of I.P.C.
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
28
Therefore we are of the view that learned Additional Sessions Judge is
not justified in convicting and sentencing the second accused under
Sections 302, 341 and 447 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. The second accused is
entitled to get an acquittal as the prosecution failed to prove its case
against the second accused beyond reasonable doubt.
34. Accordingly Crl.A.No. 1965 of 2006 is allowed and the
conviction and sentence of the second accused, Joby Mathew, in
S.C.No. 160 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court,
Kottayam under Section 302, 447 and 341 r/w. 34 I.P.C. are set aside
and the second accused is found not guilty of the aforesaid offences
and he is acquitted and set at liberty.
35. Crl.A.No.1958 of 2006 is allowed in part and the conviction
and sentence of the first accused, Manoj Mathew, in S.C.No. 160 of
2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam under
Sections 302, 341 and 447 r/w. 34 I.P.C. are set aside and he is
acquitted of those offences. The first accused is found guilty under
Crl.A. Nos. 1958 & 1965 of 2006
29
Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. and he is convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine years under Section 304 Part
I of I.P.C. The first accused is entitled to get set off under Section
428 Cr.P.C.
35. The Registry shall forthwith communicate this judgment
to the concerned jail authority to release the second accused, Joby
Mathew, immediately, if his detention is not required in connection
with any other case. The Court below shall take immediate steps to
issue revised warrant of commitment as regards the first accused,
Manoj Mathew.
(K. M. JOSEPH)
Judge
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm