IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 68 of 2006(A)
1. SALAM @ SALAVUDEEN, S/O.SULEIMAN RAWTHER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY A
... Respondent
For Petitioner :ADV.SHAHNA KARTHIKEYAN(STATE BRIEF)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :04/11/2009
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P. BHAVADASAN, JJ.
------------------------------
CRL.APPEAL NO.68/2006
------------------------------
Dated this, the 4th day of November, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant was the accused in S.C.No.312/2005 on the
file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast
Track Court – II, Pathanamthitta.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:
The appellant was the husband of deceased Prasanna. They fell
in love and started living as husband and wife, after executing
Ext.P17 registered marriage agreement. Since they belonged to
two religions, Prasanna’s family was not happy with the
marriage. Two female children were born to them. Thereafter,
the parents of Prasanna were co-operating with them. The
appellant was in the habit of drinking liquor and physically
abusing Prasanna. He was always pressing her for selling the
property in her name. Because of the incessant harassment,
she was staying with her parents. PW2 is her father and PW4
Crl.Appeal No.68/2006
– 2 –
is her mother. On 2.9.2002 at about 4.30 p.m., Prasanna and
her elder daughter PW3 came rushing to the hall of the house of
PW2 on the eastern side. The appellant brandishing a knife,
chased Prasanna and inflicted an injury on her neck. It was
followed by other stabs also. PW2 intervened to save his
daughter. He was also stabbed several times by the appellant.
He fell down. PW3, the daughter of the appellant was watching
this horrific scene from behind a door. She and her
grandmother PW4 cried out. The appellant ran away on seeing
PW4. Hearing their cries, the neighbours, including PW6 rushed
to the scene. They took the injured to the Government
Hospital, Adoor. Prasanna was pronounced dead and PW2 was
rushed to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.
3. The Circle Inspector of Police, PW14 took over the
investigation. He held inquest on the dead body and seized
MO1 clothes worn by Prasanna. Ext.P2 is the inquest report
prepared by him. He also seized MO2 double dhoti, stated to
be worn by the appellant at the time of occurrence. He sent the
body for autopsy. He prepared the scene mahazar, questioned
Crl.Appeal No.68/2006
– 3 –
the witnesses and completed substantial portion of the
investigation. The appellant was absconding after the incident.
He was apprehended by the Panangad Police, Ernakulam on
19.4.2005 in connection with the incident of outraging the
modesty of a lady passenger in a private bus. On coming to
know of the detention of the appellant, PW13, the S.I of Police,
Adoor, as authorised by the C.I of Police, Adoor, arrested the
accused. PW15, the successor-in-office of C.I of Police
completed the investigation and laid the charge before the
Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Adoor. The learned
Magistrate committed the case for trial by the Sessions Court,
which in turn was made over by the Sessions Court to the
Additional District & Sessions (Ad hoc)Court-II, Pathanamthitta.
4. Charges were framed against the accused for the
offences under Sections 449, 302, 307 and 324 of the I.P.C by
the trial court. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined
PWs. 1 to 15 and marked Exts.P1 to P22. Material Objects 1 to
3 were produced and marked. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge after hearing both sides, found the appellant guilty and
Crl.Appeal No.68/2006
– 4 –
sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence
under Section 302 and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
default, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
For the offence under Section 307, he was sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for seven years. For the offence under
Section 449, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years and also to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-
and in default, he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six
months. The sentences were to run consecutively.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the above conviction and
sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. The appellant
submitted that on the date of incident, PWs.2 and 4 were
sleeping. Therefore, his wife Prasanna called him into the room.
PW2 woke up and attacked him with a knife. The blow
accidently fell on the deceased. He escaped unhurt and
remained underground, as he was afraid of the relatives of PW2.
He was totally innocent. The learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the witnesses involved in this case were
interested witnesses and PW3, the daughter of the appellant
Crl.Appeal No.68/2006
– 5 –
was tutored to give evidence against him. So, it is unsafe to
sustain the conviction based on the deposition of interested
witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed
out that at any rate the substantive sentences imposed on the
appellant should have been ordered to run concurrently. The
direction that the sentences will run consecutively is unjustified
because one of the punishments imposed on him is
imprisonment for life. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the
other hand, supported the judgment of the court below.
6. PW9, the doctor who was working as Assistant
Professor, Forensic Medicine and as Assistant Police Surgeon,
Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, conducted
autopsy on the body of Prasanna and issued Ext.P4 post-
mortem certificate. The doctor has opined that the cause of
death is injury No.1. The doctor has also stated that the injuries
can be caused by a sharp double edged weapon. Going by the
deposition of the doctor and the post-mortem certificate, it is
established that the death of Prasanna was homicidal. PW2,
who sustained injuries in the incident, has spoken to how it
Crl.Appeal No.68/2006
– 6 –
happened. He was sitting in the bed-room on the western side
of the hall of his house. While so, Prasanna and PW3 rushed to
the hall. She tried to close the door, but the appellant opened
the door using force, entered the hall and stabbed Prasanna. He
tried to intervene. He was also stabbed. On receiving the stab
injuries, he fell down. The appellant repeatedly stabbed him
and Prasanna. When PW4 came to the scene, he ran away.
While he ran away, the dhoti worn by him fell down. The
version of PW3, the daughter of the appellant, who was also an
eye-witness, substantially supports the version given by PW2.
PW4, the mother of the deceased has spoken that she came to
the hall on hearing the hue and cry and found Prasanna and
PW2 lying in a pool of blood and the appellant rushing out of the
room. The above versions of PWs.2, 3 and 4 establish beyond
doubt that it was the appellant who inflicted the fatal injuries on
Prasanna and caused grievous hurt to PW2. Because of the
timely medical attention, life of PW2 was saved. The injuries
inflicted on him were sufficient, in the ordinary course, to cause
death. Therefore, the charge against the appellant under
Crl.Appeal No.68/2006
– 7 –
Section 307 of the I.P.C is also proved. Since the injuries were
inflicted after entering the house of PW2 using force, the offence
under Section 449 also stand established. The version given by
the appellant is inherently improbable. We find no reason for
PWs.2, 3 or 4 to falsely implicate the appellant and spare the
real culprit. The case of the prosecution is further corroborated
by the versions of other witnesses and materials on record. So,
we are of the view that the trial court has rightly found the
appellant guilty and sentenced him. But, we think that the
direction that the substantive sentences imposed for the
offences under Sections 449 and 307 will run consecutively is
not justified. We order that those sentences shall run
concurrently with life imprisonment.
Crl.Appeal No.68/2006
– 8 –
Subject to the above direction, the Criminal Appeal is
dismissed.
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
P. Bhavadasan,
Judge.
nm.