{"id":190795,"date":"2003-11-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2"},"modified":"2017-07-18T04:34:14","modified_gmt":"2017-07-17T23:04:14","slug":"bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2","title":{"rendered":"Bhargavan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bhargavan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  530-531 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nBhargavan & Ors.\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Kerala\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/11\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tAppellants question their conviction for offences punishable under
\nSections 143, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal
\nCode, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’).  Appellant Bhargaven was sentenced to
\nundergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302
\nread with Section 149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.60,000\/- with default
\nstipulation. The other four appellants were awarded similar custodial
\nsentence but the fine in their cases was Rs.35,000\/- each. No separate
\nsentence was awarded for offences relatable to Sections 143 and 148 IPC.
\nThe Kerala High Court by the impugned common judgment dismissed the
\nappeals filed by the appellants confirming the conviction and sentences
\nimposed.\n<\/p>\n
\tProsecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
     Chandran (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), a Gulf returned
\nagriculturist while on his way to Panthalam market around midnight
\nbetween 25.5.95 and 26.5.95 at a Panchayat road at Arunoottimangalam was
\nbrutally assaulted.  Soon he was lifted to the Government Hospital,
\nMavelikara. After first aid, he was referred to the Medical College
\nHospital suspecting head injury.  The injured was shifted to the Medical
\nCollege hospital, Kottayam.  While undergoing treatment he succumbed to
\nthe injuries at around 12.50 p.m. on 27.5.95. After return from his
\nengagement abroad deceased was engaged in betel cultivation and trade.
\nValsala (PW-15) is his widow, and Manoharan (PW-4) was his brother.
\nSantosh (PW-18) was his nephew. On 25.5.1995 he was on his way to
\nPanthalam market, which starts functioning from early hours in the
\nmorning. When deceased and Santosh (PW-18) reached near the house of
\nP.K. Ramachandran (PW-14), all the named accused (A-1 to A-6) and two
\nothers waylaid them. Bhargavan (A-1) dealt a blow on the head of the
\ndeceased with an iron rod stating that he should not live any more.
\nDeceased slumped on receiving the blow. Then Dhanarajan alias Dhanan hit
\nthe deceased with motor cycle chain on his neck and back. Deceased cried
\nout in pain, hearing which A-1 said that he was not dead and should be
\nfinished. Responding to this, accused Sudhakaran (dead), Chandran,
\nSadasivan and Radhakrishnan (A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6 respectively)
\nassaulted the deceased on the head and back with sticks. Santosh (PW-18)
\ncried for help and ran towards home. Hearing the cry Manoharan (PW-4)
\nand other neighbours rushed to the spot. On the way Santosh (PW-18) met
\nManoharan (PW-4). Meanwhile Anandan (PW-2) and Nalini (PW-3) rushed
\nthere. Anandan (PW-2) and Manoharan (PW-4) supinated the deceased who
\nasked for water and named the accused persons to have assaulted him. PWs
\n3 and 4 gave water to the deceased. PW-18 Valsala (PW-15) and others in
\nthe meantime reached the place. PW-4, PW-18 and others shifted the
\ndeceased to the Government Hospital, Mavelikara. Dr. V.C. Alexander (PW-\n<\/p>\n
5) attended the injured and opined that he should be shifted to Medical
\nCollege Hospital, Kottayam as there was suspected head injury. He also
\nsent an intimation to the Mavelikara Police Station. Since PW-4 and PW-
\n18 did not carry much money, they returned home, collected some money
\nand clothes and along with PW-15 searched for a car. They went to the
\nhouse of one Shajahan, Advocate requesting for a car. Later, they got a
\ncar and the injured was shifted to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam.
\nThough he was admitted and treated at the Hospital in the intensive care
\nunit, he did not survive. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police had
\nreceived the intimation sent by PW-5. At about 3 p.m. on 26.5.1995, he
\nrecorded the First Information Report on the basis of narration by PW-\n<\/p>\n
18. The occurrence was witnessed by Santosh (PW-18) who was accompanying
\nthe deceased at the time the accused persons assaulted him.
\nSubsequently, information was lodged at the police station and
\ninvestigation was undertaken, on completion of which charge sheet was
\nfiled. According to prosecution the accused persons in furtherance of
\ntheir common intention to commit murder formed into an unlawful assembly
\nand being members of unlawful assembly they were armed with deadly
\nweapons like iron rod, motor cycle chain and sticks and with intend to
\ncommit murder of the deceased Chandran, he was brutally assaulted at his
\nhead and body and due to the head injuries sustained Chandran breathed
\nhis last.\n<\/p>\n
\tSix persons faced trial.  One of them i.e. accused no.2-Sudhakran
\ndied during the pendency of the appeal on 3.6.99. Twenty eight witnesses
\nwere examined to further the prosecution version.  Santosh (PW-18) was
\nstated to be an eye-witness wheres Anandan, Nalini, Manoharan (PWs 2, 3
\nand 4 respectively) were stated to be persons before whom the deceased
\nmade dying declaration implicating the accused-appellants.  Accused
\npersons pleaded innocence and false implication because of previous
\nlitigation. A-1 Bhargavan additionally took the plea of alibi to the
\neffect that he was hospitalized at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam at
\nthe time of occurrence and the possibility of his assaulting the
\ndeceased is improbable.  Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alappuza,
\nfound the prosecution version cogent, credible and trustworthy and
\nconvicted and sentenced the accused persons-appellants as aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn support of the appeals, learned counsel for the appellants
\nsubmitted that the trial Court and the High Court have erroneously held
\nthe accused persons guilty as the prosecution version is clearly
\nunacceptable.  Evidence of PW-18 is not only unreliable because of his
\nrelationship with the deceased, but also on the ground that he had
\nlitigation with the accused persons’ family. The so-called dying
\ndeclaration before PWs. 2, 3 and 4 is a myth. The doctor clearly stated
\nthat he was unconscious when brought to the hospital and, therefore, the
\nquestion of his making a coherent declaration before PWs. 2, 3 and 4 as
\nclaimed is impracticable. Additionally, in the so-called dying
\ndeclaration, accused no.1 was not specifically named. The conduct of PW-
\n18 is not natural. Though claimed that PW-18 had accompanied the
\ndeceased, said fact has not been established. His reaction does not
\nappear to be normal.  It is highly improbable that one person was
\nassaulted by several persons, and he did not react and remained passive
\nonlooker. It is equally improbable that after having allegedly made
\nmurderous assaults on a person, no attempt was made to even cause a
\nscratch on a person who claims to have witnessed the entire occurrence.
\nThe Trial Court noticed that accused persons knew the deceased and PW18
\nwere going to the market on particular day.  It is, therefore,
\nimprobable that they would leave unscathed a relative of the deceased
\nwho claims to have witnessed the occurrence.  Additionally, PW-18 did
\nnot mention the names of the assailants to the doctor who first treated
\nthe deceased.  Though it may not be the duty of the doctor to enquire
\nthe names, it is a question of attaching credibility to the evidence of
\nPW-18.  The conduct shown by the PW-18 and others in delaying to take
\nthe deceased to the hospital and first going to the house of their
\nadvocate on the unacceptable plea that they wanted to use his vehicle
\nshows that the first information report was lodged after deliberation
\nand falsely implicating the accused persons.  The first information
\nreport was lodged on the next day of occurrence. PWs. 2 and 3 claimed
\nthat they had seen the deceased in an injured condition.  Their evidence
\ngoes to show that Santosh (PW-18) was not present when they reached the
\nspot of occurrence.  PW-18 claimed to have seen the assailants in the
\nlight of the shed of PW-14.  But the said witness stated that light was
\nnot on when he reached the site. Reliance has been erroneously placed on
\nthe basis of statement of PW-14 (P.K. Ramachandran) recorded under
\nSection 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the
\n‘Cr.P.C.’). Even after the movements starting from the assault till the
\ndeceased was taken to the hospital is accepted in the manner described,
\neven then there is unexplained delay in lodging the first information
\nreport.  No credible motive has been established and the least for A-1
\nthere is no apparent motive.  The plea of alibi has been erroneously
\nrejected on hypothetical basis.  When the doctor himself has admitted
\nthat appellant-accused no.1 was admitted to the hospital, on the surmise
\nthat he was not there having been permitted to stay outside. It is
\nnothing but a hypothetical conclusion. Further it was submitted that
\nSection 149 has no application as the ingredients necessary to bring
\napplication of the said provision have not been established.  The
\ndiscrepancies in the evidence of witnesses are not minor and
\nirretrievably affect credibility of their evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn response, learned counsel for the State submitted that the plea
\nabout A-1 having nothing to do with any litigation of deceased and
\naccused except being the latter’s advocate is clearly not correct
\nfactual position because the Trial Court itself noticed about cases
\ninstituted by A-1 against the accused.  The evidence of PW-14 has
\nrightly been discarded on the question of availability of light.
\nEvidence of PW-13 (R. Ramachandran) and PW18 clearly shows that light
\nwas on.  It is not that the deceased was unconscious althrough as
\nclaimed by the accused-appellant. On the contrary evidence of PW-3 shows
\nthat he became unconscious after dying declaration as would be evident
\nfrom the fact that he asked for and was given a glass of water which he
\ntook.  Section 149 has been rightly applied as all the accused persons
\ncarried weapons and their presence and acts done have been established.
\nThe time of occurrence was after mid-night and the distance to the
\nhospital was such as it took nearly 3 hours to reach it. PW-18 has also
\nstated as to why he could not come to the rescue of the deceased. The
\nplea of alibi has been rightly rejected in view of the evidence of
\ndoctor and the nurses i.e. PWs. 19 to 22. In essence it was submitted
\nthat the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High
\nCourt about the guilt of the accused did not warrant any interference.\n<\/p>\n
 The plea relating to interested witness is a regular feature in
\nalmost every criminal trial.\n<\/p>\n
We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness
\nof the witnesses for furthering prosecution version.  Relationship is
\nnot a factor to affect credibility of a witness.  It is more often than
\nnot that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make
\nallegations against an innocent person.  Foundation has to be laid if
\nplea of false implication is made.  In such cases, the court has to
\nadopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is
\ncogent ad credible.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Dalip Singh and Ors.  v. The State of Punjab (AIR<\/a> 1953 SC 364)
\nit has been laid down as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“A witness is normally to be considered independent
\nunless he or she springs from sources which are
\nlikely to be tainted and that usually means unless
\nthe witness has cause, such as enmity against the
\naccused, to wish to implicate him falsely.\n<\/p>\n
Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to
\nscreen the real culprit and falsely implicate an
\ninnocent person.  It is true, when feelings run high
\nand there is personal cause for enmity, that there is
\na tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom
\na witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but
\nfoundation must be laid for such a criticism and the
\nmere fact of relationship far from being a foundation
\nis often a sure guarantee of truth.  However, we are
\nnot attempting any sweeping generalization.  Each
\ncase must be judged on its own facts.  Our
\nobservations are only made to combat what is so often
\nput forward in cases before us as a general rule of
\nprudence.  There is no such general rule. Each case
\nmust be limited to and be governed by its own facts.”\n<\/p>\n
\tThe above decision has since been followed in Guli Chand and Ors.
\nv. State of Rajasthan<\/a> (1974 (3) SCC 698) in which Vadivelu Thevar v.
\nState of Madras (AIR<\/a> 1957 SC 614) was also relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe may also observe that the ground that the witness being a close
\nrelative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied
\nupon, has no substance.  This theory was repelled by this Court as early
\nas in Dalip Singh’s case (supra) in which surprise was expressed over
\nthe impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar
\nthat relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian
\nBose, J. it was observed:\n<\/p>\n
“We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of
\nthe High Court that the testimony of the two
\neyewitnesses requires corroboration.  If the
\nfoundation for such an observation is based on the
\nfact that the witnesses are women and that the fate
\nof seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no
\nsuch rule.  If it is grounded on the reason that they
\nare closely related to the deceased we are unable to
\nconcur.  This is a fallacy common to many criminal
\ncases and one which another Bench of this Court
\nendeavoured to dispel in  ‘Rameshwar v. State of
\nRajasthan’ (AIR<\/a> 1952 SC 54 at p.59).  We find,
\nhowever, that it unfortunately still persists, if not
\nin the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the
\narguments of counsel.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAgain in Masalti and Ors.   v.  State of U.P.  (AIR<\/a> 1965 SC 202)
\nthis Court observed: (p. 209-210 para 14):\n<\/p>\n
“But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend
\nthat evidence given by witnesses should be discarded
\nonly on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or
\ninterested witnesses…….The mechanical rejection
\nof such evidence on the sole ground that it is
\npartisan would invariably lead to failure of justice.
\nNo hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much
\nevidence should be appreciated.  Judicial approach
\nhas to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but
\nthe plea that such evidence should be rejected
\nbecause it is partisan cannot be accepted as
\ncorrect.”\n<\/p>\n
\tTo the same effect is the decision in State of Punjab v. Jagir
\nSingh (AIR<\/a> 1973 SC 2407), Lehna v. State of Haryana<\/a> (2002 (3) SCC 76)
\nand Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State of Orissa<\/a> (2002 (8) SCC 381). As
\nobserved by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr. (AIR<\/a>
\n1981 SC 1390), normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due
\nto normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of
\ntime, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of
\noccurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a
\nwitness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal,
\nand not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category
\nto which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do
\nnot corrode the credibility of a party’s case, material discrepancies do
\nso. These aspects were highlighted recently in Krishna Mochi and Ors. v.
\nState of Bihar<\/a> etc. (JT 2002 (4) SC 186).\n<\/p>\n
Another plea which was emphasized relates to the question whether
\nSection 149, IPC has any application for fastening the constructive
\nliability which is the sine qua non for its operation.  The emphasis is
\non the common object and not on common intention.  Mere presence in an
\nunlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a
\ncommon object and he was actuated by that common object and that object
\nis one of those set out in Section 141.  Where common object of an
\nunlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted
\nwith the help of Section 149.  The crucial question to determine is
\nwhether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the
\nsaid persons entertained one or more of the common objects, as specified
\nin Section 141.  It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law
\nthat unless an overt act is proved against a person, who is alleged to
\nbe a member of unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member
\nof an assembly.  The only thing required is that he should have
\nunderstood that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any
\nof the acts which fall within the purview of Section 141.  The word
\n‘object’ means the purpose or design and, in order to make it ‘common’,
\nit must be shared by all.  In other words, the object should be common
\nto the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to say, they should
\nall be aware of it and concur in it.  A common object may be formed by
\nexpress agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means
\nnecessary.  It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the
\nassembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed,
\nit need not continue to be the same.  It may be modified or altered or
\nabandoned at any stage.  The expression ‘in prosecution of common
\nobject’ as appearing in Section 149 have to be strictly construed as
\nequivalent to ‘in order to attain the common object’.  It must be
\nimmediately connected with the common object by virtue of the nature of
\nthe object.  There must be community of object and the object may exist
\nonly up to a particular stage, and not thereafter.  Members of an
\nunlawful assembly may have community of object up to certain point
\nbeyond which they may differ in their objects and the knowledge,
\npossessed by each member of what is likely to be committed in
\nprosecution of their common object may vary not only according to the
\ninformation at his command, but also according to the extent to which he
\nshares the community of object, and as a consequence of this the effect
\nof Section 149, IPC may be different on different members of the same
\nassembly.\n<\/p>\n
\t‘Common object’ is different from a ‘common intention’ as it does
\nnot require a prior concert and a common meeting of minds before the
\nattack.  It is enough if each has the same object in view and their
\nnumber is five or more and that they act as an assembly to achieve that
\nobject.  The ‘common object’ of an assembly is to be ascertained from
\nthe acts and language of the members composing it, and from a
\nconsideration of all the surrounding circumstances.  It may be gathered
\nfrom the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly.  What
\nthe common object of the unlawful assembly is at a particular stage of
\nthe incident is essentially a question of fact to be determined, keeping
\nin view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and
\nthe behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident.  It
\nis not necessary under law that in all cases of unlawful assembly, with
\nan unlawful common object, the same must be translated into action or be
\nsuccessful. Under the Explanation to Section 141, an assembly which was
\nnot unlawful when it was assembled, may subsequently become unlawful.
\nIt is not necessary that the intention or the purpose, which is
\nnecessary to render an assembly an unlawful one comes into existence at
\nthe outset.  The time of forming an unlawful intent is not material. An
\nassembly which, at its commencement or even for some time thereafter, is
\nlawful, may subsequently become unlawful. In other words it can develop
\nduring the course of incident at the spot co instanti.\n<\/p>\n
Section 149, IPC consists of two parts.  The first part of the
\nsection means that the offence to be committed in prosecution of the
\ncommon object must be one which is committed with a view to accomplish
\nthe common object.  In order that the offence may fall within the first
\npart, the offence must be connected immediately with the common object
\nof the unlawful assembly of which the accused was member.  Even if the
\noffence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of
\nthe assembly, it may yet fall under Section 141, if it can be held that
\nthe offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed and
\nthis is what is required in the second part of the section.  The purpose
\nfor which the members of the assembly set out or desired to achieve is
\nthe object.  If the object desired by all the members is the same, the
\nknowledge that is the object which is being pursued is shared by all the
\nmembers and they are in general agreement as to how it is to be achieved
\nand that is now the common object of the assembly.  An object is
\nentertained in the human mind, and it being merely a mental attitude, no
\ndirect evidence can be available and, like intention, has generally to
\nbe gathered from the act which the person commits and the result
\ntherefrom.  Though no hard and fast rule can be laid down under the
\ncircumstances from which the common object can be called out, it may
\nreasonably be collected from the nature of the assembly, arms it carries
\nand behaviour at or before or after the scene of incident.  The word
\n‘knew’ used in the second branch of the section implies something more
\nthan a possibility and it cannot be made to bear the sense of ‘might
\nhave been known’. Positive knowledge is necessary. When an offence is
\ncommitted in prosecution of the common object, it would generally be an
\noffence which the members of the unlawful assembly knew was likely to be
\ncommitted in prosecution of the common object.  That, however, does not
\nmake the converse proposition true; there may be cases which would come
\nwithin the second part but not within the first part.  The distinction
\nbetweens the two parts of Section 149 cannot be ignored or obliterated.
\nIn every case is would be an issue to be determined, whether the offence
\ncommitted falls within the first part or it was an offence such as the
\nmembers of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution
\nof the common object and falls within the second part. However, there
\nmay be cases which would be within first offences committed in
\nprosecution of the common object would be generally, if not always, with
\nthe second, namely, offences which the parties knew to be likely
\ncommitted in the prosecution of the common object.  (See Chikkarange
\nGowda and others v. State of Mysore,  AIR<\/a> 1956 SC 731.)<\/p>\n
\tThe other plea that definite roles have not been ascribed to the
\naccused and, therefore, Section 149 is not applicable, is untenable. A
\n4-Judge Bench of this Court in Masalti’s case (supra) observed as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Then it is urged that the evidence given by
\nthe witnesses conforms to the same uniform pattern
\nand since no specific part is assigned to all the
\nassailants, that evidence should not have been
\naccepted.  This criticism again is not well founded.
\nWhere a crowd of assailants who are members of an
\nunlawful assembly proceeds to commit an offence of
\nmurder in pursuance of the common object of the
\nunlawful assembly, it is often not possible for
\nwitnesses to describe accurately the part played by
\neach one of the assailants.  Besides, if a large
\ncrowd of persons armed with weapons assaults the
\nintended victims, it may not be necessary that all of
\nthem have to take part in the actual assault.  In the
\npresent case, for instance, several weapons were
\ncarried by different members of the unlawful
\nassembly, but it appears that the guns were used and
\nthat was enough to kill 5 persons. In such a case, it
\nwould be unreasonable to contend that because the
\nother weapons carried by the members of the unlawful
\nassembly were not used, the story in regard to the
\nsaid weapons itself should be rejected.  Appreciation
\nof evidence in such a complex case is no doubt a
\ndifficult task; but criminal courts have to do their
\nbest in dealing with such cases and it is their duty
\nto sift the evidence carefully and decide which part
\nof it is true and which is not.”\n<\/p>\n
\tTo similar effect is the observation in Lalji v. State of U.P.<\/a>
\n(1989 (1) SCC 437). It was observed that:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Common object of the unlawful assembly
\ncan be gathered from the nature of the assembly,
\narms used by them and the behaviour of the
\nassembly at or before the scene of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
It is an inference to be deduced from the facts
\nand circumstances of each case.”\n<\/p>\n
In State of U.P. v. Dan Singh and Ors.<\/a> (1997 (3) SCC 747) it was
\nobserved that it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove which of
\nthe members of the unlawful assembly did which or what act. Reference
\nwas made to Lalji’s case (supra) where it was observed that “while
\novert act and active participation may indicate common intention of the
\nperson perpetrating the crime, the mere presence in the unlawful
\nassembly may fasten vicariously criminal liability under Section 149”.\n<\/p>\n
\tAbove being the position, we find no substance in the plea that
\nevidence is not sufficient to fasten guilt by application of Section\n<\/p>\n
149.   <\/p>\n
\tSo far as non-disclosure of names to the doctor, same  is really
\nof no consequence.  As rightly noted by the Courts below, his primary
\nduty is to treat the patient and not to  find out by whom the injury was
\ncaused. The plea in this regard is clearly unacceptable. The question
\nwas examined by this Court in Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of Andhra
\nPradesh (AIR<\/a> 1985 SC 1715) and similar view was taken.\n<\/p>\n
The evidence of PWs. 2, 3 and 4 is cogent and credible, clearly
\nsupporting the claim that dying declaration was made before them.  The
\nnames of the accused persons were claimed to have been stated before
\nPWs. 2, 3 and 4.  Merely because PW-2 says that he did not hear the name
\nof accused no.1 clearly, that cannot dilute evidentiary value of the
\nevidence of PWs. 3 and 4 who categorically stated that the name of
\naccused no.1 was stated.\n<\/p>\n
The plea of alibi was rejected by the Trial Court and the High
\nCourt. The appellant no.1 had not established that he was in the
\nhospital on the trial.  The evidence of doctor and the nurses (PWs. 19
\nto 22) clearly shows that he was not given any medicines after initial
\nexamination and that itself was conclusive of the fact that he was not
\nin the hospital in the evening when the medicines were given to the
\npatients.  It has been specifically stated that he was permitted to stay
\noutside.\n<\/p>\n
It has also been explained as to why there was delay in lodging
\nthe first information report.  The Trial Court and the High Court
\nconsidered the evidence and came to hold that the paramount attempt was
\nto save the life of the deceased, and witnesses tried to take him to the
\nhospital at Kottayam. The evidence of PW-18 was sufficient in itself to
\nuphold the conviction.  Additionally, there is evidence of the dying
\ndeclaration.\n<\/p>\n
\tTrial Court and the High Court were justified in convicting the
\naccused and awarding sentences  consequentially, and there is no
\ninfirmity in the reasons indicated by the Trial Court, the conclusions
\narrived at by it as affirmed by the High Court, to warrant interference.
\nThe appeals fail and are dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bhargavan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2003 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 530-531 of 2003 PETITIONER: Bhargavan & Ors. RESPONDENT: State of Kerala DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/11\/2003 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-190795","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBhargavan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhargavan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-17T23:04:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhargavan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T23:04:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2\"},\"wordCount\":4521,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2\",\"name\":\"Bhargavan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-17T23:04:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhargavan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bhargavan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhargavan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-17T23:04:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhargavan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T23:04:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2"},"wordCount":4521,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2","name":"Bhargavan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-17T23:04:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhargavan-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-on-17-november-2003-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhargavan & Ors vs State Of Kerala on 17 November, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190795","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=190795"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/190795\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=190795"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=190795"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=190795"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}