IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
CRL.A NO. 1176 OF 2016
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP 44/2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
FIRST CLASS -II, KANNUR
SC 590/2015 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - III,
THALASSERY
APPELLANT:
T. SURENDRAN, S/O. LATE GOPALAN, C.NO.452/2016,
CENTRAL PRISON & CORRECTIONAL HOME, KANNUR.
BY ADV.G SANTHOSH KUMAR (STATE BRIEF)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
(C.I., VALAPATTANAM, POLICE STATION).
SMT.VEENA HARI, AMICUS CURIAE,
SRI.SANAL.P.RAJ, PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 1176 OF 2016
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
Crl.Appeal No. 1176 of 2016
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the appellant/accused against the conviction and sentence imposed on him in Sessions Case No.590/2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge - III, Thalassery. The above case is charge sheeted against the appellant/accused alleging offences punishable under Section 304, Part II IPC.
2. The prosecution case in brief is like this:
The accused, his brother PW1, his another brother deceased Ambooty (referred to also as Ambukutty) and his mother were residing together, at a place called Thuruthivayal. The mother was laid up due to old age aliments. On 24.03.2015 at about 05.30.PM when the accused picked up quarrel with the mother, the deceased interfered and objected the CRL.A NO. 1176 OF 2016 3 same. An altercation took place between himself and the deceased. In that course, the accused took up a spade lying in the courtyard and cut on the head of the deceased with the blade of the spade. The deceased sustained bleeding injuries. Though he was taken to hospital he died from there at about 08.45 PM on the same day. Death was due to heart attack. The deceased was suffering from coronary artery insufficiency and the act of the accused in attacking the deceased precipitated the heart ailment which resulted in his death. Thus the prosecution alleges that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 304 IPC.
3. To substantiate the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to 17 and marked Exts.P1 to P25. MOs 1 to 5 are the Material Objects. After going through the evidences and documents, the trial court found that the accused is guilty under Section 304, Part II IPC and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Aggrieved by the CRL.A NO. 1176 OF 2016 4 conviction and sentence, this appeal is filed.
4. The State Brief appointed was absent when the case was called. Hence Adv.Veena Hari is appointed as the Amicus Curiae in this case.
5. Heard Adv.Veena Hari who is the Amicus Curiae and the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. When this Crl.Appeal came up for consideration, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused already undergone sentence and released from jail on 06.07.2019. Even then the appeal is to be decided on merit.
7. Altogether 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW1 is the eye witness to the incident. PW2 and 3 are not eye witnesses and PW4 and 5 are the inquest witnesses. PW6 is the photographer of the Police department. PW7 is the seizure mahazar witness, PW8 is the witness in seizure mahazar. PW9 accompanied the investigating officer at the time of arrest. PW10 is only a scene mahazar witness. PW11 is also a scene mahazar CRL.A NO. 1176 OF 2016 5 witness. PW12 is the village officer. PW13 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem. PW14 is the Scientific Assistant. PW15 is the Doctor who examined the deceased at first and issued wound certificate. PW16 and 17 are the police officers.
8. After going through the evidence and the documents, the trial court found that the accused committed the offence under Section 304 part II of IPC. This Court anxiously considered the oral and documentary evidence available in this case. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the eye witness which is supported by the other circumstances. Even though the accused is released after serving the sentence, this Court can not dispose of the appeal recording the same. Since it is a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence, this Court has to consider the matter on merit. Hence I perused the entire records. I am satisfied that the trial court convicted the accused based on the evidences which includes oral and documentary evidences. The CRL.A NO. 1176 OF 2016 6 sentence imposed by the trial court is only five years imprisonment. There is nothing to interfere with the sentence also. Therefore, there is nothing to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal fails and dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE DM