Kerala High Court
Manoj vs State Of Kerala on 5 August, 2025
CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :1: 2025:KER:58268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 883 OF 2007
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 16.04.2007 IN SC NO.350
OF 2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC), THRISSUR
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MANOJ, GHANDHI NAGAR, VADOORKARA,
KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE,, THRISSUR.
BY ADV SMT.MEERA R. MENON, STATE BRIEF
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
17.07.2025, THE COURT ON 05.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :2: 2025:KER:58268
JUDGMENT
The sole accused in S.C.No.350/2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-III (Adhoc-I), Thrissur, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The accused, due to a discord with his wife, abandoned her. CW1, who is the brother of the accused's wife, questioned the accused regarding this, and hence the accused was in an enimical terms with CW1. On 24.02.2005 at 6.30 p.m., while CW1 was selling groundnuts by standing on the eastern entrance of the Kuttanellur Bhagawathi Temple, the accused threw sand into the face of CW1 and stabbed below the left nipple and on the abdomen of CW1 using a 'thiruli', a dangerous weapon, with the intention of causing death. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :3: 2025:KER:58268 under Sections 324 and 308 of the IPC.
3. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur. Being satisfied that the case is one triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with all the necessary formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, Thrissur, under section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance of the offences made over the case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions Court-III (Adhoc-I), Thrissur. On the appearance of the accused before the trial court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides under section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon a perusal of the records, framed a written charge against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 308 of IPC. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P5.
MO1 to MO3 were exhibited and identified. After the
CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :4: 2025:KER:58268
completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., during which he denied all the incriminating materials brought out in evidence against him. Thereafter, both sides were heard under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under the said section, he was directed to enter on his defence and to adduce any evidence that he may have in support thereof. Thereupon, the documents produced from the side of the accused were marked as Ext.D1 to D16. Thereafter, both sides were heard in detail, and finally, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, and he was acquitted on the said charge. However, the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 308 of the IPC and convicted. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 308 of IPC. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Fine amount if realised or recovered, 75% of CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :5: 2025:KER:58268 the same was ordered to be given to PW6, the injured in this case, as compensation. Aggrieved by the said finding of guilt, conviction, and the order of sentence passed, the accused have come up with this appeal.
5. I heard the learned State brief appearing for the appellant and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned State Brief submitted that the learned trial judge convicted the accused without a proper appreciation of the facts and evidence brought out in this case. According to the counsel, the evidence on record clearly establishes that the accused and his wife were in a strained relationship and were living separately. Moreover, it is undisputed that multiple matrimonial disputes were pending before various courts between the accused and his wife. In this background, it was contended that PW6, who is none other than the brother of the accused's wife, had a sufficient motive to falsely implicate the accused in a case of this nature. Hence, it is unsafe to rely upon the testimony of PW6 to sustain a conviction in this case. It was also pointed out that, as the weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence was not recovered in terms CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :6: 2025:KER:58268 of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but was instead allegedly seized from the crime scene, the same does not establish any link between the accused and the weapon, thereby weakening the prosecution case.
7. In response, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that this being a case built upon the direct ocular evidence of the injured witness, there is little room for interference by this Court. He further submitted that in this case, the evidence of the injured witness is well corroborated by the evidence of an independent eyewitness and supporting medical evidence, which together lend credence to the prosecution's version. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, given the serious nature of the overt acts attributed to the accused, he deserves no leniency in the matter of sentence as well.
8. In order to prove the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8. Among them, PW6 is the injured witness, and PW7 is an independent eyewitness to the occurrence. PW1 is an attester to the scene mazhar prepared in this case. The Head Constable of Police, attached to Ollur CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :7: 2025:KER:58268 Police Station, who recorded the first information statement given by PW6, was examined as PW2. PW3 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who booked this case by registering Ext.P3 FIR. PW5 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who conducted the major part of the investigation in this case. PW8 is the Doctor who examined PW6 and issued the wound certificate. PW4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ollur Police Station, who laid the final report in this case.
9. As already stated, the law was set in motion in this case on the strength of the FIS given by the injured in this case, to the Head Constable of Police, Ollur Police Station. When the first informant was examined as PW6, he deposed as follows: The accused in this case is his sister's husband. Additionally, the accused is related to him being his paternal cousin. The incident in this case occurred on 24.02.2005 at 6.30 p.m., near the eastern entrance of Kuttanellur Bhagavathi Temple. On that day, the festival in the temple was going on, and he was engaged in the sale of peanuts in a push cart. While he was thus engaged, the accused approached him, and took CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :8: 2025:KER:58268 sand from his pocket, and threw it towards PW6's face. Thereafter, the accused took a "Thiruli" (a sharp-edged weapon) from his loin and stabbed PW6 on the abdomen, causing injury and bleeding. The accused then stabbed him below the left nipple portion, causing serious injury. Thereafter, the accused stabbed again on his abdomen, following which he collapsed. The accused then fled from the spot after throwing the "Thiruli" there at the spot. Immediately, thereafter, his uncle and a friend named Sabu, rushed to the spot and took him to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. PW6 identified MO1 as the "Thiruli" used by the accused to stab him. PW6 further deposed that his sister, who is the wife of the accused, had been abandoned by the accused and was living with him in his house. The accused was nurturing animosity towards him as he asked the accused about the abandonment of his sister. It was due to this animosity that the accused attacked him. PW6 identified the shirt and the dothi worn by him at the time of the incident and the same were marked as MO2 and MO3 respectively.
10. When an independent witness to the occurrence CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :9: 2025:KER:58268 was examined as PW7, he had given evidence regarding the incident in similar lines as deposed by PW6. According to PW7, he had acquaintance with both the accused and PW6. The incident in this case occurred on 24.02.2005 at 6.30 p.m. on the road near the eastern entrance of Kuttanellur Bhagavathy Temple. On that day, he had gone there to watch the temple festival. According to PW7, while PW6 was selling peanuts, the accused, who came there, took sand from his pocket and threw it into the face of PW6. Immediately thereafter, the accused stabbed the abdomen of PW6 with a Thiruli. The accused then stabbed below the left nipple of PW6 with Thiruli. PW6 sustained bleeding injuries. Then, he, along with CW2 (not examined), tried to catch the accused. However, the accused fled from the spot after throwing away the Thiruli. Thereafter, he, along with CW2, had taken PW6 to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, for treatment. When PW7 was confronted with MO1, he identified the same as the Thiruli used by the accused to stab PW6.
11. The crucial evidence that the prosecution relies on to prove the charge against the accused is the CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :10: 2025:KER:58268 testimony of PW6, the injured witness. During the examination before the court, PW6 had given a detailed account of the incident, explaining how it began, developed, and ended. The testimony of PW6, being an injured witness, carries special weight in law. Ordinarily, the injuries sustained by such a witness serve as strong proof of his presence at the crime scene and also assure that he sustained injuries in the incident, particularly when the nature of the injuries is not suggestive of being self-inflicted.
12. As already stated, PW6 is having a consistent case that the accused, who is his brother-in-law, had abandoned his sister, i.e., the accused's wife. PW6 had questioned about this matter, which caused enmity between them. This motive, according to PW6, prompted the accused to attack him. Notably, even the accused does not deny that he had a strained relationship with his wife and that they were living separately. Therefore, the motive for the commission of the offence stands established. Furthermore, it is important to note that this is not a case based on circumstantial evidence. On the CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :11: 2025:KER:58268 contrary, the present case is built upon direct ocular testimony. In such circumstances, proof of motive is of little consequence.
13. While analyzing the evidence of PW6, it is important to note that it is well settled through a catena of judicial pronouncements that the testimony of injured witnesses carries special evidentiary value. Ordinarily, such a witness would not falsely implicate an innocent person, thereby letting the actual assailant go unpunished. In Brahm Swaroop and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2011 SC 280, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence. The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :12: 2025:KER:58268 basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
In essence, there is no illegality in convicting an accused in a criminal case on the basis of the evidence of injured witnesses, provided such evidence is convincing and reliable. The evidence that the injured witnesses guarantee is primarily with respect to their presence at the scene of occurrence and the fact that they sustained injuries during the incident. However, it can not be laid as an inflexible rule that the testimony of an injured witness must be considered as gospel truth in every circumstance. If there is a reasonable possibility of false implication or if contradictions and material discrepancies are apparent in their evidence, such testimony must be viewed with care and circumspection. In the present case, the evidence of PW6, the injured witness, is convincing and reliable. He withstood the cross-examination successfully, and his evidence is free from material contradictions and omissions, even of a minor nature. More pertinently, his evidence is amply corroborated by the testimony of PW7, CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :13: 2025:KER:58268 an independent witness, who had no apparent motive to falsely implicate the accused.
14. During examination before the court, PW6, the injured witness, categorically deposed that while he was engaged in the sale of peanuts, the accused approached him and took sand from his pocket, and threw it towards PW6's face. Thereafter, the accused took a "Thiruli" from his loin and stabbed PW6 on the abdomen, causing injury and bleeding. The accused then stabbed him below the left nipple, causing serious injury. Thereafter, the accused stabbed again on his abdomen, following which he collapsed. PW7, the independent witness, also deposed in similar lines regarding the overt acts committed by the accused. The evidence of PW6 and PW7 in this regard finds sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence adduced in this case. When the Doctor who conducted the medical examination of the injured was examined as PW8, he categorically deposed that on 24.02.2005, while he was working as a lecturer in Surgery at Government Medical College Hospital, Thrissur, he examined PW6 at around 7 p.m. and issued a wound certificate. The wound certificate CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :14: 2025:KER:58268 issued by PW8 is marked as Ext.P5. Referring to Ext.P5, PW8 deposed that on examination of PW6 he had noted the following injuries;
1. Penetrating wound 0.5 cm in size 6 cm below left nipple.
2. Penetrating wound 6cm below nipple 5 cm on left side to the midline
3. Penetrating wound 8 cm lateral to the second wound in the anterior abdominal wall.
15. Referring to the injuries, PW8 further stated that on examination, abdominal rigidity was noted, and the same is indicative of a deep wound in the abdomen. According to the Doctor, the alleged history was "assault at Kuttanellur at 6.30 p.m.". Moreover, PW8 stated that the injured was brought to the hospital at about 6.45 p.m. When MO1 weapon was shown to the Doctor after verifying the same, he deposed that the injuries noted by him could have been caused by using a weapon like MO1. The Doctor further opined that injury No.3 is likely to cause death. Of course, a conjoint reading of the above evidence of PW8, the Doctor, and the wound certificate marked in evidence in this case reveals that immediately CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :15: 2025:KER:58268 after the alleged incident, PW6 was taken to the hospital and on examination, injuries corresponding to the overt acts attributed to the accused were noted by the Doctor. Therefore, the medical evidence adduced in this case certainly would lend sufficient corroboration to the evidence of PW6 and PW7. It is demonstrably clear that the nature of the injuries sustained by PW6 is not suggestive of being self-inflicted. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that there is nothing to doubt about the evidence of PW6 and PW7 regarding the alleged incident.
16. One of the contentions raised by the learned State Brief is that since MO1 weapon was not recovered pursuant to a disclosure statement given by the accused or at his instance, there is nothing to link the said weapon either with the accused or with the offence allegedly committed in this case. It is true that the recovery of MO1 was not based on any disclosure statement by the accused. However, it cannot be said that MO1 is not the weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence, merely because its recovery was not made pursuant to a CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :16: 2025:KER:58268 disclosure statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Notably, PW6, the injured, as well as PW7, the eyewitnesses to the incident, categorically deposed that the accused stabbed PW6 with a 'thiruli' and both of them identified MO1 as the weapon used in the commission of the offence. Furthermore, both the said witnesses consistently stated that the said weapon was abandoned by the accused at the scene itself. PW5, the Sub Inspector of Police, who visited the crime scene and prepared Ext.P1 scene mahazar, categorically deposed that when he arrived at the crime scene, he found MO1 there and took it into custody after describing in Ext.P1 scene mahazar. Similarly, when an attestor to the scene mahazar was examined as PW1, he also deposed that he saw the Police taking MO1 'thiruli' into custody at the time of preparing Ext.P1 scene mahazar. In the light of the above evidence, there is no reason to doubt that MO1 is the weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence.
17. The accused is having a case that PW6 bore a grudge against him, due to his strained relationship with CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :17: 2025:KER:58268 his wife, who is the sister of PW6, and this grudge has led PW6 to foist the present case. According to the accused, even prior to the registration of the present case, another case was pending against him as Crime No.577/2003 of Ollur Police Station, and the said earlier case was registered based on a complaint filed by his wife. The certified copy of the FIR in the said case was marked in evidence as Ext.D4. I do agree that as claimed by the accused, prior to the registration of the present case, another criminal case had been registered against the accused on the basis of the complaint filed by the wife of the accused. However, the mere fact that other disputes were pending prior to the incident in the present case, cannot be a ground to brand the prosecution version as false and foisted, particularly when the evidence of PW6 is found to be convincing and reliable, and the same is corroborated by the testimony of PW7, an independent witness, as well as the medical evidence. More significantly, the injuries sustained by PW6 were grievous in nature and, as already discussed, are not suggestive of being self-inflicted.
CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :18: 2025:KER:58268
18. As already stated, PW8, the Doctor, opined that injury No.3 sustained by PW6 was likely to cause death. The nature of the injuries inflicted, the type of weapon used, and the parts of the body where the injuries were inflicted, etc. clearly indicate the intention harboured by the accused. What he intended was to commit culpable homicide. Had PW6 succumbed to his injuries, the accused would have been guilty of culpable homicide. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the act of the accused would certainly attract an offence under Section 308 of IPC, which deals with the attempt to commit culpable homicide.
19. While considering the question whether any interference is required in the sentence imposed by the trial court, I am of the view that the sentence imposed on the accused for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC is somewhat harsh, particularly in the absence of any materials indicating that the accused has criminal antecedents. Therefore, I am of the view that the punishment imposed for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC warrants some modification. Accordingly, CRL.A NO. 883 of 2007 :19: 2025:KER:58268 the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years is hereby reduced to rigorous imprisonment for six months, with a fine of Rs.6,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the accused is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The fine amount, if paid or realised the same shall be given to PW6 as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.
With this affirmation and modification, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS/ncd