Kerala High Court
Rony vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2025
2025:KER:53906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 909 OF 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2008 IN SC
NO.354 OF 2007 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC),
ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RONY
S/O JACOB, BALUMMEL VEEDU,
KANNAMALI DESOM,DESOM, KUMBALANGI VILLAGE.
BY ADV SHRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAMALI POLICE,
STATION - CRIME NO.212/2006 OF KANNAMALI POLICE,
STATION)REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV
SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR HEARING
15.07.2025, THE COURT ON 21.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :2:
2025:KER:53906
JUDGMENT
The sole accused in SC.No.354/2007 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against him in the said case for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;
The accused and CW1 are husband and wife. The accused harboured animosity towards his wife, as she was not amenable to the demand of the accused to transfer her property in the accused's name. Owing to this animosity, on 25.11.2006, at 3.00 p.m., the accused took his wife as a pillion rider on his motorcycle and rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner through Chellanam - Pandikkudy road and while riding so, the accused with the intention of committing culpable homicide, suddenly turned the motorcycle and applied the brakes abruptly, causing his wife to fall from the motorcycle and sustain serious injuries. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 279, 325, and 308 of the IPC.
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :3:
2025:KER:53906
3. After the completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi. On being satisfied that this 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, Ernakulam, under section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, after having taken cognizance, made over the case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam. On 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 279, 325, 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 PW7 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P8. MO1 series was exhibited and identified. After the 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 CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :4: 2025:KER:53906 heard under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and as 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 he may have in support thereof. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the defence. Thereafter, both sides were heard in detail, and finally, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the said finding of guilt, conviction, and order of sentence passed, the accused has come up with this appeal.
5. I heard Sri. C.Anilkumar Kallesseril, the learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. The accused and the injured in this case are admittedly husband and wife. The law was set in motion in this case based on the First Information Statement given by the sister of the injured to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kannamali Police Station. The said sister, who allegedly witnessed the incident, was CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :5: 2025:KER:53906 examined as PW3. In her deposition, she stated as follows: She is the sister of Seema(PW2), the injured in this case. The incident occurred on 25.11.2006 at 3.00 p.m. She deposed that there had been a quarrel between her sister and the accused for the past one week, and her sister was residing in her paternal home during that period. On the alleged date of the incident, the accused took PW2 in an autorickshaw to his home. Later that day, while she was returning back from a hospital along with her child by riding a motorcycle, the accused, who came on another motorcycle, overtook her. Then PW2, her sister, was found seated on the pillion of the motorcycle ridden by the accused. The said motorcycle was in overspeed, and her sister was screaming, asking for help. Suddenly, the accused applied the brakes, and her sister fell off the scooter. The incident occurred near Chalippuram Toddy shop. There were no bystanders present to help. The accused remained stationary at the scene without rendering any help to take her sister to the hospital. When she raised an alarm, an autorikshaw arrived. With the help of the autorikshaw driver, she took her sister inside the autorikshaw. Then the accused ran towards his house. She then followed the accused in the autorikshaw and forcefully compelled him to get CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :6: 2025:KER:53906 into it. When the autorikshaw reached near the house of the accused, the accused attempted to jump out of it, saying that he did not have any money. Then she said that she had sufficient money to manage the situation. When the autorikshaw reached near Kannamali auto stand, one of its tyres got punctured. Then she hired a car and took her sister to Goutham Hospital. Upon reaching the hospital, the accused fled the scene and did not return. She gave a statement to the Police from the hospital, and Ext.P3 is the said statement.
7. The injured in this case, when examined as PW2, deposed that the accused is her husband. Their marriage was conducted two years back. The incident in this case occurred on 25.11.2006. During the period surrounding the incident, she was residing at her house at Maruvakkad in Chellanam. The said house was gifted to her by her father. She had been residing there during the week preceding the incident due to a quarrel with her husband. On the alleged date of the incident, in the morning, her husband came to her paternal home and took her to his house. However, on that day, again her husband as well as her mother-in-law picked a quarrel with her. Thereafter, her husband contacted her father and asked him to come to his house.
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :7:
2025:KER:53906
Accordingly, her father arrived, and the accused told her father to take her back. Subsequently, the accused himself took her on his scooter to drop her at her house. On the way to her house, while she was on the pillion of the said scooter, the accused rode it at a hectic speed, and at that time, her husband was under the influence of alcohol. Although she requested the accused to slow down, the accused told her that he has no problem even if she dies. At that time, her sister came riding another scooter. Then she asked her sister to save her by showing signals with her hand. After a short distance, the accused suddenly applied the brakes, and she fell off the scooter, sustaining injuries. In the incident, she lost seven teeth and also suffered injuries to her face and knee. Following the incident, her sister took her to the hospital. The accused and his mother used to make frequent quarrels with her, demanding to transfer her property in the name of the accused. The attempt of accused was to murder her.
8. While analysing the evidence adduced in this case, it can be seen that the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of PW2 and PW3 to prove the occurrence alleged in this case. Among them, PW2 is the injured witness. Undisputedly, the evidence of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law.
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :8:
2025:KER:53906
In Brahm Swaroop 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."
9. Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should ordinarily be relied upon unless there are grounds for its rejection based on major contradictions or inherent improbabilities. Anyhow, there is no inflexible rule that the evidence of an injured witness must be accepted as gospel truth in all circumstances. If there is any chance of false implication, the court must act with much care and circumspection while evaluating the evidence of an injured witness. If there is anything to indicate that the witness has any reason that would motivate him to implicate the accused in a false case, the evidence of such a witness has to be carefully scrutinised even though he is an injured witness.
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :9:
2025:KER:53906
10. Keeping in mind the above while reverting to the facts in the present case, it can be seen that the accused and the injured, who are husband and wife, were in a strained relationship during the relevant period. The prosecution alleges that this strained relationship was the motive for the accused to endanger the life of PW2, his wife. However, it is a settled law that enmity is double-edged weapon. On one hand, it provides motive, on the other hand, it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication. Therefore, as already stated, a thorough and cautious evaluation of the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is highly necessary in this case.
11. Moreover, PW3, the eyewitness examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence, is none other than the sister of the injured. I am not oblivious of the law that a relationship is not a criterion to discard the evidence of a witness. Anyhow, while acting on the evidence of a relative witness, the court must be very careful.
12. A close analysis of the deposition of PW3 reveals that there are lot of improvements and contradictions therein. During examination before court, she deposed that after the incident, the accused remained stationary at the crime scene without CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :10: 2025:KER:53906 rendering any assistance to take PW2 to the hospital. However, when the Sub Inspector of Police who recorded the statement of PW3 was examined as PW7, he deposed that no such statement was given by PW3 at the time when she had given Ext.P3 FIS. Similarly, PW7 admitted that PW3 had not given a statement that she, along with the auto driver, forcefully took the accused into the autorikshaw. Ofcourse, the said omissions in the statement of PW3, proved through PW7, cannot be undermined while assessing the reliability of PW3's testimony. Likewise, when PW2 was examined, she testified that she gestured to her sister for assistance while seated on the scooter. However, during cross-examination, she admitted that she did not state that fact to the Police at the time when she gave statement to the Police. The said omission stands proved through the investigating officer who recorded the statement of PW3. The said omission will cast serious doubt regarding the credibility of PW2 as well. It is apparent that there are lot of improvements in the evidence of PW2 and PW3.
13. Moreover, the evidence adduced further reveals that immediately after the incident, PW2 was taken to Goutham Hospital. The Doctor who medically examined PW2 and issued CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :11: 2025:KER:53906 the wound certificate was examined as PW1. Referring to Ext.P1 wound certificate, the Doctor deposed that the history given was that of a fall from a motorcycle, and he opined that the injuries noted by him could have been caused as alleged. It is established that the history was stated by PW3, the sister of the injured, who claims to have witnessed the incident. Then it is highly dubious why PW3 did not state to the Doctor that it was an intentional act on the part of the accused instead of stating that it was a fall from a motorcycle. It is pertinent to note that at the time of stating the history, PW3 is not having a case that the incident occurred due to any purposeful act of the accused, but it was due to an accidental fall.
14. As already observed, the relationship between the accused and his wife had become strained well before the occurrence of the incident in this case. Significantly, during cross-examination, PW2admitted that she gave a statement to the Police under the instigation and inducement of her family members. Although she sought to retract this statement during re-examination, her earlier admission casts a serious shadow over the reliability of her version. Therefore, the chance of false implication cannot be ruled out in this case.
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :12:
2025:KER:53906
15. Furthermore, to attract criminal liability, a guilty or culpable intent must be established. It is a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence that an act becomes punishable only when accompanied by the requisite mental element, mens rea. It is pertinent to note that during cross-examination, PW2 herself admitted that she was holding a carry bag in her hand and hence she was unable to hold onto the accused while travelling in the pillion of the scooter. Therefore, the possibility of the incident being an accidental one cannot be ruled out. Even PW2 has not categorically deposed that the accused applied the brakes with any criminal intent. Through a series of judicial pronouncements, it is well settled that when two views are reasonably possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view that favours the accused must be adopted. As already noted, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is riddled with lot of omissions and inconsistencies, and their evidence is not capable of inspiring the confidence of this court. In such circumstances, it would be unsafe to wholly base a conviction solely on their testimonies, particularly when the same is not corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :13: 2025:KER:53906 failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC is set aside and he is acquitted. Fine amount, if any, has been deposited by the appellant/accused, the same shall be refunded to him in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN JUDGE ANS/ncd