T. Surendran, C.No.452/2016, ... vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 7018 Ker

                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

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

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

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

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