Kerala High Court
Anilkumar vs State Of Kerala on 17 October, 2024
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2024:KER:76551
Crl.A.No.1315/2018 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 25TH ASWINA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 1315 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.09.2018 IN SC NO.131 OF 2015
OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - V, KOLLAM
APPELLANT:
ANILKUMAR
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, KRISHNALAYAM VEEDU, MELILA
KIZHAKKU MURI, MELILA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
C.PRATHAPACHANDRAN PILLAI
MANU RAMACHANDRAN
M.KIRANLAL
T.S.SARATH
R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
VISHNUPRASAD NAIR(K/001162/2010)
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
ADV.NEEMA.T.V. SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.10.2024, THE COURT ON 17.10.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:76551
Crl.A.No.1315/2018 2
JUDGMENT
G.Girish, J.
The judgment dated 26.09.2018 in S.C.No.131/2015 of the Additional
Sessions Court-V, Kollam is under challenge in this appeal. As per the above
judgment, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced
the appellant for the commission of offence under Sections 324 and 302
I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He was awarded life imprisonment
and fine Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 302 I.P.C, imprisonment for one year
under Section 324 I.P.C and imprisonment for three years under section 27
of the Arms Act.
2. The prosecution case is summarised as follows:
One Athira (PW2), the sister of deceased Sreejith, has been married
to one Arun Krishnan. G.R (PW5), the brother of the accused herein.
Sreejith, who was employed in Bombay, came to his native place by name
Ivarkala two days prior to 11.02.2014 to participate in the local temple
festival of Eechappally Devi Temple. He invited all the members of the
family of his sister's husband, including the accused, to his house on
11.02.2014 for taking part in the temple festival. Accordingly, Athira
(PW2), her husband Arun Krishnan (PW5), the accused, the father of the
accused and another relative from the family of the accused came to the
house of the deceased at Ivarkala. In the evening of 11.02.2014, all the
2024:KER:76551
members of the family of the deceased and the guests, except the accused,
went to the temple to see the monumental display (കെട്ടുകാഴ്ച). All of them
except the deceased and his friends returned to the house by 7:00 p.m.
The guests from the house of Athira's husband, except the accused,
returned to their house at Melila after having dinner from the house of the
deceased. After the return of the deceased and his friends from the
temple, an altercation occurred between the deceased and the accused,
that night. As per the first information statement, the issue was in
connection with the demand of the accused to have food late at night.
However, as per the evidence adduced, the quarrel arose when the
deceased asked the accused the reason for not marrying, and the accused
replied that all women including the sister of the deceased are not good.
The accused was then beaten up by the deceased twice. The accused, in
turn, had broken the chairs and smashed the window glass panes of the
house of the deceased. At the intervention of the father of the deceased
and others, the accused and deceased were set apart. The deceased
telephoned his sister and brother-in-law and asked them to take back the
accused immediately. As requested by the sister and brother-in-law, the
deceased and his father along with two friends of the deceased took the
accused in an autorickshaw to Melila. While the father of the deceased and
two friends of the deceased accompanied the accused in the autorickshaw,
2024:KER:76551
the deceased and another friend followed them in a motorbike. Though
they met the brother of the accused (PW5) who came in his car, in the
midway, the accused refused to board the above car and hence the party
from Ivarkala continued their journey in the autorickshaw and motorbike to
the house of the accused at Melila. Immediately after reaching the house
of the accused at Melila, the accused rushed to his room, changed his dress
and returned with a sheathed sword and inflicted blows upon the father of
the deceased. Hearing the screams of Athira (PW2), the deceased who was
standing at the gate of the house rushed to the sitout of the house.
Thereupon, the accused unsheathed the sword and stabbed the deceased
upon his left chest resulting in his fall to the sitout with a deep penetrating
wound which pierced his lungs. The deceased Sreejith was taken to Vijaya
Hospital, Kottarakkara, but he could not be admitted there for want of
ventilator facilities. He was then taken to Lotus Hospital, Kottarakkara by
about 3.55 a.m. on 12.02.2014, but he breathed his last by that time as a
consequence of the deadly stab injury sustained at the hands of the
accused.
3. On the basis of Ext.P11 First Information Statement given by
PW16, the father of the deceased, the Kunnicode Police registered Ext.P12
F.I.R in respect of the commission of offence under Sections 324 and 302
I.P.C by the accused. Soon the investigation was taken over by PW17, the
2024:KER:76551
Inspector of Police, Pathanapuram on the same day, and the usual legal
formalities of preparation of inquest report, mahazars and arrangement for
conducting autopsy of the dead body were done. The accused was
arrested at 5.30 p.m. on 12.02.2014 and remanded to judicial custody. The
investigation was completed and the final report was filed by PW18 who
succeeded PW17 as the Inspector of Police, Pathanapuram.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was
assigned, after commitment and make over, framed charge against the
accused under Sections 324 & 302 I.P.C and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
As the accused denied the charge, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
proceeded with the trial in which 18 witnesses were examined as PW1 to
PW18 and 29 documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P29. Seven material
objects were identified as MO1 to MO7. After the close of the prosecution
evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the statement of
the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The accused took up a plea of total denial and stated that it was PW1, the
friend of the deceased, who had inflicted the stab injury upon the
deceased, while trying to attack the accused with the sword. According to
the accused, while PW1 pounced upon him with MO1 sword, he dodged
away as a result of which the sword struck on the chest of the deceased
leading to the fatal injuries. Finding that there is no scope for an acquittal
2024:KER:76551
under Section 232 Cr.P.C., the learned Additional Sessions Judge afforded
opportunity to the accused to adduce defence evidence. One witness was
examined from the part of the accused as DW1 and a document marked as
Ext.D1. It is after evaluating the aforesaid evidence, and hearing both
sides that the learned Additional Sessions Judge arrived at the finding that
the accused committed offence under Sections 324 & 302 I.P.C and Section
27 of the Arms Act. He was accordingly convicted and sentenced as stated
above.
5. In the present appeal, the appellant would contend that the
Trial Court went wrong in placing reliance upon the evidence of PW1 to
PW3, PW5 and PW16 for arriving at the conclusion that the appellant
(accused) committed the offence charged against him. It is stated that a
prudent appreciation of the evidence of the above witnesses would lead to
the irresistible conclusion that the accused had not committed the crime
alleged against him.
6. Heard Adv.Mr. Vishnuprasad Nair, the learned counsel for the
appellant and Adv.Smt.Neema. T.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor
representing the State of Kerala.
7. The prosecution has set up the case against the accused on
the basis of the direct ocular evidence of PW1 and PW3 - the friends of the
deceased, PW2 - the sister of the deceased, PW5 - the brother of the
2024:KER:76551
accused and PW16 - the father of the deceased. Among the above five
witnesses, PW1, PW3 and PW16 had the occasion to witness the entire
incidents which took place right from the house of the deceased at Ivarkala
in the night of 11.02.2014 upto the wee hours of 12.02.2014 when the
accused is said to have stabbed the deceased to death at the sitout of his
house at a place called Melila, about 22 Kms away from the residence of
the deceased. As far as PW2 is concerned, she had only witnessed the
sequence of events leading to the commission of the crime at about 3:30
a.m at the residence of the accused. PW5 had the occasion to witness the
incidents past the midnight of 11.02.2014, from the time when he is said to
have met the deceased, accused, PW1, PW3 and PW16 at a place called
Vendar while the above persons were on the way to the house of PW5 in
an autorickshaw and a motorbike.
8. The consistent versions of PW1, PW3 and PW16 about the
incidents which culminated in the death of the deceased at about 3:55 a.m
on 12.02.2014, are summarised as follows:
As invited by the deceased, the accused, his father, PW5, PW2 and a
relative of PW5 came to the house of the deceased at Ivarkala in the
evening of 11.02.2014 for participating in the festival of Eachappally Devi
Temple. All of them except the accused went to the above temple, and
those persons except the deceased and his friends returned to the house of
2024:KER:76551
the deceased before 7:30 p.m of that day. PW2, PW5 and their relatives,
except the accused, went back to their house at Melila by about 8:00 p.m.
After the return of the deceased and friends from the temple, the accused,
the deceased, PW16, PW1 and PW3 together had their dinner at the house
of the deceased, and thereafter engaged in talks at the courtyard of that
house. PW16 soon parted their company and went inside the house. At
that time, an altercation occurred between the accused and the deceased
when the accused, during the course of discussions, said that the entire
women community including the sister of the deceased were not good as
they seem to be. Enraged by the above comment of the accused, the
deceased slapped the accused, which provoked the accused to smash the
chair in which he was sitting, and also the glass of the window panes of the
house of the deceased. Thereupon the deceased again slapped the
accused. PW1, PW16 and others intervened and set them apart. Having
been terribly insulted, annoyed and manhandled, the accused became
restless and started uttering abusive words. Thereupon, the deceased
telephoned PW2 and asked her to send somebody to take back the accused
to his house at Melila. After waiting for sometime, the deceased and
PW16, with the help of the friends of the deceased, arranged an
autorickshaw by midnight and proceeded to the house of the accused, with
PW16, PW3 and another person travelling along with the accused in the
2024:KER:76551
autorickshaw, and the deceased and PW1 following them in a motorbike.
When they reached the place called Vendar, they met PW5 who was coming
in a car to take back the accused to their house at Melila. However, the
accused refused to board the car of PW5, and hence PW16 and his team
continued the journey to Melila with the accused in the autorickshaw, and
the deceased and PW1 following them in a motorbike. At the time when
the motorcade reached the gate of the house of the accused, he sprang out
of the autorickshaw and rushed to his room. Within a short while, the
accused changed his dress to a lungi and shirt, and came to the sitout of
the house where PW16 and others were there, with a sheathed sword and
assaulted PW16 by inflicting blows. Hearing the screams of PW2 upon
seeing the above assault, the deceased followed by PW1 rushed to the
sitout of the house. Thereupon, the accused unsheathed the sword and
stabbed the deceased upon the left side of his chest, after asking whether
he had come there also to mount further assault upon the accused. While
the deceased collapsed, PW1, PW16 and PW5 wrested the sword from the
hands of the accused, after a prolonged scuffle. PW1 threw that sword to
a nearby rubber plantation. The deceased was taken to Vijaya Hospital,
Kottarakkara in the car of PW5, but he could not be admitted there since
there were no ventilator facilities in that hospital. He was then taken to
2024:KER:76551
Lotus Hospital, Kottarakkara, where the Doctor who examined the
deceased, declared that he was no more.
9. Though PW1 to PW3, PW5 and PW16 were subjected to
extensive and vigorous cross-examination, nothing could be brought out to
discredit their testimonies. True that, there had been some minor
discrepancies and omissions amounting to contradictions in the oral
evidence of the above said witnesses. However, those minor errors and
anomalies are too trivial to be pondered upon, since it would no way affect
the core of the prosecution case. The incidents that happened at the
residence of the accused right from the time when he reached there by
about 3:10 a.m. on 12.02.2014, along with PW16, the deceased and
others, have been spoken by PW2 and PW5 in conformity with the versions
of PW1, PW3 and PW16. All the above five witnesses have sworn before
the Trial Court in unequivocal terms about the act of the accused coming
out of his room with a sheathed sword, inflicting blows upon PW16 and
thereafter, unsheathing the sword and thrusting it to the left chest of the
deceased who came to the rescue of PW16 at the sitout of the house of the
accused. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the above version of
PW1 to PW3, PW5 and PW16. The defence version about the alleged act
of PW1 attempting to stab the accused with the sword, and the deceased
getting injured as a result of the accidental strike of the sword, when the
2024:KER:76551
accused dodged away from the attack of PW1, does not have the support
of any evidence other than that of PW4, the mother of the accused.
10. It is not possible to attribute any credence on the evidence of
PW4 supporting the case of the accused, since it could only be termed as
an effort made by her out of her motherly affection to try whether the
accused could be saved from the penal consequences of the crime
committed by him. A close scrutiny of the evidence tendered by PW4
would go to show that her version about the incident leading to the death
of the deceased, is totally at variance, and incompatible with the evidence
tendered by the other witnesses. It has been stated by PW4 in
chief-examination that the accused who came to the house along with
PW16 and another person, in an autorickshaw hours before the incident,
immediately went to his bedroom after asking her to bring some hot water.
Thereafter, she would say, that, after the accused changed his dress, PW2
and PW16 along with the deceased rushed to that room and assaulted the
accused without any provocation. In order to escape from the above
assault, the accused is said to have ran towards the sitout of the house.
Thereupon, according to PW4, some among the youngsters who
accompanied the deceased, went out and brought a pipe and inflicted
blows. When the above pipe struck on the grills, it broke off and a sword
emerged from it. PW4 would further state that the deceased, his father, the
2024:KER:76551
accused and some three or four persons were involved in a scramble for
the above sword, and engaged in a scuffle. PW1 was not involved in that
scuffle, but PW5, PW3 and PW16 were there. At that time, the smell of
alcohol was emanating from the deceased and his father. During the
course of the tussle, somehow due to the reason of the sword moving
towards the deceased, or the deceased moving towards it, the sword
happened to strike on the chest of the deceased. According to PW4, she
does not know how the sword struck on the chest of the deceased. In the
light of the above strange version of PW4, totally at variance from her prior
statement to the police, the Trial Court permitted the Prosecutor to
cross-examine the witness by treating her as hostile to the prosecution.
Seven contradictions in the prior statement given by PW4 to the police
were thereafter marked as Exts.P2 to P8 in the cross-examination done by
the learned Public Prosecutor. To the pointed question of the Prosecutor as
to whether she wished to save the accused from this case, PW4 gave an
affirmative answer by saying that it is nothing but the desire of a mother.
To another question put by the learned Public Prosecutor, PW4 confided
that earlier a neighbour by name Bhanumathi had instituted a case against
the accused and that she was in enmity with them for a long time. She
also stated that, being the elder son, she has got special affection for the
accused, and that she always advised him to reform. The only conclusion
2024:KER:76551
which could be drawn upon a cumulative appreciation of the evidence of
PW4 is that the above witness, by making false statements, was trying to
save the accused from the penal consequences of the crime committed by
him. Therefore, the solitary evidence of PW4, exculpating the accused, can
only be eschewed.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant took much pain by
harping upon the point that the nature of the injuries in the palms of the
accused itself would reveal that he had been resisting the attack by another
person with MO1 sword. It is thus argued by the learned defence counsel
that the accused was actually on the defensive, trying to save his life from
the dastardly attack of PW1 with the sword. We are unable to accept the
argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in the above regard. It is
true that Ext.P9 wound certificate contains the particulars of the incised
wounds suffered by the accused upon his both palms. But it is pertinent to
note that the evidence tendered by the prosecution about the act of PW1,
PW5 and PW16 wresting the sword from the hands of the accused, after a
prolonged tussle, itself would explain the chances of the accused suffering
such injuries during the course of his efforts to retain the weapon with him.
The mere fact that the accused suffered more injuries upon his palms, than
that of PW5, PW16 and PW1, cannot be taken as a circumstance pointing
to any irresistible conclusion that the accused was not on the offensive.
2024:KER:76551
12. The evidence tendered by PW2 and PW5 clearly show that
MO1 sword was being handled by the accused since a long time prior to the
incident involved in this case. Both the above witnesses stated before the
Trial Court in unequivocal terms that they had the occasion to see the
accused unsheathing and checking the above sword on several instances.
PW5 even stated that he had seen the accused wielding the above sword
on an earlier occasion when the henchmen of one Thankachan, with whom
they were having a case of assault, made an attempt to inflict harm upon
them. Thus, the contention of the accused that MO1 sword was brought
by the deceased and PW1, and kept in the motorbike in which they
travelled from Ivarkala to Melila while accompanying the autorickshaw in
which the accused was travelling along with PW16, cannot be believed for a
moment.
13. The case of the defence that the deceased along with PW1 and
PW16 mounted unprovoked attack upon the accused immediately after they
reached the residence of the accused by about 3:00 A.M on 12.02.2014, is
unbelievable due to one more reason. It is the admitted case of the
prosecution as well as the defence that the accused was taken in an
autorickshaw past midnight of 11.02.2014 from the house of the deceased
to the house of PW5 at a distance of about 22 Kms. In the above
autorickshaw, in addition to the driver, PW16, PW3 and another friend by
2024:KER:76551
name Sreejith of the deceased, are said to have accompanied the accused.
The deceased and PW1 are said to have followed the autorickshaw in a
motorbike. If there was any plan for the deceased and PW16 to attack the
accused, they could have done it at some place enroute to Melila making
use of the darkness of the night and the loneliness of the place, so that
nobody could have witnessed the crime. It is too hard to digest the
defence story that the deceased and PW16 mounted an unprovoked attack
upon the accused inside the house of the accused in the presence of his
parents and brother. As already stated above, apart from the fragile and
shabby testimony of PW4, which cannot be reconciled at all, there is
absolutely no evidence to support the case mooted by the defence in the
above regard.
14. As a conclusion to the aforesaid discussion, we find that the
prosecution had successfully established their case that the accused caused
death of deceased Sreejith by inflicting the fatal stab injury upon the left
side of his chest with MO1 sword in the wee hours of 12.02.2014 at the
sitout of the house of PW5 at Melila. It is also established by the
prosecution evidence that during the course of commission of the aforesaid
crime, the accused inflicted voluntary hurt upon PW5 and PW16 with that
dangerous sword. Now the question which remains is whether the act
2024:KER:76551
committed by the accused in the above regard would come under the
definition of murder envisaged under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
15. Going by the provisions contained in Section 300 I.P.C,
culpable homicide is murder, subject to the five exceptions given
thereunder, if it is done with the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or with the
intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, or if the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
16. The first exception to Section 300 I.P.C comes into play when
the offender is shown to have committed the act on grave and sudden
provocation while deprived of the power of self control. The second
exception covers a case where the offender in good faith commits the act in
exercise of right of private defence exceeding the power given to him by
law. The third exception is applicable to a public servant committing the
act exceeding the power given to him by law. The fourth exception affords
protection to such acts committed without premeditation in a sudden fight
2024:KER:76551
in the heat of passion. The fifth exception protects the act which had
caused the death of a person above 18 years of age who had taken the risk
of death with his own consent.
17. A close scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of this case, as
borne out from the evidence adduced, would reveal that the accused had
committed the act of stabbing the deceased with MO1 sword with the
intention to cause death or such bodily injury which he knew to be likely to
cause death. This aspect is revealed from the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3,
PW5 and PW16 as well as from the medical evidence let in by the
prosecution through Ext.P18 postmortem report and the testimony of PW14
- the professor of forensic medicine who conducted the autopsy. The
evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW16 is categoric and unshattered
on the point that the accused unsheathed the sword and thrust it upon the
left chest of the deceased Sreejith by proclaiming that he will not permit
the deceased to go back to his house. The above evidence would
convincingly establish the fact that the accused committed the said act with
the intention of taking away the life of the victim.
18. Ext.P18 postmortem report would reveal that the deceased
suffered five antemortem injuries, out of which, the first one had
terminated his life. The aforesaid injury is stated in Ext.P18 as follows:
2024:KER:76551
"1. Incised penetrating wound 3.8x1.7 cm obliquely
placed on the left side of chest, its upper inner end 18 cm
outer to midline and 26 cm below the top of shoulder with
a side cut of 0.2x0.1 cm at the upper margin 1.2 cm inner
to the upper end. Both ends of the wounds were sharply
cut. Chest cavity was seen penetrated through the 5th
intercostal space by cutting the lower border of 5th rib and
upper border of 6th rib with fragmentation of the edges,
obliquely cutting the back aspect of lower lobe of left lung
over an area of 6.5x1.5x0.2 cm, transecting the lower
border of lower lobe of left lung 1.2x0.2x0.5 cm incising
the pericardium 11.5x3 cm obliquely cutting the left
ventricle, left atrium and the adjoining atrioventricular
septum 12.5x2x2.4 cm, (lower end 2 cm above apex) and
the back wall of left ventricle 3x2x2cm 6 cm above apex
transfixing the oesophagus (wound of entry 6x2 cm and
wound of exit 3.2x1.2 cm) and the middle of lower lobe of
right lung (wound of entrance 6x2.5 cm and wound exit
2.2x0.5 cm) and by cutting the intercostal space and the
lower border of 6th rib at the back aspect and terminated in
the subcutaneous plane on the right side for a depth of 3
cm. The wound was directed downwards, backwards and
to the right for a total minimum depth of 24.2 cm. Left
chest cavity contained 1250 ml of fluid blood and 750 gm
of clot and right chest cavity contained 1120 ml of fluid
blood and 350 gms of clot. Both lungs collapsed."
In the testimony of PW14 with reference to Ext.P18 postmortem certificate,
the said witness stated in unequivocal terms that the fatal first injury was
inflicted intentionally as disclosed from the features of that injury. It is
2024:KER:76551
stated by PW14 during cross-examination in categoric terms that it was not
possible to cause such an injury accidentally in a human being. Having
regard to the above evidence of PW14 by referring to injury No.1 which she
had noted in Ext.P18 postmortem certificate, the only conclusion which
could be drawn is that the accused inflicted the said injury upon the
deceased with the intention of causing death.
19. Now coming to the Exceptions 1 to 5 of Section 300 I.P.C, it
has to be stated that none of the aforesaid exceptions would afford
protection to the act committed by the accused in this case. It is not
possible to say that the accused committed the act on grave and sudden
provocation while deprived of the power of self control. So also, there is
absolutely nothing to show the exercise of the right of private defence by
the accused. Nor could it be said that the accused committed the act in a
sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. Therefore, the
crime involved in the instant case squarely comes under the definition of
murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
20. The evidence adduced by the prosecution have thus
convincingly established the commission of offence punishable under
Sections 324 and 302 I.P.C by the accused. However, as regards the
charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act, it has to be stated that the
prosecution has failed to bring forth the relevant notification issued by the
2024:KER:76551
Government as required under Section 4 of the Arms Act, for invoking the
penal consequences of Section 27 of the said Act. A mere acquisition,
possession or carrying of arms other than firearms or prohibited arms is not
an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Acquisition, possession or
carrying of arms of such nature can be prohibited by a notification of the
Government in relation to a specified area. The description of such arms
which are thereby covered by the notification shall be prescribed in the
notification. Thus, a notification preceding an offence under Section 4 of
the Act in relation to that area is the sine qua non for an offence under
Section 27 of the Arms Act in relation to arms other than firearms. In the
case on hand, the prosecution has failed to bring on record the relevant
notification as stated above, for proceeding against the appellant under
Section 27 of the Arms Act. Needless to say that the pre-requisites for
invoking Section 27 of the Arms Act are not fulfilled by the prosecution.
The legal requirements in this regard are dealt with by this Court in Jinu v.
State of Kerala [2017 (5) KHC 565] and Stephen v. State of Kerala
[2018 (4) KHC 58]. That being so, the conviction of the appellant
(accused) under Section 27 of the Arms Act, is not legally sustainable. The
finding of the Trial Court in the above regard, is liable to be set aside due to
the aforesaid reason.
2024:KER:76551
21. Accordingly, we uphold the judgment of the Trial Court
convicting and sentencing the appellant under Sections 324 and 302 I.P.C.,
and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 27
of the Arms Act.
The appeal stands allowed in part as above.
(sd/-)
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
(sd/-)
G.GIRISH,
JUDGE
jsr/vgd
