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
