Kerala High Court
Ayyappan vs State Of Kerala on 19 August, 2025
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 1 2025:KER:61862
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
TUESDAY, THE 19
DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA,
1947
CRL.A NO. 1038 OF 2019
AGAINST
THE
JUDGMENT
DATED
03.07.2019
IN
SC
NO.468
OF
2016
ON
THE
FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL JUDGE) PALAKKAD
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
YYAPPAN
A
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O.MADHAVAN NAIR, MINI NIVAS, N.S.S. ENGINEERING
COLLEGE(P.O), VADAKKETHARA, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD.
Y ADVS.
B
SRI.T.U.SUJITH KUMAR
SRI.C.C.ANOOP
SRI.R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT - STATE:
TATE OF KERALA
S
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682031
Y ADVS.
B
SMT. BINDU. O.V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SPL.G.P. (ATROCITIES AGAINST
WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND WELFARE OF W AND C)
THIS
CRIMINAL
APPEAL
HAVING
COME
UP
FOR
FINAL
HEARING
ON
19.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 2 2025:KER:61862
J U D G M E N T
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
This appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is
preferred by the sole accused in S.C.No. 468 of 2016 on the file of the 1st Additional
Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Palakkad. In the aforesaid case, he was charged for
havingcommittedoffencespunishableunderSections341,324,and307oftheIPC,and
Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. By the
impugned judgment, he was found guilty and sentenced:
(i) toundergoimprisonmentforlifeandtopayafineof₹50,000,withadefaultclause,
for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC;
(ii) to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 month for the offence under
Section 341 of the IPC;
(iii) to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of
₹ 10,000, with a default clause, for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC;
(iv) toundergoSimpleImprisonmentforaperiodof2yearsfortheoffenceunderSection
75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
The above finding of guilt, conviction and sentence is under challenge in this
appeal.
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 3 2025:KER:61862
Brief Statement of Facts:
2. The appellant isthefatherofAdithyan,aboyaged7years,andArchana,a
minorchildagedabout3½years.Suma(PW5)isthewifeoftheappellant.Themarital
relationshipbetweentheappellantandhiswifehadbecomestrained,andtheyhadbeen
living separately. A few days prior to 22.02.2016,Sumalodgedacomplaintagainstthe
appellant alleging matrimonial violence, and they were living separately since then.
According to the prosecution, after school hours on 22.02.2016, the appellantwiththe
intentiontoteachhiswifealesson,collectedAdithyanfromhisschoolandArchanafrom
the house of Praveena, their aunt. He took both children in his autorickshaw bearing
Registration No. KL-09-X-2101 towards a forested area known as 'Akathethara
Paparambu'. The appellant is alleged to have driven the autorickshaw in a rash and
negligent manner and when he reached the place of occurrence, the vehicle capsized.
Thereafter,theappellant,whileseatedinsidethecapsizedautorickshaw,usedashaving
razor to inflict cut injuries on the neck of his son. When the boy cried aloud, the
appellantgaggedhismouthinanattempttosilencehim.Hethenattemptedtoseverthe
neck of the younger child, Archana. At that juncture, two Forest Guards, examined as
PWs 1 and 3,happenedtoreachthespot.Theynoticedthecapsizedautorickshawand
heardhumancriesemanatingfromwithin.Theysawtheplightofthefearfulchildrenand
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 4 2025:KER:61862
the gruesome incident and immediately raised a hue and cry. PW1 managed to wrest
custody of the minor child, Archana, from the appellant. PW9, the son of PW3, an
autorickshawdriver,waspresentinthevicinity,andhisassistancewassoughttoshiftthe
injured children tothehospital.Ontheway,Suma,themother,waspickedup,andshe
accompanied the children to the District Hospital. Adithyan, who had suffered
comparatively minor injuries, received treatment there. However, Archana, who had
sustained grievous injuries, was referred first to Paalana Hospital, Palakkad, and
thereafter to Elite Mission Hospital, Thrissur, for further treatment.
Registration of Crime and Investigation
3. PW1 furnished Ext.P1 First Information Statement (FIS) to PW17, the
Sub-InspectorofPolice,HemambikaPoliceStation,onthebasisofwhichExt.P1(a)First
InformationReport(FIR)wasregistered.Theinvestigationwasthereaftertakenoverby
PW15, Sri. Ashok Kumar, Inspector of Police, Hemambika Police Station.
4. On the next day, atabout12.00hours,hevisitedthesceneofoccurrence
and prepared Ext.P2 Scene Mahazar. The autorickshaw bearing Registration No.
KL-09-X-2101, which was found lying at the spot, was seized. In addition, he seized
chappals, an anklet, a chain, soil stained with blood, and a blade. The seized articles
were forwarded to the Scientific Assistant, DCRB, Thrissur Rural, for forensic
examination.ThebloodsampleofArchana,handedoverbythePlasticSurgeon(PW10)
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 5 2025:KER:61862
attached to the Elite Mission Hospital, was also forwarded for analysis.
5. On 23.02.2016, as per Ext.P16 arrest memo,theappellantwastakeninto
custody.Onthesameday,basedonthedisclosurestatementmadebytheaccused,the
clotheswornbyhimattherelevanttimewereseized.Duringinterrogation,theappellant
is alleged to have disclosed thathewouldshowtheplacewheretheweaponhadbeen
disposed of. On the strength of the said statement, MO1 Razor was recovered and
seized, and Ext.P19 is the confession statement. The initial investigation conducted by
PW15 was subsequently taken over by PW16, the Circle Inspector of Police. On
completion oftheinvestigation,PW16laidthefinalreportbeforetheJudicialMagistrate
of the First Class-III, Palakkad. Committal proceeding was initiated by the learned
Magistrate, and the case was committed to the Court of Session.
Evidence Tendered
6. Onthesideoftheprosecution,17witnesseswereexaminedasPWs1to17,
andthroughthem,Exts.P1toP24wereexhibitedandmarked.MaterialObjects(MOs)1
to 16 were also produced and identified. On the side of the defence, the confronted
portionoftheevidenceofPW1wasmarkedasExt.D1.Afterthecloseoftheprosecution
evidence, the incriminating materials arising therefrom were put to the accused under
Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied all such
circumstances and maintained his innocence. He added that there existed animosity
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 6 2025:KER:61862
between him and his wife,andthathiswife,incollusionwithherfamilymembers,had
falsely implicated him in this case. He further contended that while he was taking his
childrenbackfromschool,hisautorickshawaccidentallytoppled,resultingintheinjuries
sustainedbythechildren.AstherewasnogroundforacquittalunderSection232ofthe
Code, the accused was called upon toenteronhisdefence.However,noevidencewas
adduced by the accused.
The finding of the trial court:
7. The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluating the facts and circumstances,
came to the conclusionthattheevidenceletinbytheprosecutionbyexaminingPWs1
to 3, as corroborated by the evidence of PW5, themother,andPW9,theautorickshaw
driver who took the injured children to thehospital,establishedbeyondanyshadowof
doubttheoccurrenceoftheincidentasallegedbytheprosecution.Thecourtalsorelied
ontheevidenceofPW12andPW10,thedoctorswhohadseentheinjuredandnotedthe
injuries,totakenoteofthegravityandnatureoftheinjuriesinflictedwithMO1weapon.
The court held that the prosecution has established by convincing evidence that the
appellant had taken his children in his autorickshaw on 22.02.2016 at 4:15 hours and
thattheyweretakentoadesertedplaceandthereafter,afterwrongfullyrestrainingthe
children, had inflicted very serious injuries on their neck. Accordingly, the court found
him guilty for the offences and convicted him.
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 7 2025:KER:61862
Contentions of the appellant:
8. Sri. T.O. Sujith Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
submitted that the learned Sessions Judge failed to evaluate theevidenceinitsproper
perspective before arriving at a finding of guilt. According to the learned counsel, no
reliance ought to have been placed on the testimonies of PWs 1 and 3, who are
projected as the so-called eyewitnesses. Their version, it was contended, stands in
variance with the testimony of PW2, the child witness. While both PW1 and PW3
asserted that the childwasrenderedunconsciouswhentheinjurieswereinflicted,PW2
categorically stated that he remained conscious. It wasfurtherarguedthat,inorderto
exaggerate the gravityoftheoffence,PWs1and3deposedthattheappellantinserted
hisfingersintotheinjuryontheneckofthechildren;however,nocorroborativeevidence
has been adduced to substantiate this allegation. The learned counsel also highlighted
that no blood wasseizedeitherfromtheautorickshaworfromtheplaceofoccurrence.
He submitted that even the learned Sessions Judge himselfdisbelievedtherecoveryof
MO1 weapon at the instance of the appellant. It was furtherarguedthatExt.P2Scene
MahazarandtheScenePlanindicatethepresenceofotherresidentsinthevicinityofthe
occurrence, includingoneMadhavan,yettheprosecutionhasofferednoexplanationfor
notexaminingsuchmaterialwitnesses.Attentionwasalsoinvitedtotheseriousdelayin
forwarding the blood samples and the alleged weapon from the court to the Forensic
Analyst,which,accordingtothelearnedcounsel,renderstheAnalyst'sreportunreliable.
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 8 2025:KER:61862
Theprosecution,itwasurged,hasalsomiserablyfailedtoprovemotive,despiteplacing
relianceonthetestimonyofPW5,thewifeoftheappellant.Herevidence,however,was
thattheappellantusedtobehaveaffectionatelytowardshischildrenandthattherewas
noreasonforhimtocausethemanyharm.Finally,thelearnedcounselcontendedthat,
inanyevent,thesentenceofimprisonmentforlifeimposedfortheoffenceunderSection
307 of the IPC is wholly excessive and cannot be sustained. In support of his
submissions, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Surinder Singh v. State(UnionTerritoryofChandigarh)1 andinJageRamand
Others v. State of Haryana2.
Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor
9. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant were vehemently
opposed bySmt.Bindhu,thelearnedPublicProsecutor.Shecontendedthatthelearned
Sessions Judge had meticulously evaluated the evidence of PWs 1, 2,3,5,10,and12
beforearrivingatthefindingofguilt.AccordingtothelearnedPublicProsecutor,thereis
noreasonwhatsoevertodisbelievethetestimonyofPW2,thechildwitness,whoisalso
an injured witness, and whose evidence carries great weight. Shefurtherreliedonthe
medical evidence, which according to her, corroborated the ocular testimony and
establishedthattheinjuriesinflictedbytheappellantwereextremelygrave.Emphasizing
1
021 KHC 6752
2
2015 KHC 4060
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 9 2025:KER:61862
the vulnerability of the victims, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the
appellant, as the father, was bound to protect the interests of his two minor children
aged 7 and 3½ years. Instead, he inflicted brutal injuries on his children after taking
them to an isolated place. If it was not fortheinterventionoftheForestOfficers,the
appellantwouldhavetakenthelivesoftheminorchildren.Itisforcefullyurgedthatno
leniencyiswarranted,andthatboththeconvictionandthesentenceoflifeimprisonment
imposed by the learned Sessions Judge are fully justified and liable to be upheld. In
ordertosubstantiatehercontentions,relianceisplacedontheobservationsmadebythe
Apex CourtinStateofM.P.v.KashiramandOrs3, andajudgmentrenderedbythis
Court inKunhoyi v. State of Kerala4.
10. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced andhaveperused
the entire record.
The evidence let in:
11. Theprimewitnessesexaminedbytheprosecutiontoprovetheincidentare
PWs 1 to 3. PWs 1 and 3, both Forest Watchers of the Akathethara Division, have
deposed in a manner consistent with and corroborative of each other.
12. AccordingtoPW1,intheyear2016,hewasservingasaForestWatcherin
3
009 KHC 195
4
2025:KER:14638
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 10 2025:KER:61862
the Akathethara Division. On 22.02.2016 at about 04:30 p.m., he, along with PW3
Aruchamy, also a Forest Watcher in the same Division, was proceeding from a place
called Paparambu to their office at Akathethara on a motorbike. They had been
instructed by the Forester to bury a dead deer. While inspecting the area andfencing,
they noticed an object of black colour lying in the middle of the forest. They stopped
theirvehicleandproceededinsideforinspection.Onreachingthespot,theydiscovereda
toppled autorickshaw. Theyheardhumanmoansinsidethevehicleandsawaboyaged
about 6 years, with injuries on his neck, seated beneath the autorickshaw. Blood and
saliva were oozing from his mouth. He further noticed a man seated next to the boy,
inflictingcutinjuriesontheneckofanotherchild,approximately3yearsofage,usinga
shaving blade. The child was on hislap,andthemanwasinsertinghisfingersintothe
woundonthechild'sneckinanattempttodeepentheinjury.Thewitnessesimmediately
raised a loud alarm, drawing the attention of nearby residents. Several people soon
gatheredatthescene.PW1managedtowrestthechildfromthehandsoftheappellant
and handed the child over to those who had assembled. Thereafter, they returned to
their office, andatabout09:00p.m.thesameday,theywenttothePoliceStationand
gave a statement, on the basis of which the crime was registered. In Court, PW1
identified the accused, who was present in the dock, as the person involved in the
incident. He also identified MO1, the shaving knife, when shown to him. PW1 was
extensively cross-examined. He stated that on the western side of the road they had
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 11 2025:KER:61862
traversed, there was a small drain with flowing water. They had crossed the drainand
gone some distance into the forest before noticing the autorickshaw. The witnesses
deniedthesuggestionthattherewasnoforestareaatthespotastheydescribed.They
gavespecificdetailsaboutthepresenceofthechildrenwiththeaccusedandstatedthat
withinabouttenminutesoftheirarrival,localpeoplehadgathered.PW1confirmedthat
it was he who had taken the child from the hands of the accused. He furtherclarified
thatbeforetheyleftthespot,nopolicepersonnelhadreachedthere.Healsostatedthat
the elder boy was unconscious when the appellant handed himover.Finally,hedenied
thedefencesuggestionthathewasdeposingfalselyattheinstanceofPW5,thewifeof
the appellant.
13. PW2 is the son of the appellant. His chief examination was conducted on
21.03.2019,whenhewas10yearsoldandstudyinginStandard V.Beforerecordinghis
testimony, the learned Sessions Judge conducted a voir dire examination as
contemplated under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act to ascertain the child's
capacity and intellect. Upon being satisfiedthatthechildwascapableofunderstanding
questions and giving rational answers, the chief examination commenced. The child
deposedthaton22.02.2016,hewasstudyingintheIIStandardatAkathetharaSchool.
Intheevening,aftertheNationalAnthemwassung,hisfathercametotheschoolinan
autorickshaw and took him. On the way,theystoppedattheiraunt'shouseandpicked
up his younger sister. He stated that his father drove the autorickshaw at a very high
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 12 2025:KER:61862
speed, and eventually, the vehicletoppled.Atthattime,bothheandhisyoungersister
were seated in the back seat. He further stated thathisfatherthenmovedtotherear
side of the autorickshaw through the gap between the driver's seatandthetopofthe
vehicle, and thereafter began to cut his neck with a blade. He felt severe pain and
startedcrying,andthenhisfatherclosedhismouthwithhishand.Hisfatherthenmade
his sister sit on his lapandbegancuttingherneck.WhenPW2attemptedtoresist,his
fatherstruckhimwithhisfistonthechest.Hefellinsidetheautorickshawanddidnotdo
anything further thereafter. He added that subsequently, two "uncles" came and took
themtothehospital.PW2identifiedMO2(uniformshirt)andMO3(uniformpants)asthe
clotheswornbyhimatthetimeoftheincident,andMO4andMO5astheclothesworn
by his sister. In cross-examination, the child admitted that his father used to regularly
take him and his sister from school in the autorickshaw and drop them off at their
mother's house. He stated that he was unaware of how the autorickshaw had toppled
andaddedthattheknifehadbeentakenbyhisfatherfromabag.Healsoclarifiedthat
he did not sustain any injuries onaccountofthecapsizingoftheautorickshaw.Onthe
same day, his father had earlier taken him to the Kalpathy temple festival in the
autorickshaw. The child gavereasonableandconsistentanswerstoquestionsregarding
the nature of the injuries inflicted upon him and his sister. He stated that he regained
consciousness when the "uncles" came and picked him up. He further stated that his
father often came home and quarrelled with his mother. He denied the defence
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 13 2025:KER:61862
suggestion that his injuries were sustained due to the autorickshaw capsizing while
returning from school.
14. PW3, Aruchamy, is another Forest Watcher who was present along with
PW1. His testimony is in strict conformity with that of PW1 and corroborates the
prosecution version in all material particulars.Hedeposedthat,ontherelevantday,he
and PW1 had their lunch at his house and were thereafter directed by the Forester to
bury adeaddeer.Whileproceedingonthattask,theynoticedtheautorickshawlyingin
the forest and went tothespottoverifythesame.Henarratedindetailthemannerin
which he and PW1 witnessed theappellantinflictinginjuriesonthechildanddescribed
how they intervened and managed to rescue the children from the appellant's hands.
Thoughhewascross-examinedatlength,thelearnedcounselwasnotabletomakeany
dent in his evidence.
15. PW4 is a resident of the locality. According to him, noticing the arrival of
police personnel at the spot, he went there and stood as an attestor to Ext.P2 Scene
Mahazar. He further stated that he had witnessed the police seizing a knife, chappals,
and blood from the scene of occurrence.
16. PW5, Suma, is the mother of Adithyan and Archana and the wife of the
appellant.Shedeposedthat,attherelevanttime,shewasresidinginhermother'shouse
along with her mother, younger sister, and children, and that she was employed in a
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 14 2025:KER:61862
mobileshop.Sheidentifiedtheappellant,whowasstandinginthedock.Shestatedthat
the appellant, though a welder by profession, was driving an autorickshaw at the
relevant time. On 22.02.2016 at about 4:50 p.m., her aunt Praveena came in an
autorickshaw and asked her to get in. On entering, she saw her children inside, with
injuriesontheirnecks.Onenquiry,shelearntthatitwastheappellantwhohadinflicted
the injuries. She, along with her children, was then taken in the same autorickshaw
driven by PW9 Rajesh to the District Hospital, Palakkad. Her son, having only minor
injuries, was given dressing, while her daughter, who had sustained grievous injuries,
wasimmediatelyreferredtoPaalanaHospital,PalakkadandlatershiftedtoEliteMission
Hospital,Thrissur,wheresheremainedaninpatientfornearlytwoweeksandunderwent
surgery.
17. PW5 further stated that she hadpreviouslylodgedacomplaintagainstthe
appellant before the Women Cellandthaton17.02.2016,theappellanthadthreatened
to cut her neck when he came to the shop. She had taken treatment at the District
Hospitalon18.02.2016andlodgedacomplaintattheHemambikaNagarPoliceStation.
Sincethen,shehadbeenresidinginhermother'shouse.Shealsoidentifiedtheclothes
worn by the children at the time of the occurrence. According to her, the appellant
inflicted the injuries as he was enraged over her complaint to the police. In
cross-examination,sheadmittedthattheappellantusedtoregularlypickupthechildren
from school and drop them at her house. She also acknowledged that the police had
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 15 2025:KER:61862
summoned both parties on 18.02.2016 in relation to her earlier complaint and had
attempted mediation, during which the appellant was arrested. She further added that
her son narrated the incident to her while they were on the way to the hospital.
18. PW6,Viswanathan,isthelandlordofcertainlinehousesatAkathethara.He
testifiedthatoneofthehouseswasrentedtotheappellant,whereheresidedalongwith
PW5, PW2, and their daughter. On 23.02.2016, at about 3:00p.m.,thepolicecameto
thehousealongwiththeaccused,andtheappellantproducedakhaki-colouredshirtand
mundu with bloodstains. PW6 identified these clothes.
19. PW7,Dr.Aneesh,wasworkingasaScientificAssistantatDCRB,Thrissur.He
stated that, at the request of the Circle Inspector of Police, Hemambika Nagar Police
Station,heinspectedtheplaceofoccurrenceandcollectedblood-stainedsoilandcontrol
soil samples.
20. PW8isaCivilPoliceOfficerwhoaccompaniedtheCircleInspectorduringthe
investigation.
21. PW9,Rajesh,isanautorickshawdriver.Hedeposedthathetransportedthe
injuredchildrenfromPaparambutotheDistrictHospital,Palakkad,atabout4:30p.m.on
the day of the incident. He stated that one child had grievous neck injuries and that
bloodhadfallenonhisclothes.Hefurthertestifiedthat,onthefollowingday,thepolice
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 16 2025:KER:61862
recovered MO1 knife based on the disclosure statement given by the appellant.
22. PW10, Dr. Rajagopal, Assistant Consultant Plastic Surgeon, Elite Mission
Hospital, Thrissur, testified that on 22.02.2016, he examined Archana, aged about 3
years, with a history of assault. She was admitted as an inpatient from 22.02.2016 to
27.02.2016.Heperformedplasticsurgeryonherneck.Hedescribedtheinjuryasalong,
deep cutwound,about10cminlength,extendingfromtheleftsideacrossthemidline
of the neck, contaminated with vegetable matter, leaves, and wooden particles. He
stated that the sternocleidomastoid muscles were transected and the thyroid gland
exposed. Ext.P10 is the certificate issued by him with photographs of the wound. He
opined that the injuries could be caused by MO1 razor.
23. PW11, Dr. Rajesh, Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Palakkad, testified
thathecollectedthebloodsamplesofAdithyanforDNAprofilingandbloodgrouping,as
requested by the Investigating Officer, and handed them over to the police. Ext.P11 is
the certificate issued by him.
24. PW12, Dr. Anoop, Casualty Medical Officer, District Hospital, Palakkad,
deposedthaton22.02.2016atabout5:30p.m.,heexaminedArchana,aged2½years,
who was brought with an alleged history of assault near Papparambu earlier that
evening.Henotedanincisedwoundontheanterioraspectoftheneck,measuring8x1x1
cm, with muscle involvement. The wound was fresh. Ext.P12 is the wound certificate
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 17 2025:KER:61862
issuedbyhim.HealsoexaminedAdithyan,whohadalinearincisedwoundonthelower
anterior aspect of the neck, measuring 8 x 0.1 cm. Ext.P13 is the wound certificate
issued by him. He opined that both injuries could have been caused by MO1 razor.
25. PW13, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Palakkad, testified that he
inspected the autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL-09-X-2101 at the Hemambika
Nagar Police Station and issued Ext.P14 certificate.
26. PW14, the Village Officer, Akathethara, testified that he prepared Ext.P15
Scene Plan of the place of occurrence.
Analysis:
27. We have carefully evaluated the evidenceletinbythewitnessesandhave
considered the submissions advanced.
28. PW2, thesonoftheappellant,hasgivenadetailedandgraphicaccountof
theincident.Henarratedhowhewastakenfromhisschoolbyhisfather,afterwhichhis
younger sister was picked up, and both were taken to the forest area in the
autorickshaw.Heclearlydescribedthemannerinwhichtheappellantinflictedinjurieson
his neck and how he further attempted to sever the neck of his younger sister. His
versionstandscorroboratedbythemedicalevidence.PW12,theCasualtyMedicalOfficer
oftheDistrictHospital,Palakkad,testifiedthathehadexaminedPW2atabout5:30p.m.
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 18 2025:KER:61862
on 22.02.2016andnotedtwolinearincisedwounds,oneovertheloweranterioraspect
oftheneckmeasuringapproximately8x0.1cm,andanotherontheleftsideoftheneck
measuringabout3x0.1cm.Inthewoundcertificate(Ext.P13),theassailantisrecorded
as the father of the child. On the same day, PW12 examined the younger child, aged
about 2½ years, and noted an incised wound on the anterior aspect of the neck with
associated muscle injury. In Ext.P12 Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate, the
assailant is similarly recorded as the father. We, therefore, findnoreasontodoubtthe
testimonyofPW2.IntheevidenceofPW10,thePlasticSurgeonatEliteMissionHospital,
Thrissur, stated that he had examined the younger child on22.02.2016andconducted
surgeryonherneck.Hedescribedtheinjuryasalong,deepcutwoundextendingfrom
theleftsideacrossthemidlineoftheneck,measuringapproximately10cm.Hefurther
stated that the wound was contaminated with vegetable matter, leaves, and wooden
particles. The sternocleidomastoid muscles had been transected, and the thyroid gland
wasexposed.Accordingtohim,ifprompttreatmenthadnotbeenprovided,itcouldhave
resulted in the death of the child.
29. The evidence tendered by PWs1and3,theForestOfficers,arealsovery
material. PWs 1 and 3 are independent witnesses, who chanced to reach thesceneof
crimeinconnectionwiththeiremploymentasForestOfficers. Theyarenotpersonswho
hadanyaxetogrindagainsttheappellant.Itcanbeseenfromthescenemahazarthat
theautorickshawwaslyingdeepinsidetheforest,andordinarily,noonewasexpectedin
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 19 2025:KER:61862
thatparticularplace.Eventhenearesthousewassituatedhundredsofmetersaway. It
wasonlybecauseofthetimelyinterventionofPWs1and3thatthelivesofthechildren
could be saved. After having carefully evaluated their evidence, we find no reason to
doubt their version.
30. Much argument was advanced by the learned counsel with regard to
recovery of MO1 blade. The knife was left at the scene of crime, and the learned
SessionsJudgehasrightlyheldthattherecoveryoftheweaponcannothavethesanctity
of a recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The mere fact that the
weapon was pointed out bytheaccusedwhenhewasbroughttothesceneofcrimeis
no reason to doubt the case of the prosecution,asthereisampleevidencetolinkhim
withthecrime. Wealsofindnoreasontoacceptthecontentionofthelearnedcounsel
that MO1 is a planted weapon. The witnesses have identified the weapon, and the
Doctor has opined that the injuries could be caused by such aweapon. TheChemical
AnalysisReport,whichisproducedbeforetheCourtasExt.P24,revealsthepresenceof
human blood.
31. Thelastcontentionadvancedbythelearnedcounselisthatthesentenceof
life imprisonment imposed by the learnedSessionsJudgefortheoffenceunderSection
307oftheIPCisonthehigherside. Weareunabletoacceptthiscontentioninthefacts
and circumstances of this case. Section 307 of the IPC reads as under:
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 20 2025:KER:61862
"307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such
intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by
thatactcauseddeath,hewouldbeguiltyofmurder,shallbepunished
withimprisonmentofeitherdescriptionforatermwhichmayextendto
tenyears,andshallalsobeliabletofine;andifhurtiscausedtoany
personbysuchact,theoffendershallbeliableeithertoimprisonment
for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts.--When any person offending under
thissectionisundersentenceofimprisonmentforlife,hemay,ifhurt
is caused, be punished with death.
Illustrations
(a) A shoots at Zwithintentiontokillhim,undersuchcircumstances
that, if death ensued, A would be guilty of murder. Aisliableto
punishment under this section.
(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender
years, exposes it in a desert place. A hascommittedtheoffence
defined by this section, though the death of the child does not
ensue.
(c) A, intending to murderZ,buysagunandloadsit.Ahasnotyet
committedtheoffence.AfiresthegunatZ.Hehascommittedthe
offencedefinedinthissection,and,ifbysuchfiringhewoundsZ,
he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the
first paragraph of this section.
(d) A,intendingtomurderZ,bypoison,purchasespoisonandmixes
the same with food which remains in A's keeping; A hasnotyet
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 21 2025:KER:61862
committed the offence in this section. A places the food on Z's
table or delivers it to Z's servants to place it on Z's table.Ahas
committed the offence defined in this section.
32. Section 307 of the IPC provides three punishments for three classes of
nature of the cases. The first class of cases, which fallsinthefirstpartofthesection,
prescribes a term"whichmayextendtotenyearsandfine".Thesecondclassofcases,
which fallsinthesecondpartofthesection,prescribeseither"imprisonmentforlife"or
"such punishment,whichisprescribedinfirstpart"andthethirdclassofcasesiswhen
any person offending under Section 307 of the IPC is a life convict, or already
undergoing imprisonment for life.
33. ThepresentcasefallswithinthesecondpartofSection307oftheIPC.This
part applies to situations where aperson,withsuchintentionorknowledge,andunder
such circumstances that, if by that act death had been caused, he would be guilty of
murder, actually causes hurt to another person in the course of perpetuating that act.
34. In our view, the learned Sessions Judge did not commit any error in
exercisinghisjudicialdiscretioninawardinglifeimprisonmenttotheappellant.Wesayso
asfirstly,thefactsofthecasesquarelyfallinthesecondpartofSection307oftheIPC.
Secondly,theinjuriesinflictedontheminordaughterweregrievousinnature,andifshe
was not given prompt treatment, it would have led to the loss of her life. A long cut
injurywasalsoinflictedontheneckoftheson.Thirdly,theinjuriesonboththechildren
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 22 2025:KER:61862
wereinflictedontheneck,averyvitalpartofthebody,andinsofarastheyoungerchild
isconcerned,theinjuryseveredthemusclesoftheneck,leadingtotheexposureofthe
thyroidgland.Evenfoodparticleswereseenbythedoctor,inadditiontowoodenpieces
andleavesinthesiteoftheinjury.Fourthly,thefactsofthecasesatisfiedtheingredients
of the first part of Section 307 of the IPC, as the appellant took the children to a
desertedplaceinaforestwiththeobviousintenttoputanendtotheirlivesandinflicted
cut injuries.
35. InAhsanv.StateofU.P5.,theApexCourthadoccasiontoholdthatwhile
sentencingtheaccused,theCourtisrequiredtotakeintoaccountseveralfactorsarising
in the case, such as the nature of offence committed, the manner in which it was
committed, its gravity, the motive behind the commission of the offence, nature of
injuriessustainedbythevictim,whethertheinjuriessustainedweresimpleorgrievousin
nature, weapons used for commission of offence and any other extenuating
circumstances,ifany.Havingconsideredalltherelevantfacts,wefindnogroundtoalter
the punishmentawardedbytheSessionsCourt,which,onthefactsfoundproved,does
not warrant any interference.
Conclusion:
On an evaluation of the entire evidence,weareoftheviewthatnogroundsare
5
(2018) 13 SCC 420
Crl. Appeal No.1038 of 2019 23 2025:KER:61862
made out by the appellant to interfere with the judgment rendered by the learned
Sessions Judge. This appeal will stand dismissed, confirming the conviction and
sentence.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.V. JAYAKUMAR,
JUDGE
PS/APM/16/8/25
