[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Shyju, C.No. 3038 vs State Of Kerala on 2 December, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2025/11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1389 OF 2019
CRIME NO.489/2014 OF KOTTAYAM WEST POLICE STATION,
KOTTAYAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.10.2018 IN SC NO.269 OF
2014 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT/RENT CONTROL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KOTTAYAM ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CP NO.13 OF 2014 OF JUDL. MAGI. OF
FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
SHYJU, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O SUKUMARAN, C.NO.3038,
CENTRAL PRISON & CORRECTIONAL HOME, POOJAPPURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, AND RESIDED AT
MADATHILPARAMBIL HOUSE, PARAMBUKARA COLONY,
THIRUVANCHOOR KARA, MANARCADU VILLAGE
BY ADV.SARATH BABU KOTTAKAL(LEGAL AID COUNSEL)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA, RERESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
2 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM WEST
POLICE STATION
BY SMT.SHEEBA THOMAS, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 2:: 2025:KER:92598
'CR'
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The sole accused in S.C. No.269/2014 on the file of the
Sessions Court, Kottayam, has preferred this appeal challenging
the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed
against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:
The accused and the deceased, who were husband and
wife, were residing together with their children, PW2, PW3, and
CW4 (not examined), at Thiruvanchoor Parampukara Colony.
While residing there, the accused attempted to molest PW2, his
elder daughter and hence the relationship between the accused
and the deceased got strained. Apprehending that the accused
would again attempt to sexually abuse her daughter when she
was away at work, the deceased left the company of the accused
and started to reside in her brother's house located at
Chanthakadavu along with her children. Infuriated by the same,
the accused, with an intention to do away with his wife, on
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 3:: 2025:KER:92598
20.03.2014 at 8:00 a.m., at a concrete road proceeding from
Chanthakadavu, stabbed her twice on the left chest beneath the
left nipple of her breast and pushed her down into a nearby
canal. Although the injured was immediately taken to a hospital,
she succumbed to the injuries during medical examination.
Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report
was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III,
Kottayam. 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, Kottayam, under section 209 of Cr.P.C. The
learned Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance, issued process
to the accused, and in response to the same, the accused
appeared. On the appearance of the accused before the trial
court, the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides under
section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon perusal of the records, framed a
written charge against the accused for offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC. When the charge was read over and explained
to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 4:: 2025:KER:92598
4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1
to PW22 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P35. MO1 and
MO5 were 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 heard under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and since it was
not a fit case to acquit the accused under the said provision, the
accused was directed to enter on his defence and to adduce any
evidence that he may have in support thereof. However, no
evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the accused.
Thereafter, both sides were heard in detail, and finally, the
learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, and he was convicted
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine
of Rs.3,00,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the accused
was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
Fine amount, if paid or realised, Rs.1,00,000/- each was ordered
to be given to PW2, PW3 and CW4, the children of the deceased.
Challenging the said finding of guilt, conviction, and the order of
sentence passed, the accused has preferred this appeal.
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 5:: 2025:KER:92598
5. We heard Sri. Sarath Babu Kottakkal, the learned legal
aid counsel appearing for the appellant, and Smt. Sheeba
Thomas, the learned Public Prosecutor.
6. This is a case of uxoricide. The law was set in motion in
this case on the strength of the statement given by the brother of
the deceased to PW18, the Station House Officer, Kottayam West
Police Station. Acting upon this initial statement, PW18 formally
registered the First Information Report (FIR), marked as Ext.P22,
alleging the commission of an offence under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following the registration of the FIR,
the investigation was conducted, and subsequently, the Circle
Inspector of Police, Kottayam West Police Station (PW19),
compiled the evidence and materials collected and filed the final
report before the Judicial Magistrate.
7. When the brother of the deceased, who gave the first
information statement, was examined as PW1, he deposed on the
following lines:
The deceased in this case was his sister, and her marriage
with the accused was solemnised approximately twenty years
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 6:: 2025:KER:92598
prior to the incident. PW2, PW3, and CW4 (not examined) are the
children born of their marriage. The accused used to have
frequent quarrels with his sister. Moreover, the accused
subjected the children to cruelty. On one occasion, the accused
attempted to molest his elder daughter. Following the said
incident, the elder daughter shifted her residence to his house.
Subsequently, his sister, accompanied by her other two children,
also moved to his house and began residing there. Subsequently,
the younger brother started to reside in his another sister's house
situated very near to his house. On the date of the incident, at
about 8 a.m., while he was returning to his house after going to a
shop, he saw a crowd at the scene of the incident in this case.
When he reached the crime scene, he saw his injured sister
being taken to a vehicle by those who had gathered there. He
also found a knife lying on the road. PW1 identified the said knife,
and the same was marked as MO1. Thereafter, he went to the
hospital, where he found his sister lying dead in a bed. Then, he
immediately went to the police station and gave a statement.
Ext.P1 is the statement given by him. According to PW1, the
incident in this case occurred on the road which leads to his
house, and there is a bridge near the main road from which the
road to his house originates, and the incident in this case
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 7:: 2025:KER:92598
occurred at a place situated on the southern side of the said
bridge. There is a canal between the main road and the road
which leads to his house.
8. Another crucial witness examined from the side of the
prosecution is PW2. On examination before the court, PW2
deposed that the deceased in this case is her mother and the
accused is her father. During the relevant period, she was
residing in the house of her uncle(PW1). She started to reside
there around two years prior to the incident in this case. Earlier,
she was residing with her parents in her paternal house at
Thiruvanchoor. It was she who initially shifted the residence from
Thiruvanchoor to her uncle's house. Thereafter, her mother, as
well as two siblings, also shifted their residence to the house of
PW1. While residing in the paternal house at Thiruvanchoor, the
accused misbehaved towards her while she was sleeping. Her
father caught her leg and patted her body. Then she struck off
his hands. Thereafter, the accused requested her not to disclose
the same to her mother, otherwise he would commit suicide.
Nevertheless, she informed the said incident to her mother.
Accordingly, her mother took her to her uncle's house, and hence
she started to reside there. The day on which her mother died
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 8:: 2025:KER:92598
was the wedding anniversary of her mother and father. One year
prior to the incident in this case, her father came to her uncle's
house and created an unwanted scene there after demanding her,
her mother and the other children to come to his house. With
respect to the said incident, her mother complained to the police.
The accused was in the habit of having frequent quarrels after
consuming liquor, and used to assault them. After the shifting of
her residence to her uncle's house also, the accused used to make
quarrels after reaching the said house, and on one occasion,
while she was returning to her uncle's house after attending
school, the accused came on a bike and attempted to knock her
down. Moreover, the accused grabbed the umbrella held by her
and beat her with the same, and she sustained injury on her
cheek. During the period of occurrence of the incident in this
case, her mother was working as a daily labourer. Her mother
used to leave for work between 7:45 am and 8 a.m. The accused
used to make threats that he would do away with her mother.
Hence, her mother was scared of the accused. On the alleged
date of the incident, when her mother went to work, her younger
sister and younger brother accompanied her mother. After a
short while, her younger sister rushed to her uncle's house and
informed her that her mother had been stabbed by the accused.
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 9:: 2025:KER:92598
After telling her so, her younger sister rushed back to the crime
scene. Then she also followed her younger sister. Upon reaching
the scene, she saw one Gopi lifting her mother from a canal. After
lifting her mother, Gopi laid her mother in her lap. She observed
an injury on her mother's left chest and also found a knife lying
on the road, which she identified as MO1. Then a dog attempted
to bite her mother. When she tried to drive it away, it bit her on
her back. Thereafter, the police came, and her mother was taken
to the hospital. Her younger sister, brother and one Ajeesh also
went to the hospital in the police jeep. On the previous day of the
said incident, the accused threatened her mother that she would
be immersed in the soil. Two months later, she found some
written complaints in the bag of her mother. Some of the
complaints were typed, and some were written in PW2's
handwriting. The said complaints are written at the instance of
her mother, and they bear the signature of her mother. Ext.P2
series are the said complaints. Seeing the said complaints, she
handed over the same to PW1, and he, in turn, produced the
same at the police station.
9. The prime witness examined by the prosecution to prove
the occurrence in this case is PW3, who is none other than the
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 10:: 2025:KER:92598
younger daughter of the deceased. On examination before the
court, PW3 deposed that during the period of occurrence of the
incident in this case, she was studying in the 9th standard at
Infant Jesus School, Mannarcaud. Her mother was employed as a
sweeper in a parallel college at Kottayam. Her mother used to go
to work at 8 a.m. On the date of the incident, she, as well as her
younger brother, accompanied her mother while her mother went
to work. The accused used to make threats that he would kill her
mother, and that's why she accompanied her mother on that day.
When she reached near her uncle's house, she saw the accused
crossing the bridge from the opposite side, and thereafter, he
entered the property on the eastern side. Immediately, the
accused came back and approached her mother and said
something. Thereafter, he caught hold of her mother's neck and
stabbed her chest twice. Then her mother raised an alarm,
"അയ രക കയ ഓട വരയ " (help me, come fast). Seeing
the same, she rushed to her uncle's house and informed the
matter to her elder sister. Immediately, when she came back, she
saw the accused pushing her mother into a canal. Then she
pelted stones upon her father, and he fled from the spot. Then,
one Gopi, who was running a pan shop near the canal, took her
mother from the canal to the road. At that time, her elder sister
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 11:: 2025:KER:92598
and younger brother were also present there. Thereafter, Gopi
laid her mother in the lap of her elder sister. When the MO1
knife was shown to PW3, she identified the same as the one used
to stab her mother. Thereafter police came and took her mother
to the hospital. She, her younger brother and one of her relatives
named Ajeesh also accompanied her mother to the hospital. As
her sister was bitten by a dog in the meantime, she did not
accompany them. During the period of occurrence of this case,
she was residing in her uncle's (PW1) house. It was due to the
harassment and illtreatment of her father that she, along with her
mother and siblings, shifted their residence to her uncle's house.
The accused even used to make quarrels after reaching her
uncle's house. On the previous day of the incident also, the
accused threatened that he would immerse her mother in soil and
would not permit her to live.
10. It is apparent that the prosecution primarily relies on
the direct testimony of PW3 to establish the occurrence in this
case. Before examining the reliability and credibility of PW3's
evidence, it is appropriate to consider the medical evidence
adduced regarding the nature of the injuries sustained by the
deceased and the cause of death. It is evident that immediately
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 12:: 2025:KER:92598
after the incident, the injured was taken to the District Hospital,
Kottayam. The doctor at the said hospital who examined the
injured and issued the wound certificate was examined as PW13.
Referring to the wound certificate, which was marked as Ext.P13,
the doctor deposed that it was on 20.3.2014, she examined the
injured in this case and issued Ext.P13 wound certificate.
According to her, the patient was unconscious when brought to
the hospital. The patient's pulse and respiration ceased after
three minutes. The body was covered with mud, and she noted
two small lacerated wounds on the left breast. According to
PW13, the death was due to Asphyxia and the death was
declared at 8.40 am. During the Chief examination, she further
stated that the death was due to asphyxia and the result of a fall
into the mud. According to PW13, the alleged history യ ലക
യ ക ന സമയത ഭർത വ കത കക ണ ക ത യ യ ഷ
കണത
' ൽ തള യ ടത ൽ വച (While going to work, the husband
stabbed her with a knife and pushed her into a canal). PW13
deposed that the said history was stated by those who brought
the patient to the hospital.
11. A conjoint reading of the testimony of PW13, the doctor,
along with Ext.P13, the wound certificate issued by her, clearly
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 13:: 2025:KER:92598
establishes that immediately after the incident, the injured was
taken to the hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries within
about three minutes of her arrival. The medical evidence further
indicates that the body of the deceased was covered with mud,
and PW13 noted two small lacerated wounds on the left side of
the breast.
12. The doctor who conducted autopsy examination was
examined as PW14. On examination before the Court, he
deposed that on 20.3.2014, while he was working as a Lecturer
and Assistant Police Surgeon department of Forensic Medicine,
Medical College, Kottayam, he conducted the postmortem
examination on the body of the deceased in this case. Ext.P14 is
the postmortem certificate issued by PW14. Referring to Ext.P14
postmortem certificate, PW14, deposed that in the autopsy
examination, he had noticed the following antemortem injuries:-
1. Incised penetrating wound 3x2cm, oblique on left
side of front of chest (on breast at the 4'o' clock
position) its lower inner blunt end 19cm outer to
midline and 15cm below collar bone. The wound
entering the chest cavity through sixth intercostal
space and terminated by piercing the apex of heart.
The wound track directed downwards backwards and
right for a total minimum depth of 10cm. Left chest
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 14:: 2025:KER:92598
cavity contained two litres of blood mixed with clots
and lung was collapsed.
2. Incised wound 2.5x1x5cm, oblique, on left side of
front of chest (on breast at the 5 'o' clock position) its
lower blunt end 14cm outer to midline and 20cm
below collar bone.
3. Abraded contusion 2x1x0.5cm on back of right
hand 4cm above root of ring finger.
13. PW14 opined that the death was due to the incised
penetrating injury sustained to the chest (injury No.1). When
PW14 was confronted with MO1 knife, the alleged weapon of
offence, he deposed that injury Nos. 1 and 2 noted by him could
be caused by a weapon like MO1. During cross-examination,
when the learned counsel for the accused asked whether the
nature of the injuries noted by him during the autopsy could have
been caused by the patient coming into contact with a blunt or
sharp piece of metal or a piece of glass, PW14 replied in the
negative.
14. One of the main contentions raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant is that the evidence of PW13, the doctor
who initially examined the deceased, and PW14, the doctor who
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 15:: 2025:KER:92598
conducted the autopsy, is contradictory. According to the learned
counsel, PW13 opined that the death was due to asphyxia
resulting from a fall into the mud, whereas PW14 deposed that
the death was caused by the incised, penetrating injury sustained
to the deceased's chest. On the basis of this alleged
inconsistency, the learned counsel argued that the prosecution
failed to establish the exact cause of death. However, we are
unable to accept the said contention for more than one reason.
15. Firstly, what PW13 deposed in her examination is that
the death was due to asphyxia. Asphyxia is not, in itself, an injury;
rather, it is a physiological consequence arising from serious
injury to vital organs such as the heart or lungs. The evidence of
PW14, who conducted the autopsy, clearly establishes that the
penetrating injury on the left side of the chest had pierced the
apex of the heart. His evidence further reveals that the chest
cavity contained two litres of blood, and the lungs were collapsed.
The nature and depth of the wound, as recorded in the post-
mortem certificate, indicate a strong likelihood of cardiac failure,
which would impede effective pumping of blood and thereby lead
to asphyxia. Asphyxia, in the present case was only symptomatic
of the underlying injury. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 16:: 2025:KER:92598
medical evidence in this case is mutually destructive or
contradictory.
16. Secondly, from the evidence of PW13 itself, it is clear
that she arrived at a conclusion regarding the cause of death on
the basis of a general clinical observation. In her evidence, she
stated that although she had noted two small lacerated wounds
on the left breast, each about 2 cm long, she did not notice the
depth of the said wounds due to the condition of the patient.
Therefore, the evidence of PW13 itself reveals that she did not
conduct a thorough examination of the injured, as she breathed
her last within three minutes of the commencement of her
assessment.
17. Thirdly, when an injured patient is brought to the
hospital, the primary duty of the attending doctor is to initiate all
necessary life-saving measures. A doctor engaged in emergency
clinical care is not expected to determine the precise cause of
death; such determination is the responsibility of the forensic
surgeon who conducts the autopsy. Moreover, in the present
case, PW13, the doctor who initially examined the deceased, also
noted two lacerated wounds on the chest. These very injuries
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 17:: 2025:KER:92598
were recorded again during the post-mortem examination.
Therefore, the appellant's contention that the medical evidence is
inconsistent cannot be sustained.
18. Even if there is a minute difference in the opinion of
medical experts, the court can very well consider which one is the
probable one. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs.
Bhagirath and others [(1999) 5 Supreme Court cases 96] observed
that "the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last
word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested by the
court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is
not obliged to go by that opinion. After all, opinion is what is
formed in mind of a person regarding a fact situation. If one
doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different
opinion on the same facts it is open to the Judge to adopt the
view which is more objective or probable. Similarly, if the
opinion given by one doctor is not consistent with probability, the
court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is
said by the doctor. Of course, due weight must be given to
opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular
subject ".
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 18:: 2025:KER:92598
19. In the present case, as noted earlier, there are no
glaring inconsistencies between the opinions expressed by the
doctors. We find no reason to doubt the opinion of the doctor who
conducted the autopsy regarding the cause of death. The opinion
of the doctor who conducted the initial examination of the injured
and that of the doctor who performed the post-mortem are not
mutually destructive. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW14
and the post-mortem certificate issued by him clearly
demonstrates that the death resulted from the incised,
penetrating injury sustained to the chest, and that the nature of
the death was homicidal.
20. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for
the appellant is that the doctor who conducted the autopsy did
not expressly state that the injury observed during the post-
mortem examination was sufficient, in the ordinary course of
nature, to cause death. While considering this contention, it is
significant to note that the autopsy surgeon categorically deposed
that it was Injury No. 1 that resulted in the death of the
deceased. It is true that the doctor did not specifically state that
the said injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to
cause death. However, the question of whether a medical expert
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 19:: 2025:KER:92598
must invariably, in every case, state that an injury was sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is no longer res
integra. In Sannappa Rayappa Jadge v. State of Karnataka (1994
SCC (Cri) 1167), the Supreme Court held that "the failure of the
doctor to specifically state that the injury was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death was immaterial."
21. Likewise, in Joy Devaraj v. State of Kerala (2024 (8)
SCC 102), the Supreme Court clarified that the medical expert's
opinion about whether the injury was sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature is highly relevant but not
mandatory for establishing murder. However, the absence of a
specific statement by the doctor that the injury was sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature does not preclude the possibility of
convicting an accused under Section 302 IPC, if other evidence
indicates that the injury was likely to cause death. In State of
West Bengal v. Mir Mohammed Omar and Others [(2000) 8 SC
Cases 382], it was observed as follows:
" The question whether the bodily injury was sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death was not put by
Public Prosecutor to the doctor who conducted the post-mortem
examination. However, the doctor opined that the deceased was
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 20:: 2025:KER:92598
murdered and that death had resulted from multiple injuries and
injuries on the vital organs. Where, from the nature of injuries, it
could be concluded that injuries are responsible for causing
death, the trial court itself could have come to the same
conclusion and hence mere non-mention by the doctor that the
injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death would be inconsequential."
22. Therefore, even in the absence of a specific
deposition by the doctor stating that the injury was sufficient, in
the ordinary course of nature, to cause death, the court can
independently assess whether the injury was likely to result in
death by carefully examining the nature of the wound, the part of
the body affected, and the weapon used. In the present case, the
medical evidence indicates that the stab wound penetrated the
apex of the heart. It follows, without the necessity of an expert
opinion, that such an injury is sufficient, in the ordinary course of
nature, to cause death. The doctor who conducted the post-
mortem examination categorically deposed that the
aforementioned injury was the cause of death of the deceased.
Therefore, the absence of a specific statement by the doctor that
the said injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 21:: 2025:KER:92598
cause death is of little consequence.
23. As already stated, the primary evidence that the
prosecution relies upon to prove the occurrence is the evidence
of PW3, the younger daughter of the deceased. On unequivocal
terms, PW3 deposed that on the fateful day, she, as well as her
younger brother, accompanied their mother while the latter went
to her job, and it was on the way that the accused attacked her
mother. According to PW3, the accused stabbed twice in the
chest of her mother with a knife, and immediately PW3 rushed to
her uncle's house and informed the matter to her elder sister.
After informing the matter, she again rushed to the crime scene
and then found the accused pushing her mother into a nearby
canal. Of course, the evidence of PW3 clearly unveils the incident
which led to the death of her mother.
24. However, the evidence of PW3 has been primarily
challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant on the
ground that, being the daughter of the deceased, she is an
interested witness, and her testimony alone cannot form a basis
for convicting the accused. It was further urged that it is unsafe
to rely solely on the evidence of a relative witness to arrive at a
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 22:: 2025:KER:92598
conclusion of guilt against the accused.
25. While considering the appellant's contention in this
regard, it must be borne in mind that there is no rigid or
inflexible rule requiring the evidence of a related witness to be
viewed with suspicion in all circumstances. Nevertheless, in
assessing the reliability of the testimony of a relative witness, the
court must exercise caution and act with discerning
circumspection. In the present case, we are therefore firmly of
the view that the appellant's contention that the evidence of PW3
should be discarded at the threshold solely because she is the
daughter of the deceased cannot be accepted.
26. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Rayappa and others
[(2006) 4 SCC 512], the Supreme Court observed as under:
"Testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring
confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he
being a relation of the deceased is an interested
witness. A close relative who is a very natural
witness cannot be termed as an interested witness.
The term interested postulates that the person
concerned must have some direct interest in seeing
the accused person being convicted somehow or the
other either because of animosity or some other
reasons. On the contrary, it has now almost become
a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and
depose before the court especially in criminal cases
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 23:: 2025:KER:92598
because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept
dragging on for years to come and the witnesses are
harassed a lot. They have been threatened,
intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to
lengthy cross-examination. In such a situation the
only natural witness available to the prosecution
would be the relative witness. The relative witness is
not necessarily an interested witness. On the other
hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will
try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth.
There is no reason as to why a close relative will
implicate and depose falsely against somebody and
screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The
only requirement is that the testimony of the relative
witness should be examined cautiously."
27. In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar [(1996) 1 SCC 614],
it was observed that a close relative who is a natural witness
cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term
"interested" postulates that the witness must have some interest
in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some
animosity or for some other reasons.
28. Keeping in mind the principles enunciated in the
aforementioned judicial pronouncements, while analysing the
evidence of PW3, it is significant to note that she testified
regarding an incident in which her mother tragically lost her life,
allegedly at the hands of the accused. Importantly, the accused is
her father. PW3 was aged only 14 years at the time of the
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 24:: 2025:KER:92598
occurrence. In ordinary human experience, it cannot reasonably
be expected that a daughter would falsely implicate her father in
a case concerning the murder of her mother. This is particularly
so because doing so would allow the actual perpetrator of the
offence to evade punishment.
29. Likewise, although PW3 was subjected to a thorough
and rigorous cross-examination by the learned defence counsel,
she successfully withstood it. Even after cross-examination, her
evidence remains consistent and free from any contradictions or
omissions, even of a minor nature. Similarly, we find no reason to
doubt her presence at the crime scene, as she explained that she,
along with her younger brother, accompanied her mother due to
the constant threat posed by her father. She further testified that
even on the previous day of the incident, her father had
threatened to harm her mother. In view of the foregoing, we have
no hesitation in holding that the solitary testimony of PW3 is
sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
30. We are not oblivious to the fact that in a case based on
direct evidence, proof of motive is not of critical relevance. In the
present case, however, the prosecution has established that the
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 25:: 2025:KER:92598
accused had a strained relationship with his wife. According to
the prosecution, their relationship further deteriorated following
an incident in which the accused allegedly attempted to molest
PW2, his own daughter. The evidence further establishes that the
deceased in this case, along with her children, was living
separately in her brother's house, as the ill-treatment and
harassment by the accused had become unbearable.
31. The evidence of PW1, the brother of the deceased,
reveals that even then, the accused did not spare his wife and
children, but he used to visit PW1's house and create problems
therein. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 further demonstrates
that, even on the day prior to the incident, the accused
threatened to kill the deceased. The evidence and circumstances
presented in this case clearly indicate that the accused was
deeply aggrieved by his wife's separate residence with her
children and was on hostile terms with them. Consequently, the
motive for the commission of the offence stands fully established.
As already stated, we are cognizant that when there is convincing
direct ocular evidence, the proof of motive holds relatively little
significance. However, when prosecution successfully proves
motive, it undoubtedly strengthens its case.
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 26:: 2025:KER:92598
32. Notably, the evidence of PW2, the elder daughter of the
deceased, shows that she reached the crime scene immediately
after the incident. Her testimony indicates that on the alleged
date of the occurrence, at around 7:30 a.m., her mother left for
work accompanied by her younger sister and brother. Shortly
thereafter, her younger sister rushed back home and informed
her that the accused had stabbed their mother. After stating this,
the younger sister immediately returned to the scene of
occurrence. PW2 further stated that she followed her younger
sister, and upon reaching the crime scene, she saw one Gopi, who
runs a pan shop near the place of occurrence, lifting her injured
mother from a canal.
33. The evidence of PW2 further shows that she found a
knife lying on the road and identified MO1 as the said knife.
Likewise, PW1 also deposed that when he arrived at the crime
scene immediately after the incident, he too saw a knife lying on
the road. In addition, PW3, who stated that she had witnessed the
accused stabbing her mother, identified MO1 as the weapon used
by the accused to stab her mother. It is significant to note that
the prosecution does not claim that MO1 was recovered at the
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 27:: 2025:KER:92598
instance of the accused. On the contrary, the prosecution case is
that MO1 was produced at the police station by PW8, an
independent witness who had reached the crime scene
immediately after the incident.
34. When PW8 was examined, he admitted that it was
he who produced the knife before the police station. According to
him, immediately after the incident, he reached the place of
occurrence and found a blood-stained knife lying at the scene.
Believing that the knife might be important evidence, he picked it
up and placed it in the bag attached to his motorcycle for the
purpose of producing it before the police. Thereafter, the police
contacted him and instructed him to produce the knife, and
accordingly, he produced it at the police station.
35. When the Circle Inspector of Police, who conducted
the investigation in this case, was examined as PW19, he deposed
that it was PW8 who produced the knife before him. The mahazar
by which MO1 was seized is marked as Ext.P9. According to
PW19, at the time the knife was produced, it bore bloodstains.
Similarly, the Assistant Director (Serology), FSL,
Thiruvananthapuram, who examined the thondy articles in this
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 28:: 2025:KER:92598
case, was examined as PW20, and the report prepared by her was
marked as Ext.P29. Referring to Ext.P29, PW20 deposed that on
serological examination, blood was detected on MO1, which is
shown as Item No. 13 in her report.
36. Likewise, PW19, the Investigating Officer, deposed that
the dress worn by the deceased at the time of the commission of
the offence was handed over to him by a nurse at the District
Hospital, Kottayam, where the injured was taken for treatment
immediately after the incident. According to PW19, the dress
included a saree, an underskirt, a blouse, and a brassiere, and he
seized these items after describing them in Ext.P7 mahazar. The
nurse who handed over the said dress materials was examined as
PW5, and the dress removed from the body of the deceased was
marked as MO2 series. When the scientific expert in physics,
FSL, Thiruvananthapuram, who subjected the said brassiere and
blouse for scientific examination, was examined as PW22, she
deposed that she had examined the blouse and the brassiere, and
she noted two numbers on severance in the said blouse and
brassiere. The report of her examination is marked as Ext.P28. In
Ext.P28, the said blouse and brassier were shown as item Nos.3
and 4, respectively.
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 29:: 2025:KER:92598
37. The evidence of PW22 further reveals that she also
examined MO1 knife, and on such examination, she concluded
that the severance noted on Item Nos. 3 and 4 were cut marks
made by the said knife. According to PW22, the sharpness of the
blade of MO1 was sufficient to cause the tears observed on the
blouse and brassiere. More pertinently, PW22, after referring to
Ext.P28 report, deposed that white-coloured fibres were detected
on the edges of the blade of MO1, and that the fibres recovered
from the knife were similar to those of the brassiere.
Undoubtedly, the above scientific evidence provides
corroboration for the prosecution case that the accused inflicted
the two stab injuries noted in the autopsy by using MO1.
38. Moreover, the evidence of PW19, the Investigating
Officer, shows that he arrested the accused on 20.03.2014 at 3:30
p.m. According to PW19, he was convinced that the clothes worn
by the accused at the time of arrest were the same as those worn
at the time of the commission of the offence. Accordingly, he took
into custody the shirt and dhoti worn by the accused, after
describing them in Ext.P17 mahazar. These items were marked
as MO3 and MO4. The evidence of PW20, the Assistant Director
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 30:: 2025:KER:92598
(Serology), FSL, Thiruvananthapuram, along with the Ext.P29
report prepared by her, shows that the said shirt and dhoti,
shown as Item Nos. 11 and 12 therein, contained human blood.
39. We have already found that the testimony of PW3, the
eyewitness, is convincing and reliable, and the same alone is
sufficient to enter into a finding of guilt against the accused. As
PW3 can be safely categorised as a wholly reliable witness, no
corroboration is legally required for acting upon her testimony.
Nevertheless, the prosecution has, in addition, adduced scientific
evidence and other compelling circumstances that further
strengthen its case. In view of the foregoing, we have no
hesitation in holding that the prosecution has fully succeeded in
proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
40. However, the learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the act of the accused will in no way attract an
offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. According to
him, the maximum offence that would be attracted in this case is
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is punishable
under Section 304 of the IPC. However, we cannot agree with his
contention in the above regard. In the present case, the nature of
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 31:: 2025:KER:92598
the overt acts committed by the accused, the number of injuries
inflicted, the nature of the weapon used, and the part of the body
where the injuries were inflicted, all speak volumes as to the
intention harboured by the accused.
41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju
Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2006 (11) SCC 444] held that
"the intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a
combination of a few or several of the following, among other,
circumstances; (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the
weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the
spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;
(iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether
the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or
free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or
whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was
any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii)
whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so,
the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of
passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken
undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi)
whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 32:: 2025:KER:92598
above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive, and
there may be several other special circumstances with reference
to individual cases which may throw light on the question of
intention."
42. The evidence presented in this case establishes that
the accused, armed with a dangerous weapon, inflicted two stab
injuries upon the vital part of the body of the victim. The post-
mortem report and the testimony of the doctor who conducted
the autopsy confirmed that significant force was used in causing
the injuries. The eyewitness account, detailing that the accused
first caught hold of the neck and then stabbed the victim's chest
twice with the knife, clearly indicates an intention to inflict
piercing injuries. Furthermore, the evidence that the accused had
raised a threat against the deceased on the day prior to the
incident, coupled with the manner of execution, makes it
apparent that the act was premeditated and scrupulously carried
out. Considering all the above aspects, we have no hesitation in
holding that the act of the accused will come under Clause 3rdly
of Section 300 of the IPC. Likewise, none of the exceptions
provided under Section 300 of the IPC would attract in this case.
Crl.Appeal No.1389 of 2019 :: 33:: 2025:KER:92598
Resultantly, we confirm the finding, conviction, and
sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.
No.269/2014 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kottayam, for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and hence, the
appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
vdv
