Kerala High Court
Madhu vs State Of Kerala on 28 January, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Crl.Appeal No.1298 of 2018 1
2025:KER:6844
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 8TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 1298 OF 2018
(CRIME NO.516/2014 OF Palluruthy Police Station, Ernakulam)
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC NO.217 OF 2015 ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE V, ERNAKULAM ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CP NO.5 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOCHI
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MADHU,
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O DARMAN, H.NO.13/1517, VYASAPURAM, PALLURUTHY,
RAMESWARAM VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.
T.B.GAFOOR
K.MOHAN
M.I.ANWAR SADATH
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682 031, THROUGH SI OF POLICE,
PALLURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.-682006
Crl.Appeal No.1298 of 2018 2
2025:KER:6844
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI RANJITH T R, SR. PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23/1/2025, THE COURT ON 28/1/2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal No.1298 of 2018 3
2025:KER:6844
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
&
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.
-------------------------------------
Crl. Appeal No.1298 of 2018
------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of January 2025
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J
This appeal is filed by the sole accused in SC No.217/2015
challenging his conviction and sentence imposed under Section
302 IPC, by the Additional Sessions Court-V, Ernakulam.
Prosecution case
2. On 16/4/2014 at about 4.15 pm, the accused with an
intention to kill Sindhu Jayan, followed her while she was
coming from the ration shop belonging to PW7 situated at S.P.
Puram and stabbed her using a knife on her chest, neck and
abdomen, in the Kattissery S.P. Puram Concrete road and killed
her. Hence, the prosecution alleges that the accused has
committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
2025:KER:6844
Proceedings in the trial court
3. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the
accused, examined PW1 to PW44 and marked Exhibits P1 to
P27(a) documents and MO1 to MO15(b).When examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating
circumstances appearing against him in evidence and contended
that he is innocent. No evidence was adduced from the side of
the accused. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence
on record, found the accused guilty and convicted him under
Section 302 IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under
Section 302 IPC. In case of default in payment of fine, the
accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of one year. The fine amount, if realised, was ordered to
be paid to PW3.
An overview of the prosecution evidence
4. PW1 is the person who lodged Ext.P1 FIS. He deposed
that on 16/4/2014, while he was coming from Kattissery along
2025:KER:6844
with one Muthumani @ Kiran and his father's elder brother, he
saw a lady seeking help and saw the victim sitting in a leaning
posture, with blood all over her body. They lifted her and
walked. Kannan and Sajeevan also came there and took the
victim in an autorickshaw. The daughter of the victim was also
standing nearby and the victim was sitting there with a stab
injury. The knife was lying nearby and he identified the weapon
as MO1. He also identified Ext.P1 FIS and the signature in it. In
his cross examination he stated that he was the first person to
reach the spot and they had taken the victim to the junction
from where she was taken in an autorickshaw brought by
Satheesan. He also stated that Satheesan and Kannan took the
victim in the autorickshaw and that he came to know about
their names only later.
5. PW3 is the daughter of the victim. She deposed that on
16/4/2014, she, along with her mother, had gone to the shop
and at that time, had seen the accused sitting there. While
coming back, the accused followed them, caught hold of her
2025:KER:6844
mother's hair and stabbed her using a knife on her stomach.
He also inflicted a cut injury on her neck and stabbed her five
times. On hearing their cries, two ladies came there. She
identified the knife used by the accused as MO1 and the dresses
worn by him as MO2 and MO3. She also identified the nighty
and skirt worn by her mother as MO4 and MO5. In her cross
examination, she stated that blood got splashed in her dress
and two persons had lifted her mother and had taken her to the
hospital in an autorickshaw. She also stated that after
sustaining the injuries, her mother had not talked.
6. PW5 deposed that on the fateful day at about 4 pm, she
heard the cries of a child and while she was proceeding to the
place, the accused came running and left the place in a green
scooter parked there. At that time, the accused told her that
"ച ച എന പറഞ ന ട കര ത" . She went near the victim
and tried to lift her, but could not succeed. The victim entrusted
her chain and her child with her, and thereafter did not speak
anything. While lifting the victim, a knife fell down from her
2025:KER:6844
body and the victim entrusted the same with her daughter. She
identified the knife as MO1 and the articles, which were in the
hands of the victim and which fell down, as MO6 to MO8. In her
cross examination, she stated that she had called for help when
she saw the victim and also that her body and dress were not
splattered with blood.
7. PW6 is an employee in the ration shop run by PW7. He
deposed that on 16/4/2014 at about 4 pm, Sindhu came to the
shop and after purchasing rice went to the grocery store nearby
and purchased some other items. At about 4.00-4.15 pm,
Satheesan came running and informed that Madhu had stabbed
Sindhu. He ran towards the place and saw Sindhu lying there.
Satheesan flagged down an auto and he along with Lalan and
Kannan lifted Sindhu into it and gave water to her. At that
time, Sindhu told him that "മധ ത '. In his cross
examination, he stated that at the time when Satheesan gave
the information, Lalan and Kannan were present in the tea shop
nearby. After giving the information, Satheesan went to call an
2025:KER:6844
auto. His dresses got drenched in blood and he washed them in
the hospital. Blood also was there in the dresses of all the three
persons. He further stated that it is after drinking water and
after lifting Sindhu to the autorickshaw, she had stated that it is
Madhu who had stabbed her.
8. PW11 deposed that at about 6 pm on 16/4/2014, the
accused came to his house and after ascertaining the welding
works to be done there, watched TV. When he informed the
accused about a news item, which came on the TV, regarding a
murder of a lady in Palluruthy, the accused asked him whether
his name is also shown.
9. PW12 deposed that two days after Vishu, the accused
had told him that he is having vengeance against Sindhu for
her not paying the amount due to him and that she has ruined
his life.
10. PW17 is a witness to Ext.P3 scene mahazar and the
recovery of the articles from the place of occurrence. He
deposed that he had witnessed the recovery of MO6 bag, MO7
2025:KER:6844
rice powder, MO8 milk powder, MO11 chappal, and MO1 knife
from the spot, on the next day of the incident at about 10 am.
11. PW26 is the doctor, who conducted the postmortem
examination of the deceased Sindhu Jayan and issued Ext.P7
certificate. On such examination, he noticed 14 ante-mortem
injuries in the body of the deceased. According to him, injury
Nos.1 to 14 can be caused by MO1. He also stated that the
cause of death is due to incised penetrating injuries sustained to
chest(injury No.5). He further stated that the blood group of the
deceased was A+ve. In his cross examination, he stated that MO1
was shown to him after one and half months.
12. PW27 is the scientific assistant attached to the DCRB
Cochin city, who examined the place of occurrence on
17/4/2014. She deposed that she collected blood stained soil,
rice grains bearing blood stains and the control soil from the
scene of crime and handed them to the CPO attached to the
Palluruthy Police Station as per Ext.P8 certificate. She identified
the packets thus handed over as MO14, MO14(a) and MO14(b).
2025:KER:6844
13. PW33 was the doctor attached to Fathima Hospital.
He deposed that at about 4.45 pm on 16/4/2014, Sindhu Jayan
was brought dead to the hospital . The certificate issued by him
was marked as Ext.P10.
14. PW35 is the village officer attached to the
Rameshwaram village office. He deposed that he had visited the
place of occurrence along with the village assistant and had
prepared Ext.P12 scene plan.
15. PW36 is the auto driver who took Sindhu to the
Fathima hospital. PW37 is a witness to Ext.P13 mahazar and
recovery of MO2 and MO3 dresses worn by the accused. He
deposed that on 18/4/2014 at about 8 am, he had witnessed
the Circle Inspector seizing the afore articles which contained
blood stains.
16. PW42 is the police officer who first reached the spot.
He deposed that on getting information, he went to the scene,
and understood that the victim had already been taken to the
hospital. On reaching the hospital, he understood that the victim
2025:KER:6844
had died. Subsequently, he recorded Ext.P1 FIS given by PW1
and registered Ext.P15 F.I.R. On coming to know that the
accused had escaped to Palakkad, he went there and arrested
the accused on 17/4/2014 at about 11.45 am from Alathur,
after preparing Ext.P16 arrest memo and Ext.P17 inspection
memo. The articles such as mobile phone, sim cards, bus tickets
and money, which was in the possession of the accused were
also seized by him. He also stated that the accused was
wearing MO2 and MO3 dresses at that time.
17. PW44 is the investigating officer in this case. He
deposed that at about 7.30 am on 17/4/2014, he prepared
Ext.P2 inquest report and at about 10.15 am prepared Ext.P3
scene mahazar and seized the articles lying in the place of
occurrence including MO1. Later on 18/4/2014, he seized the
dresses worn by the accused by preparing Ext.P13 mahazar. He
produced all the articles before the Court as per Ext.P22 series
and Ext.P23 to Ext.P25 forwarding notes. He also submitted
Ext.P26 forwarding note and received Ext.P27 and Ext.P27(a)
2025:KER:6844
reports from the FSL. In his cross examination, he stated that
MO1 was lying in the spot when he went there and no
fingerprints were found in it. All the properties, except MO1,
were forwarded to the court and MO1 was retained for getting it
identified by the witnesses.
18.
Contentions of the appellant
18. Adv.Muraleedharan K.R, the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant contended that, in the light of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution, the conviction against the accused
can never be sustained. He argued that PW3 is a planted and
tutored witness and her evidence is shaky. He submitted that
the prosecution has also suppressed material evidence by not
examining Satheesan whose presence in the place of occurrence
is spoken to by all the material witnesses. He contended that
the evidence of PWs 1,5 & 6 are not credible and the version of
PW6 that the victim has given a statement criminating the
accused, is not at all believable. He further submitted that there
2025:KER:6844
is considerable delay in producing MO1 before the court and the
possibility of the investigating officer tampering it cannot be
ruled out. Hence, he prayed that this appeal may be allowed.
Contentions of the Prosecutor
19. Adv.Ranjith T.R., the learned senior Public Prosecutor
contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment, since the same has been delivered after a
proper appraisal of evidence on record. He contended that the
evidence of the sole eye witness(PW3) remains unscathed even
after extensive cross examination and her evidence is also well
supported by evidence of PW1, PW5 & PW6. He submitted that
the scientific evidence let in by the prosecution also points the
finger of guilt towards the accused. Hence, he prayed this
appeal may be dismissed.
Evaluation of evidence
20. In the present case,there is not much dispute
regarding the fact that the death of Sindhu Jayan is homicidal.
The evidence of PW26 coupled with Ext.P7 goes to show that
2025:KER:6844
the victim has sustained 14 ante-mortem injuries, out of which
11 of them are incised wounds and many of them are in the
vital parts of the body such as abdomen, chest, neck etc. PW26
has categorically stated that all the injuries can be caused by
MO1 weapon and that the cause of death is the incised
penetrating injury sustained to the chest (injury no. 5). In the
light of the afore evidence, we have no hesitation to find that
the cause of death of Sindhu Jayan is nothing but homicidal.
21. In order to prove its case, the prosecution is placing
heavy reliance upon the evidence of the sole eye witness in this
case, who is none other than the minor child of the victim. The
evidence of PW3, who was about 6-7 years, at the time of
incident, shows that while she along with her mother were
returning from the ration shop, the accused had followed them,
caught hold of the hair of the victim and had stabbed her using
a knife repeatedly inflicting injuries on her stomach and neck.
Her evidence also reveals that on hearing their hue and cry,
PW5 and others had reached the spot and had taken her mother
2025:KER:6844
to the hospital. PW3 positively identified the accused in the
dock and even stated that she had seen him sitting there while
they were going to the shop. The witness also identified the
dresses worn by the accused at the relevant time. It is to be
seen that even though PW3 had been subjected to roving cross
examination, except some minor embellishments, nothing
material has been brought out to discredit her version regarding
the core of the incident.
22. It is true that child witnesses are pliable and are
prone to tutoring and the Courts, as a rule of prudence, will
consider such evidence with close scrutiny. The Court will apply
its mind and see whether there is a possibility of the witnesses
being tutored and if, after a careful scrutiny of their evidence,
the court comes to a conclusion that there is an impress of truth
in it, the same will be acted upon.(See Ratansinh
Dalsukhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat [(2004) 1 SCC 64],
Pradeep v. State of Haryana [2023 KHC 6672) and
Nivrutti Pandurang Kokate v. State of Maharashtra
2025:KER:6844
[(2008) 12 SCC 565]. In the present case, an analysis of the
evidence of PW3 would go to show that PW3 is a witness who
has the intellectual capacity to understand questions and give
rational answers for them. She has given a vivid description of
the events which transpired leading to the death of her mother
without any embellishments. Her demeanour is like any other
competent witness and does not indicate any tutoring. On a
close scrutiny of her evidence, we are of the view that there is a
ring of truth in it and in such circumstances, we find no
impediment in acting upon her testimony.
23. The evidence of PW3, also gets support and
corroboration from the evidence of PW5, who had reached the
spot immediately. The evidence of PW5 reveals that on hearing
the cries of PW3, she had run to the spot and at that time had
seen the accused fleeing after making a request not to disclose
his identity to anyone. On reaching the spot, she had seen the
victim lying with stab injuries and PW3 standing nearby. When
she cried for help, others came there and lifted the victim and
2025:KER:6844
took her to the hospital. MO1 knife fell down from the body of
the victim to the ground while lifting the victim. The afore
evidence of PW5 also thus confirms the presence of the accused
in the scene during the commission of the crime and also that
he had fled in his motor cycle thereafter. The evidence of PW6 &
PW1 further corroborates the evidence of PW3 & PW5 and
shows that when they reached the spot immediately, they had
seen the victim lying with injuries and that it was they who
had lifted her and taken to the hospital. The evidence of PW1
also confirms the presence of PW3 with her mother at the
relevant time and the fact that it is on the fervent calls made
by PW5, he had reached the spot. PW1 also positively identified
the weapon, which was lying there. It is to be seen that even
though these witnesses have been subjected to strenuous cross
examination, nothing has been brought out to discredit their
testimonies regarding these aspects.
24. Be that as it may, the evidence of PW6 also reveals
that while he along with others lifted the victim and took her to
2025:KER:6844
the autorickshaw, the victim has stated to him that 'Madhu had
stabbed her'. It is discernible from his evidence that it is after
drinking water and while the victim was lifted to the
autorickshaw, the victim has thus given the statement
inculpating the accused. It is very pertinent to note that there
is no substantial challenge from the side of the accused
regarding this part of evidence. Further,as stated earlier,even
after extensive cross examination, the evidence of PW6
remains credible and cogent. The afore, statement given by the
deceased undoubtedly can be considered as her dying
declaration and the same in turn lends considerable support to
the prosecution case.
25. Be that as it may, the evidence on record also goes to
show that MO2 jeans worn by the accused at the relevant time,
contained the blood of the deceased. The evidence of PW26
goes to show that the blood group of the deceased is A+ve. The
evidence of PW44 and PW37 coupled with Ext.P13 would go to
show that after the arrest of the accused, on 18/4/2014 at
2025:KER:6844
about 8 am, the jeans and T-shirt(MO2 and MO3) worn by the
accused have been seized by preparing Ext.P13 mahazar.
Evidence of PW44 coupled with Ext.P22(b) would show that the
same has been forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate on
22/4/2014. Subsequently, along with Ext.P26 forwarding note
the dresses were sent to the FSL for examination. Ext.P27
report goes to show that when MO2 jeans was examined (item
No.6), human blood, that too belonging to Group A, (same as
that of the deceased) was detected. There is absolutely no
explanation forthcoming from the side of the accused as to how
the blood of the deceased was found in his dress. The said
scientific evidence also lends considerable support and acts as
an additive to show that the accused is involved in the crime.
26. Moving further, PW 3 has specifically identified MO1
as the weapon used by the accused to commit the crime. The
evidence of PW1 and PW5 shows that they have also seen the
weapon in the place of occurrence immediately after the crime.
The weapon was recovered by PW44 on the next morning
2025:KER:6844
while preparing Ext.P3 scene Mahazar in the presence of PW17.
As evidenced by Ext.P27, the examination of MO1 in the FSL
(item No.12) revealed that it contained human blood belonging
to Group A. The afore scientific evidence also thus corroborates
with the evidence of PW3 and shows that MO1 is the weapon
used in the crime. It is true that, as contended by the learned
counsel for the appellant, there is some delay in producing
MO1 before the Court. As stated earlier, even though MO1 was
seized by PW44 on 17/4/2014, the same is seen produced
before the court only on 13/6/2014, as evidenced by Ext.P25.
But, an appraisal of the evidence of PW44, would go to show
that he had retained MO1 with himself for the purpose of
showing it to the doctor and other witnesses, and getting its
identity ascertained. The evidence of PW26 would go to show
that the investigating officer has, in fact, shown the weapon to
him, but the same was done nearly one and half months after
the incident. Be that as it may, a perusal of Ext.P3 goes to show
that the description and dimension of the weapon has been
2025:KER:6844
specifically stated in it and that Ext.P3 has reached the court on
22/4/2014, without much delay. It is pertinent to note the
presence of blood is also mentioned in Ext.P3. A perusal of
Ext.P25 would go to show that it is the very same weapon, as
described in Ext.P3, which has been produced before the court
on 13/6/2014. It is very pertinent to note that even at that
time, blood stains were present in the weapon. It is the said
weapon, which has been forwarded to the FSL along with the
other articles and Ext.P27 report, has been obtained. If that be
so, we find no merit in the contention of the appellant that MO1
has been tampered with while it was in the custody of PW44.
27. Coming to the next contention of the appellant that the
prosecution has suppressed material evidence by not examining
Satheesan, again we are of the considered view that there is no
merit in it. First of all, it is to be seen that the prosecution has
no case that Satheesan was present in the scene at the time of
the occurrence. The evidence of PW3 also confirms the same.
The accused has also not made a suggestion either to PW3 or
2025:KER:6844
PW44 that Satheesan was present in the scene when the crime
was committed. Secondly, as stated earlier, the prosecution has
let in credible evidence to prove the events, which transpired
on the relevant date and time, by examining PW1, PW3, PW5 &
PW6 and in such circumstances, the examination of Satheesan
will only be a repetition or duplication of evidence. It is a
settled law that if sufficient evidence is already available, and
examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition of the
evidence already let in, non examination of such other witnesses
is not material.(See Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing
Chamansing [(2001) 6 SCC 145] and Swarnamma v. State
of Kerala [2015 3 KLJ 544]. If so, for the afore reasons, we
find that the non examination of Satheesan is not fatal to the
prosecution case.
28. The upshot of the above discussions on evidence is
that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused has committed murder of the deceased Sindhu
Jayan. The trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on
2025:KER:6844
record and it has arrived at a correct conclusion of guilt against
the accused. The appellant could not bring out any material
which would enable this Court to interfere with the said
conclusion. Ergo, we find that this appeal lacks merit and the
same is only to be dismissed.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN
dpk JUDGE
