Kerala High Court
Rony vs State Of Kerala on 21 July, 2025
2025:KER:53906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 909 OF 2008
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 28.03.2008 IN SC
NO.354 OF 2007 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC),
ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RONY
S/O JACOB, BALUMMEL VEEDU,
KANNAMALI DESOM,DESOM, KUMBALANGI VILLAGE.
BY ADV SHRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAMALI POLICE,
STATION - CRIME NO.212/2006 OF KANNAMALI POLICE,
STATION)REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY ADV
SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN COME UP FOR HEARING
15.07.2025, THE COURT ON 21.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :2:
2025:KER:53906
JUDGMENT
The sole accused in SC.No.354/2007 on the files of the
Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Ernakulam, has preferred
this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and the order
of sentence passed against him in the said case for the offence
punishable under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;
The accused and CW1 are husband and wife. The
accused harboured animosity towards his wife, as she was not
amenable to the demand of the accused to transfer her property
in the accused's name. Owing to this animosity, on 25.11.2006,
at 3.00 p.m., the accused took his wife as a pillion rider on his
motorcycle and rode the motorcycle in a rash and negligent
manner through Chellanam - Pandikkudy road and while riding
so, the accused with the intention of committing culpable
homicide, suddenly turned the motorcycle and applied the brakes
abruptly, causing his wife to fall from the motorcycle and sustain
serious injuries. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed
the offences punishable under Sections 279, 325, and 308 of the
IPC.
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :3:
2025:KER:53906
3. After the completion of the investigation, the final
report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Kochi. On being satisfied that this 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, Ernakulam, under section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned
Sessions Judge, after having taken cognizance, made over the
case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions Court
(Adhoc-I), Ernakulam. On appearance of the accused before the
trial court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing
both sides under section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon a perusal of the
records, framed a written charge against the accused for offences
punishable under Sections 279, 325, and 308 of IPC. When the
charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1
to PW7 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P8. MO1 series was
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
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :4:
2025:KER:53906
heard under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and as it was not a fit case to
acquit the accused under the said section, he was directed to
enter on his defence and to adduce any evidence he may have in
support thereof. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced
from the side of the defence. Thereafter, both sides were heard in
detail, and finally, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the
accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC
and convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of
Rs.20,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was
ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
Aggrieved by the said finding of guilt, conviction, and order of
sentence passed, the accused has come up with this appeal.
5. I heard Sri. C.Anilkumar Kallesseril, the learned counsel
for the appellant, and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, learned Senior Public
Prosecutor.
6. The accused and the injured in this case are admittedly
husband and wife. The law was set in motion in this case based
on the First Information Statement given by the sister of the
injured to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kannamali Police Station.
The said sister, who allegedly witnessed the incident, was
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :5:
2025:KER:53906
examined as PW3. In her deposition, she stated as follows: She is
the sister of Seema(PW2), the injured in this case. The incident
occurred on 25.11.2006 at 3.00 p.m. She deposed that there had
been a quarrel between her sister and the accused for the past
one week, and her sister was residing in her paternal home during
that period. On the alleged date of the incident, the accused took
PW2 in an autorickshaw to his home. Later that day, while she
was returning back from a hospital along with her child by riding a
motorcycle, the accused, who came on another motorcycle,
overtook her. Then PW2, her sister, was found seated on the
pillion of the motorcycle ridden by the accused. The said
motorcycle was in overspeed, and her sister was screaming,
asking for help. Suddenly, the accused applied the brakes, and
her sister fell off the scooter. The incident occurred near
Chalippuram Toddy shop. There were no bystanders present to
help. The accused remained stationary at the scene without
rendering any help to take her sister to the hospital. When she
raised an alarm, an autorikshaw arrived. With the help of the
autorikshaw driver, she took her sister inside the autorikshaw.
Then the accused ran towards his house. She then followed the
accused in the autorikshaw and forcefully compelled him to get
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :6:
2025:KER:53906
into it. When the autorikshaw reached near the house of the
accused, the accused attempted to jump out of it, saying that he
did not have any money. Then she said that she had sufficient
money to manage the situation. When the autorikshaw reached
near Kannamali auto stand, one of its tyres got punctured. Then
she hired a car and took her sister to Goutham Hospital. Upon
reaching the hospital, the accused fled the scene and did not
return. She gave a statement to the Police from the hospital, and
Ext.P3 is the said statement.
7. The injured in this case, when examined as PW2,
deposed that the accused is her husband. Their marriage was
conducted two years back. The incident in this case occurred on
25.11.2006. During the period surrounding the incident, she was
residing at her house at Maruvakkad in Chellanam. The said
house was gifted to her by her father. She had been residing there
during the week preceding the incident due to a quarrel with her
husband. On the alleged date of the incident, in the morning, her
husband came to her paternal home and took her to his house.
However, on that day, again her husband as well as her
mother-in-law picked a quarrel with her. Thereafter, her husband
contacted her father and asked him to come to his house.
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :7:
2025:KER:53906
Accordingly, her father arrived, and the accused told her father to
take her back. Subsequently, the accused himself took her on his
scooter to drop her at her house. On the way to her house, while
she was on the pillion of the said scooter, the accused rode it at a
hectic speed, and at that time, her husband was under the
influence of alcohol. Although she requested the accused to slow
down, the accused told her that he has no problem even if she
dies. At that time, her sister came riding another scooter. Then
she asked her sister to save her by showing signals with her
hand. After a short distance, the accused suddenly applied the
brakes, and she fell off the scooter, sustaining injuries. In the
incident, she lost seven teeth and also suffered injuries to her
face and knee. Following the incident, her sister took her to the
hospital. The accused and his mother used to make frequent
quarrels with her, demanding to transfer her property in the name
of the accused. The attempt of accused was to murder her.
8. While analysing the evidence adduced in this case, it
can be seen that the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of
PW2 and PW3 to prove the occurrence alleged in this case.
Among them, PW2 is the injured witness. Undisputedly, the
evidence of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law.
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :8:
2025:KER:53906
In Brahm Swaroop v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in
AIR 2011 SC 280, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that,
"The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy
and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of
occurrence, and this lends support to his testimony that he was
present at the time of occurrence. The testimony of an injured
witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes
with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the
crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to
falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to
discredit an injured witness."
9. Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should
ordinarily be relied upon unless there are grounds for its rejection
based on major contradictions or inherent improbabilities.
Anyhow, there is no inflexible rule that the evidence of an injured
witness must be accepted as gospel truth in all circumstances. If
there is any chance of false implication, the court must act with
much care and circumspection while evaluating the evidence of
an injured witness. If there is anything to indicate that the
witness has any reason that would motivate him to implicate the
accused in a false case, the evidence of such a witness has to be
carefully scrutinised even though he is an injured witness.
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :9:
2025:KER:53906
10. Keeping in mind the above while reverting to the facts
in the present case, it can be seen that the accused and the
injured, who are husband and wife, were in a strained
relationship during the relevant period. The prosecution alleges
that this strained relationship was the motive for the accused to
endanger the life of PW2, his wife. However, it is a settled law
that enmity is double-edged weapon. On one hand, it provides
motive, on the other hand, it also does not rule out the possibility
of false implication. Therefore, as already stated, a thorough and
cautious evaluation of the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is highly
necessary in this case.
11. Moreover, PW3, the eyewitness examined by the
prosecution to prove the occurrence, is none other than the sister
of the injured. I am not oblivious of the law that a relationship is
not a criterion to discard the evidence of a witness. Anyhow,
while acting on the evidence of a relative witness, the court must
be very careful.
12. A close analysis of the deposition of PW3 reveals that
there are lot of improvements and contradictions therein. During
examination before court, she deposed that after the incident,
the accused remained stationary at the crime scene without
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :10:
2025:KER:53906
rendering any assistance to take PW2 to the hospital. However,
when the Sub Inspector of Police who recorded the statement of
PW3 was examined as PW7, he deposed that no such statement
was given by PW3 at the time when she had given Ext.P3 FIS.
Similarly, PW7 admitted that PW3 had not given a statement that
she, along with the auto driver, forcefully took the accused into
the autorikshaw. Ofcourse, the said omissions in the statement
of PW3, proved through PW7, cannot be undermined while
assessing the reliability of PW3's testimony. Likewise, when PW2
was examined, she testified that she gestured to her sister for
assistance while seated on the scooter. However, during
cross-examination, she admitted that she did not state that fact
to the Police at the time when she gave statement to the Police.
The said omission stands proved through the investigating officer
who recorded the statement of PW3. The said omission will cast
serious doubt regarding the credibility of PW2 as well. It is
apparent that there are lot of improvements in the evidence of
PW2 and PW3.
13. Moreover, the evidence adduced further reveals that
immediately after the incident, PW2 was taken to Goutham
Hospital. The Doctor who medically examined PW2 and issued
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :11:
2025:KER:53906
the wound certificate was examined as PW1. Referring to Ext.P1
wound certificate, the Doctor deposed that the history given was
that of a fall from a motorcycle, and he opined that the injuries
noted by him could have been caused as alleged. It is
established that the history was stated by PW3, the sister of the
injured, who claims to have witnessed the incident. Then it is
highly dubious why PW3 did not state to the Doctor that it was an
intentional act on the part of the accused instead of stating that
it was a fall from a motorcycle. It is pertinent to note that at the
time of stating the history, PW3 is not having a case that the
incident occurred due to any purposeful act of the accused, but it
was due to an accidental fall.
14. As already observed, the relationship between the
accused and his wife had become strained well before the
occurrence of the incident in this case. Significantly, during
cross-examination, PW2admitted that she gave a statement to
the Police under the instigation and inducement of her family
members. Although she sought to retract this statement during
re-examination, her earlier admission casts a serious shadow
over the reliability of her version. Therefore, the chance of false
implication cannot be ruled out in this case.
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :12:
2025:KER:53906
15. Furthermore, to attract criminal liability, a guilty or
culpable intent must be established. It is a foundational principle
of criminal jurisprudence that an act becomes punishable only
when accompanied by the requisite mental element, mens rea. It
is pertinent to note that during cross-examination, PW2 herself
admitted that she was holding a carry bag in her hand and hence
she was unable to hold onto the accused while travelling in the
pillion of the scooter. Therefore, the possibility of the incident
being an accidental one cannot be ruled out. Even PW2 has not
categorically deposed that the accused applied the brakes with
any criminal intent. Through a series of judicial pronouncements,
it is well settled that when two views are reasonably possible,
one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, the view that favours the accused must be adopted.
As already noted, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is riddled with
lot of omissions and inconsistencies, and their evidence is not
capable of inspiring the confidence of this court. In such
circumstances, it would be unsafe to wholly base a conviction
solely on their testimonies, particularly when the same is not
corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses.
Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution
CRL.A NO. 909 of 2008 :13:
2025:KER:53906
failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of
conviction and the order of sentence passed against the
appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 325 of
IPC is set aside and he is acquitted. Fine amount, if any, has been
deposited by the appellant/accused, the same shall be refunded
to him in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ANS/ncd
