Kerala High Court
Anuranjan vs State Of Kerala on 3 March, 2025
Author: Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
Monday, the 3rd day of March 2025 / 12th Phalguna, 1946
CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2024 IN CRL.A NO.2458 OF 2024
SC 1500/2018 OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,NEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ANURANJAN, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O ARUJUNAN, USHA BHAVAN,
VANCHIYOORKONAM, KAVUMPURAM,
CHOVALLOORMURY, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, PIN - 688005.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated therein the
High Court be pleased to suspend the execution of sentence passed against
the petitioner in SC No.1500/2018 dated 02.11.2024 on the file of the
Additional Sessions Court, pending disposal of the above appeal.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and upon hearing the arguments of SHRI KRISHNANUNNI G. B., Advocate for
the petitioner and of the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the respondent, the court
passed the following:
P.T.O.
1
Crl.M.A. No. 1 of 2024 in
Crl.A.No. 2458 of 2024
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V & P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------------
Crl. A No. 2458 of 2024
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of March 2025
ORDER
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
The applicant is the 2nd accused in S.C. No. 1500 of 2018 on the file of
the Additional Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara. This application is filed under
Section 430(1) r/w. Section 395 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha,
2023 (BNSS), seeking to suspend the execution of the sentence imposed
against the applicant/appellant.
2. The applicant, along with the other accused, stood indicted for
committing the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. By the
impugned judgment, the applicant and the 1st accused were found guilty and
were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs. 50,000/-, with a default clause, for the offence under Section 302 of the
IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three months for the offence under Section 447 of the IPC.
3. According to the prosecution, Maniyan, the husband of Valsala
Crl.M.A. No. 1 of 2024 in
(PW1), was a drunkard. He used to make obscene gestures towards the
daughter of the 2nd accused. The accused were on inimical terms with the
deceased. The prosecution alleges that on 03.03.2014, the applicant abused
accused Nos. 1 to 3. The 3rd accused in the case is the mother of the 1st
accused and the 4th accused is the wife of the 2nd accused. Owing to the
above animosity, the applicant along with the 2nd accused, with intent to
commit murder of the aforesaid Maniyan caught him by the scruff of his neck
and thereafter, kicked him on various parts of the body in the compound of the
residential house of Maniyan, at about 11:30 p.m. on 03.03.2014. It is alleged
that the accused Nos. 3 and 4 stood nearby and aided accused Nos.1 and 2 to
commit the offence. It is further alleged that the 1st accused attacked Maniyan
with a rafter on his left knee, consequent to which he had fallen down and
thereafter, the applicant herein inflicted deep incised wounds with a blade on
various parts of the body with intent to cause his death.
4. Sri. Krishnanunni. G.B., the learned counsel appearing for the
applicant, submitted that the entire case revolves around the evidence of PW3,
one Chandran, a nearby resident. He was projected as an eyewitness to the
incident. To lend corroboration to the evidence tendered by him, the learned
Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of PW4 (Sarojini), the wife of PW3, and
PW6 (Ramesh), the son of PW3. The evidence adduced by PW3 was to the
Crl.M.A. No. 1 of 2024 in
effect that at 11.30 p.m., when he came out to relieve himself, he noticed the
accused talking to each other and thereafter when the deceased started to
abuse the accused, they attacked him and caused injuries. Though he states
that he knew the deceased for over two decades and that he resides about 6
meters away from the place of occurrence, after seeing the incident, he went
back to his house and slept without intimating anyone including PW1, the wife
of the deceased, with whom he was having close acquaintance. It was only at
7.30 a.m., on the next day, that he saw the deceased lying dead in the
compound of his house.
5. To further substantiate that the evidence let in by PW3 lacks
trustworthiness, it is urged by the learned counsel that when PW3 was in the
box, it was brought out that his second son had come home at 11.35 p.m. on
03.03.2014 and his elder son had come home at 12.20 a.m. on 04.03.2014 and
that there was a quarrel between his two sons. Their arrival was at the time and
immediately after the alleged incident. It was also brought out that his elder son
had left his house in the early hours of 04.03.2014. Both PW3 and his son PW6
were taken into custody by the police as suspects and this fact is admitted by
them.
6. The learned counsel would then point out that to a pointed
question, PW3 had stated that he has not undergone any treatment for mental
Crl.M.A. No. 1 of 2024 in
ailments. The defence had examined DW2, the Doctor attached to the Mental
Health Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, who deposed before the court that PW3
had undergone continuous treatment in the facility both as an inpatient and
outpatient from 2002 till 11.09.2024. Evidence was also let in to substantiate
that PW3 was treated as an inpatient from 15.04.2014 to 24.04.2014. Thus, it
was absolutely clear that PW3 was a witness who had no regard for stating the
truth.
7. It is further submitted that it was brought out that the 164
statement of PW3 was recorded initially by the learned Magistrate wherein he
did not mention anything about the incident or the role played by the applicant
or others. All that he had stated is that maximum punishment should be given
to real culprits. However, about 6 months after the incident, PW3 was produced
before the Magistrate and he was made to furnish another statement, wherein
he gave a detailed version of the incident. According to the learned counsel, no
reliance ought to have been placed on the evidence of PW3, as he was a
suspect and a wholly unreliable witness. It is in order to escape from the
punishment that PW3, his wife, and his son tendered evidence implicating the
applicant. The learned counsel would then submit that the prosecution version
before the court is at variance with the charge.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned Sessions
Crl.M.A. No. 1 of 2024 in
Judge has relied on the oral testimonies of PWs 2, 3, 5, 6, 19 and 20 to come to
the conclusion that the applicant, as well as the 1st accused, were the actual
assailants responsible for the murder of Maniyan. It is urged that the learned
Sessions Judge has evaluated the evidence meticulously to arrive at the finding
of guilt.
9. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have
gone through the records made available.
10. The First Information Statement was lodged by PW1, the wife of
the deceased, Maniyan, who received information about the incident from PW3,
Chandran. Upon a careful evaluation of the evidence, it is evident that the
solitary eyewitness to the incident is PW3. However, after a thorough scrutiny of
his testimony, we have no hesitation in concluding that PW3 cannot, under any
circumstances, be categorized as a wholly reliable witness. As rightly pointed
out by the learned counsel, PW3's failure to alert anyone about a brutal assault
on his neighbour, despite allegedly witnessing it, casts serious doubt on his
credibility. It was only on the next day at 7.30 a.m. that he chose to alert PW1.
During cross-examination, it was brought out that in Ext.P3, his statement
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C on 26.03.2014, he did not even make a
passing reference to the incident or the role of the appellant or others. It was
only in Ext.P4 statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C on 5.08.2014
Crl.M.A. No. 1 of 2024 in
that PW3 came out with a detailed narration of the events. Furthermore, PW6,
the son of PW3, who left the house much after the incident, was not informed
of anything, nor was any attempt made to alert the neighbours or the police.
This silence, in the face of a grave crime, raises significant suspicion regarding
the veracity of the claim of PW3 as an eyewitness. It is also pertinent to note
that the prosecution primarily relies on the testimonies of PW3, his wife, and his
son to establish the incident. PW3, despite having undergone treatment at a
mental health hospital, categorically denied the same. However, his assertion
was conclusively disproven by DW2, the Doctor attached to the said hospital.
This further erodes the credibility of his testimony. Since the entire prosecution
case hinges on the evidence of PW3, a conviction can be sustained only if he
falls into the category of a wholly reliable witness. Prima facie, we do not think
that PW3 can be categorised as a witness falling into the above category.
In view of the discussion above, we are of the view that the appellant
has made out an arguable case on merits.
Resultantly, this application will stand allowed. The sentence imposed on
the 2nd accused in S.C. No. 1500 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Sessions
Court, Neyyattinkara will stand suspended and the applicant shall be enlarged
on bail, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand
only) with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
Crl.M.A. No. 1 of 2024 in
learned Sessions Judge. The applicant shall not leave the country and shall not
involve himself in any offences while he is on bail.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
APM
03-03-2025 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
