Sreekuttan @ Chemban vs State Of Kerala
2025 Latest Caselaw 10411 Ker

Kerala High Court

Sreekuttan @ Chemban vs State Of Kerala on 3 November, 2025

​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​           ​:​1​:​                      ​2025:KER:82570​




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM​
                   ​

                                 PRESENT​
                                 ​

      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V​
      ​

                                        &​
                                        ​

           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR​
           ​

               RD​
               ​
  MONDAY, THE 3​
  ​                DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 12TH KARTHIKA,​
                   ​

                                  1947​
                                  ​

                          CRL.A NO. 576 OF 2020​
                          ​

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.09.2019 IN SC NO.568 OF​
  ​

          2016 OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM​
          ​

APPELLANT:​
​

                   ​REEKUTTAN @ CHEMBAN​
                   S
                   AGED 25 YEARS​
                   ​
                   S/O. BABU @ KOCHUBABU,​
                   ​
                   NOW RESIDING AT PAVOORAZHIKATHU THEKKETHIL HOUSE,​
                   ​
                   VARAMBEL KADAVIN THEKKU, KANNIMEL CHERRY​
                   ​
                   SAKTHIKULANGARA (FOR RENT),​
                   ​
                   FROM, VAYALIL THARAYIL VEEDU, KULAKKUDI,​
                   ​
                   KANNIMEL CHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA.​
                   ​

                   ​Y ADVS.​
                   B
                   SHRI.PRATHAP.G.PADICKAL​
                   ​
                   SHRI.MAHESWAR P.​
                   ​
 ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​          ​:​2​:​                ​2025:KER:82570​




RESPONDENT:​

​

​TATE OF KERALA​ S REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PERSECUTOR,​ ​ HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.​ ​

SMT. T.V.NEEMA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR​ ​

THIS​​ ​ CRIMINAL​​ APPEAL​​ HAVING​​ COME​​ UP​​ FOR​​ FINAL​​ HEARING​​ON​ ​3.11.2025,​ ​ 0 THE​ ​ COURT​ ​ON​ ​ THE​ ​ SAME​ ​ DAY​ ​DELIVERED​ ​ THE​ FOLLOWING:​ ​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​3​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​J U D G M E N T​

​Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.​

​The​​appellant​​is​​the​​2nd​​accused​​in​​S.C.No.​​568​​of​​2016​​on​​the​​file​​of​​the​​II​

​Additional​​Sessions​​Court,​​Kollam.​ ​In​​the​​said​​case,​​he​​along​​with​​one​​Nithin​​Das​

​and​ ​Nikesh​ ​@​ ​Rahul​ ​were​ ​tried​ ​for​ ​having​ ​committed​ ​offence​ ​punishable​ ​under​

​Sections​ ​341,​ ​294(b),​ ​323,​ ​302​ ​r/w.​ ​Section​ ​34​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC.​ ​By​ ​the​ ​impugned​

​judgment,​​the​​appellant​​was​​found​​guilty​​of​​the​​offence​​punishable​​under​​Section​

​302​​of​​the​​IPC,​​and​​he​​was​​sentenced​​to​​undergo​​imprisonment​​for​​life​​and​​to​​pay​

​a​ ​fine​ ​of​​Rs.25000/-​​with​​a​​default​​clause.​ ​Accused​​Nos.​​1​​and​​3​​were​​acquitted​

​of​ ​charges​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​302​ ​of​ ​the​ ​IPC​ ​and​ ​were​ ​convicted​ ​and​ ​sentenced​ ​for​

​minor​ ​offences.​ ​We​ ​are,​ ​in​ ​this​ ​appeal,​ ​concerned​ ​only​ ​with​ ​the​ ​finding​ ​of​ ​guilt,​

​conviction and sentence passed against the 2nd accused.​

​2.​ ​As​​per​​the​​charge,​​the​​prosecution​​alleges​​that​​the​​1st​​accused​​was​

​harboring​ ​animosity​ ​towards​ ​Sumesh,​ ​the​ ​deceased,​ ​who​ ​was​ ​an​ ​electrician​ ​by​

​profession.​ ​On​ ​18.11.2015,​ ​at​ ​about​ ​7:45​ ​a.m.,​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​Sumesh​ ​was​

​standing​ ​within​ ​the​ ​holy​ ​precincts​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Edakkadavu​ ​Temple​ ​at​ ​Maruthady,​

​Kollam,​ ​engaged​ ​in​ ​conversation​ ​with​ ​one​ ​Muthu​ ​(PW8).​ ​At​ ​that​ ​time,​ ​the​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​4​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​appellants​ ​arrived​ ​at​ ​the​ ​temple​ ​on​​a​​motorcycle​​ridden​​by​​the​​3rd​​accused.​​The​

​prosecution​ ​further​ ​alleges​ ​that​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused​ ​was​ ​armed​ ​with​ ​a​ ​sword,​ ​while​

​the​ ​appellant​ ​was​ ​carrying​ ​a​​knife.​​The​​accused​​rushed​​into​​the​​temple​​premises​

​and​ ​reached​ ​the​ ​area​ ​near​ ​the​ ​Namaskara​ ​Mandapam.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​alleged​ ​that​ ​the​​1st​

​accused,​ ​after​ ​exhorting​ ​his​ ​companions​ ​to​ ​"do​ ​away​ ​with"​ ​Sumesh,​ ​struck​ ​the​

​deceased​ ​on​ ​both​ ​shoulders​ ​with​ ​the​ ​blunt​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​sword.​ ​Immediately​

​thereafter,​ ​the​ ​3rd​ ​accused​ ​wrongfully​ ​restrained​ ​Sumesh​ ​and​ ​slapped​​him​​twice​

​on​​the​​face.​​The​​appellant​​is​​then​​alleged​​to​​have​​driven​​the​​knife​​he​​was​​holding​

​into​ ​the​ ​left​ ​side​ ​of​ ​Sumesh's​ ​chest,​ ​causing​ ​a​ ​grievous​ ​penetrating​​injury​​which​

​proved​ ​fatal.​ ​Following​​the​​assault,​​the​​accused​​fled​​from​​the​​scene​​on​​the​​same​

​motorcycle.​ ​Though​ ​Sumesh​ ​was​ ​immediately​ ​rushed​ ​to​ ​the​ ​District​ ​Hospital,​

​Kollam, his life could not be saved.​

​3.​ ​PW10,​ ​the​ ​Additional​ ​S.I.​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Sakthikulangara​ ​Police​

​Station,​ ​recorded​ ​the​ ​statement​​of​​Muthu​​(PW8)​​at​​9.40​​a.m.​​on​​18.11.2015.​​On​

​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​above​ ​statement,​ ​he​ ​registered​ ​Crime​ ​No.​ ​1678​ ​of​ ​2015​ ​of​ ​the​

​Sakthikulangara Police Station (Ext.P8).​

​4.​ ​PW11,​ ​the​ ​Circle​ ​Inspector​ ​of​ ​Police,​ ​West​ ​Police​ ​Station,​ ​Kollam,​

​took​ ​over​ ​the​ ​investigation​ ​on​ ​18.11.2015.​ ​He​ ​initially​ ​proceeded​ ​to​ ​the​ ​District​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​5​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​Hospital,​ ​Kollam,​ ​where​ ​he​ ​conducted​ ​the​ ​inquest​ ​(Ext.P9)​ ​over​ ​the​ ​body​ ​of​ ​the​

​deceased.​ ​During​ ​the​ ​inquest,​ ​he​ ​seized​ ​the​ ​articles​ ​found​ ​on​ ​the​ ​body​ ​of​ ​the​

​deceased,​ ​which​ ​were​ ​subsequently​ ​included​ ​in​ ​Ext.P10​ ​property​ ​list.​​Thereafter,​

​the​ ​body​ ​was​ ​sent​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Medical​ ​College​ ​Hospital,​ ​Thiruvananthapuram,​ ​for​

​post-mortem​ ​examination.​ ​The​ ​scientific​ ​expert​ ​reached​ ​the​ ​scene​ ​of​​occurrence​

​and​​collected​​trace​​evidence.​​Traces​​of​​the​ ​blood​​of​​the​​deceased,​​as​​well​​as​​his​

​mobile​​phone​​and​​other​​material​​objects​​found​​at​​the​​scene,​​were​​seized.​​On​​the​

​same​ ​day,​ ​PW11​ ​prepared​ ​Ext.P1​ ​Scene​ ​Mahazar.​ ​The​ ​appellant,​ ​who​ ​had​ ​been​

​apprehended​ ​by​ ​local​ ​residents,​ ​was​ ​rescued​ ​by​ ​PW10​ ​and​ ​brought​ ​to​ ​the​

​Sakthikulangara​ ​Police​ ​Station.​ ​His​ ​arrest​ ​was​ ​recorded​ ​as​ ​per​ ​Ext.P11​ ​arrest​

​memo.​ ​Based​ ​on​ ​the​ ​disclosure​ ​statement​ ​made​ ​by​ ​the​​appellant,​​and​​as​​led​​by​

​him,​ ​the​ ​weapon​ ​used​ ​for​ ​the​ ​commission​ ​of​ ​the​​offence,​​along​​with​​the​​clothes​

​worn​​by​​him,​​were​​recovered​​under​​Ext.P2​​Seizure​​Mahazar.​​Accused​​Nos.​​1​​and​​3​

​were​ ​arrested​ ​on​ ​19.11.2015,​ ​and​ ​recoveries​ ​were​ ​effected​ ​pursuant​ ​to​ ​their​

​respective​ ​disclosure​ ​statements.​ ​Upon​​receipt​​of​​the​​scene​​plan​​from​​the​​Village​

​Officer​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Forensic​ ​Science​ ​Laboratory​ ​(FSL)​ ​report​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Scientific​

​Analyst,​ ​PW11​ ​completed​ ​the​ ​investigation​ ​and​ ​laid​ ​the​ ​final​ ​report​ ​before​ ​the​

​jurisdictional Magistrate.​

​5.​ ​Committal​ ​proceedings​ ​were​ ​thereafter​ ​initiated​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​6​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​law, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.​

​6.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​trial​ ​that​ ​followed,​ ​11​​witnesses​​were​​examined​​as​​PWs​​1​​to​

​11.​ ​Through​ ​them,​ ​Exts.P1​ ​to​ ​P29​ ​were​ ​exhibited​ ​and​ ​marked.​ ​The​ ​material​

​objects​ ​were​ ​produced​​and​​identified​​as​​MOs​​1​​to​​10.​​After​​the​​conclusion​​of​​the​

​prosecution​ ​evidence,​ ​the​ ​incriminating​ ​circumstances​ ​emerging​ ​therefrom​ ​were​

​put​ ​to​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​313(1)(b)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Code​ ​of​ ​Criminal​ ​Procedure.​

​The​​appellant​​denied​​all​​allegations​​and​​asserted​​that​​he​​had​​been​​taken​​from​​his​

​house​ ​and​ ​falsely​ ​implicated​ ​in​ ​the​ ​case.​ ​On​ ​the​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​defence,​ ​the​

​appellant's mother was examined as DW1.​

​7.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge,​ ​upon​ ​a​ ​detailed​ ​evaluation​ ​of​ ​the​

​evidence,​ ​found​ ​that​ ​the​ ​testimonies​ ​of​ ​PWs​ ​8​ ​and​ ​9,​ ​who​ ​were​ ​projected​ ​as​

​eye-witnesses​ ​by​ ​the​ ​prosecution,​ ​were​ ​cogent,​ ​credible,​ ​and​ ​trustworthy.​ ​The​

​minor​​discrepancies​​pointed​​out​​by​​the​​defence​​were​​found​​to​​be​​inconsequential​

​and​ ​insufficient​ ​to​ ​discredit​ ​their​ ​version.​ ​The​ ​Court​ ​further​ ​held​ ​that​ ​the​

​prosecution​ ​had​ ​successfully​ ​established​ ​the​ ​recovery​​of​​MO6​​knife​​based​​on​​the​

​information​ ​furnished​ ​by​ ​the​ ​appellant,​ ​and​ ​that​ ​such​ ​recovery​ ​constituted​ ​a​

​reliable​ ​piece​ ​of​ ​evidence​ ​linking​ ​the​​appellant​​to​​the​​commission​​of​​the​​offence.​

​The​ ​presence​ ​of​ ​blood​ ​belonging​ ​to​​the​​deceased​​at​​the​​scene​​of​​crime,​​and​​the​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​7​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​detection​​of​​the​​same​​blood​​group​​on​​MO6,​​the​​weapon​​recovered​​at​​the​​instance​

​of​ ​the​ ​appellant,​ ​were​ ​considered​ ​strong​ ​corroborative​ ​evidence​ ​establishing​ ​his​

​guilt.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​ ​disbelieved​ ​the​ ​testimony​ ​of​ ​DW1,​ ​the​

​appellant's mother, holding that her version did not inspire confidence.​

​8.​ ​Sri.​ ​Prathap​ ​G.​ ​Padikkal,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​appearing​ ​for​ ​the​

​appellant,​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge​​had​​erred​​in​​accepting​​the​

​testimonies​ ​of​ ​PWs​ ​8​ ​and​ ​9​ ​as​ ​credible.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​him,​ ​though​ ​the​ ​incident​

​occurred​ ​at​ ​7:45​ ​a.m.,​ ​within​ ​a​ ​distance​ ​of​ ​less​ ​than​ ​four​ ​kilometres​ ​from​ ​the​

​Police​ ​Station,​ ​the​ ​information​ ​reached​ ​the​ ​Station​ ​only​ ​at​ ​9:40​ ​a.m.,​ ​and​ ​yet,​

​from​ ​Ext.P8​ ​FIR,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​seen​ ​that​ ​the​ ​crime​ ​was​ ​registered​ ​only​ ​at​ ​2:34​ ​p.m.​ ​The​

​learned​ ​counsel​ ​argued​ ​that​ ​such​ ​an​ ​unexplained​ ​delay​ ​in​​the​​registration​​of​​the​

​FIR casts serious doubt on the genesis of the prosecution case.​

​9.​ ​He​ ​further​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​neither​ ​PW8​ ​nor​ ​PW9​ ​had​ ​any​ ​prior​

​acquaintance​​with​​the​​appellant.​​PW8​​had​​stated​​that​​his​​statement​​was​​recorded​

​only​​after​​the​​police​​had​​prepared​​the​​mahazar,​​and​​if​​that​​were​​so,​​there​​was​​no​

​justification​ ​for​ ​delaying​ ​the​ ​registration​ ​of​ ​the​ ​FIR​ ​until​ ​2:40​ ​p.m.​ ​Reliance​ ​was​

​placed​​on​​the​​judgments​​of​​the​​Hon'ble​​Supreme​​Court​​in​​Imrat​​Singh​​and​​Ors.​

​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Madhya​ ​Pradesh​​1​​,​ ​and​ ​in​ ​Jaffrudheen​ ​and​ ​Ors.​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​1​ ​[AIR 2020 SC 536]​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​8​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​Kerala​​2​ ​to​ ​bring​ ​home​ ​his​ ​point​ ​that​ ​any​ ​delay​ ​in​ ​registering​ ​the​ ​FIR​ ​results​ ​in​

​embellishments​ ​which​ ​is​ ​a​ ​creature​ ​of​​an​​afterthought.​ ​The​​learned​​counsel​​has​

​also​ ​referred​ ​to​ ​the​ ​judgments​ ​rendered​ ​by​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Rajesh​ ​and​ ​Ors.​ ​v.​

​State​ ​of​ ​Kerala​​3​ ​,​ ​and​ ​in​ ​Raju​ ​v.​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Kerala​​4​ ​to​ ​submit​ ​that​ ​delay​ ​in​

​recording​ ​the​ ​statements​ ​of​ ​eye-witnesses​ ​is​ ​equally​ ​fatal.​ ​It​ ​was​ ​further​

​contended​​that​​the​​learned​​Sessions​​Judge​​erred​​in​​accepting​​the​​recovery​​of​​MO6​

​as​​credible​​evidence​​when​​the​​investigating​​officer​​had​​failed​​to​​strictly​​follow​​the​

​prescribed procedure during its seizure.​

​10.​ ​Smt.​ ​T.V.​ ​Neema,​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​Public​ ​Prosecutor,​ ​on​​the​​other​​hand,​

​supported​​the​​judgment​​of​​the​​trial​​court.​​She​​submitted​​that​​the​​learned​​Sessions​

​Judge​ ​had​ ​properly​ ​appreciated​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​on​ ​record​ ​and​ ​arrived​ ​at​ ​a​

​well-reasoned​​finding​​of​​guilt.​​According​​to​​her,​​there​​was​​no​​reason​​to​​doubt​​the​

​testimonies​ ​of​ ​PWs​ ​8​ ​and​ ​9,​ ​who​ ​were​ ​natural​ ​witnesses​​whose​​presence​​at​​the​

​scene​ ​of​ ​occurrence​​was​​unquestionable.​​They​​had​​no​​motive​​to​​falsely​​implicate​

​the​​appellant.​​Being​​truthful​​witnesses,​​minor​​discrepancies​​in​​their​​accounts​​were​

​only​ ​natural.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​Sessions​ ​Judge,​ ​after​ ​a​​careful​​and​​elaborate​​appraisal​

​of​ ​the​ ​evidence,​ ​rightly​ ​held​ ​that​ ​their​ ​testimony​ ​bore​ ​the​ ​ring​ ​of​ ​truth.​ ​The​

​2​ ​[(2022) 8 SCC 440]​ ​3​ ​ 020 (6) KHC 488​

​4​ ​[2018 (1) KLT 565]​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​9​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​learned​ ​Public​ ​Prosecutor​ ​further​ ​submitted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​combined​ ​weight​ ​of​ ​the​

​ocular​ ​testimony,​ ​scientific​ ​evidence,​ ​and​​recovery​​of​​the​​weapon​​at​​the​​instance​

​of​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​established​ ​beyond​ ​reasonable​​doubt​​the​​prosecution's​​case​​and​

​the appellant's role in the murder of Sumesh.​

​11.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​carefully​ ​considered​ ​the​ ​submissions​ ​advanced​ ​by​ ​both​

​sides and have gone through the entire records.​

​12.​ ​To​ ​establish​ ​that​ ​the​ ​death​ ​of​ ​Sumesh​ ​was​ ​homicidal,​ ​the​

​prosecution​ ​examined​​Dr.​​Sasikala​​(PW7),​​Professor​​of​​Forensic​​Medicine,​​Medical​

​College​ ​Hospital,​ ​Thiruvananthapuram.​ ​She​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​she​ ​had​ ​conducted​ ​the​

​autopsy​ ​of​ ​Sumesh​ ​@​ ​Kuttan,​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​in​ ​Crime​ ​No.​ ​1678​ ​of​ ​2015​ ​of​ ​the​

​Sakthikulangara​ ​Police​ ​Station​ ​and​ ​noted​ ​an​ ​incised​​penetrating​​wound​​1.9​​x​​0.3​

​cms​​obliquely​​placed​​on​​the​​left​​side​​of​​front​​of​​chest​​outer​​to​​midline​​and​​11.1​​cm​

​below​​the​​top​​of​​breast​​bone.​​Chest​​cavity​​was​​seen​​pierced​​by​​cutting​​the​​lower​

​border​​of​​4th​​and​​upper​​border,​​5th​​costal​​cartilage​​and​​4th​​intercostal​​space​​and​

​adjoining​ ​sternum,​ ​piercing​ ​the​ ​pericardium​ ​(2​ ​x​ ​0.4​ ​x​ ​0.1cm)​ ​muscles​ ​of​ ​right​

​ventricle​​(1.4​​x​​0.2​​x​​0.6cm)​​obliquely,​​5cm​​above​​apex,​​intra​​pericardium,​​part​​of​

​Aorta​ ​just​ ​above​ ​the​ ​attachment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​posterior​ ​cusp​ ​of​ ​the​ ​semilunar​ ​valve​

​(1.5x1.2x0.2cm)​ ​transfixing​ ​the​ ​left​ ​atrium​ ​(0.8x0.2x0.3cm)​ ​and​ ​entering​ ​the​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​10​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​lumen​​of​​esophagus​​through​​the​​front​​wall​​(0.8x0.2x0.2cm)​​and​​terminated​​at​​the​

​back​ ​wall​ ​of​ ​esophagus​ ​(0.5x0.2x0.1cm).​ ​She​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​death​ ​was​ ​due​ ​to​

​penetrating​ ​injury​ ​sustained​ ​to​ ​the​ ​chest.​ ​When​ ​MO6​​weapon​​was​​shown​​to​​her,​

​she​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​said​ ​weapon​ ​could​ ​cause​ ​the​ ​fatal​ ​injury​ ​as​​noted​​in​​Ext.P6.​

​Before​ ​us,​ ​no​ ​contention​ ​was​ ​advanced​ ​by​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​to​ ​dispute​ ​these​

​medical​ ​conclusions.​ ​We,​ ​therefore,​​hold​​with​​certainty​​that​​the​​death​​of​​Sumesh​

​was homicidal.​

​13.​ ​We shall now deal with the evidence let in by the prosecution.​

​14.​ ​The​ ​witnesses​ ​cited​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​the​ ​occurrence​ ​were​ ​PWs​​8​​and​​9.​​At​

​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​tendering​ ​evidence,​ ​PW8​ ​was​ ​67​ ​years​ ​old.​ ​He​​stated​​that​​he​​was​​a​

​member​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Temple​ ​Advisory​ ​Committee​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Edakkad​ ​Kavu​ ​Temple.​ ​The​

​deceased,​ ​Sumesh,​ ​was​ ​an​​electrician​​who​​used​​to​​undertake​​electrification​​work​

​in​ ​the​ ​temple​ ​whenever​ ​required.​ ​On​ ​18.11.2015,​ ​temple​ ​festivities​ ​were​ ​being​

​organized​ ​as​ ​it​ ​was​ ​an​ ​auspicious​ ​period​ ​of​ ​the​ ​month.​ ​PW8​ ​had​ ​requested​

​Sumesh​ ​to​ ​install​ ​two​ ​tube​ ​lights​​in​​the​​temple​​premises.​​He​​met​​Sumesh​​on​​his​

​way​​to​​the​​temple​​and​​conveyed​​the​​same​​to​​him.​​PW8​​reached​​the​​temple​​on​​his​

​motorcycle,​ ​and​ ​Sumesh​ ​followed​ ​close​ ​behind​ ​on​ ​his​ ​bicycle.​ ​While​ ​they​ ​were​

​conversing​ ​inside​ ​the​ ​temple​ ​premises,​ ​standing​ ​in​ ​front​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Sreekovil,​ ​a​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​11​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​motorcycle​ ​approached​ ​from​ ​the​ ​eastern​ ​side​ ​carrying​ ​three​ ​persons.​​They​​were​

​armed​ ​and​ ​shouting​ ​loudly.​ ​The​ ​motorcycle​ ​stopped​ ​in​ ​front​ ​of​ ​the​ ​temple.​

​Unnikuttan​ ​(A1),​ ​brandishing​ ​a​ ​sword,​ ​rushed​ ​toward​ ​Sumesh​ ​and​ ​swung​ ​the​

​weapon​​at​​his​​shoulder,​​which​​Sumesh​​managed​​to​​evade.​​Thereafter,​​Rahul​​(A3)​

​came​​forward,​​hurled​​abuses,​​and​​slapped​​Sumesh​​twice​​on​​his​​face.​​Immediately​

​thereafter,​ ​A2​ ​inflicted​ ​a​ ​stab​ ​injury​ ​on​ ​Sumesh's​ ​chest,​ ​causing​ ​him​ ​to​ ​fall​

​backward.​ ​The​ ​assailants​ ​then​ ​fled​ ​the​ ​scene​ ​on​​their​​motorcycle.​​PW8,​​shocked​

​by​​the​​suddenness​​and​​brutality​​of​​the​​incident,​​raised​​an​​alarm.​​Sumathi​​(CW2),​

​Santhi​ ​Vasudevan​​(CW3),​​and​​Sreekumar​​(CW4)​​rushed​​to​​the​​spot.​​They​​used​​a​

​bath​​towel​​to​​tie​​around​​the​​wound​​after​​removing​​the​​victim's​​shirt.​​Sumesh​​was​

​then​ ​taken​ ​to​ ​the​ ​hospital.​ ​PW8,​ ​being​ ​in​ ​a​ ​state​ ​of​ ​shock,​ ​did​ ​not​ ​accompany​

​him.​ ​Later,​ ​he​ ​learned​ ​that​ ​Sumesh​ ​had​ ​succumbed​ ​to​ ​the​ ​injuries.​ ​The​ ​police​

​soon​ ​arrived​ ​at​ ​the​ ​scene,​ ​prepared​ ​a​ ​mahazar,​ ​and​ ​seized​ ​Sumesh's​ ​shirt​ ​and​

​mobile​​phone​​lying​​there.​​At​​about​​9:45​​a.m.,​​PW8​​was​​summoned​​by​​the​​police,​

​and​ ​his​ ​statement​​was​​recorded.​​He​​identified​​his​​signature​​on​​Ext.P5​​statement.​

​PW8​​also​​deposed​​that​​he​​had​​identified​​the​​accused​​at​​the​​Police​​Station,​​stating​

​that​ ​he​ ​knew​ ​them​ ​from​ ​their​ ​occasional​ ​visits​ ​to​ ​the​ ​temple.​ ​He​ ​identified​ ​the​

​accused​ ​in​ ​the​ ​dock​ ​during​ ​trial.​ ​In​ ​cross-examination,​ ​he​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​

​summoned​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Police​ ​Station​ ​only​ ​after​ ​the​ ​preparation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​mahazar.​ ​He​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​12​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​affirmed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​was​ ​facing​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​when​ ​he​ ​inflicted​ ​the​ ​stab​

​injury​ ​and​ ​that​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused​ ​stood​ ​behind​ ​while​ ​striking​ ​with​ ​the​ ​sword.​ ​He​

​admitted​ ​that​ ​he​ ​did​ ​not​ ​know​ ​the​ ​names​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​and​ ​that​ ​the​​scene​​of​

​occurrence​​was​​located​​beside​​the​​Namaskara​​Mandapam.​​He​​also​​acknowledged​

​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​not​ ​mentioned​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Police​ ​any​ ​distinctive​ ​physical​ ​features​ ​of​ ​the​

​2nd accused or any specific details about the knife used in the assault.​

​15.​ ​PW9,​ ​a​ ​cook​ ​by​ ​profession,​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​he​ ​too​ ​had​ ​witnessed​ ​the​

​incident​​in​​which​​Sumesh​​sustained​​the​​fatal​​stab​​injury.​​On​​18.11.2015,​​at​​about​

​11:00​​a.m.,​​he,​​along​​with​​his​​wife​​and​​two​​children,​​visited​​the​​temple.​​As​​he​​was​

​preparing​ ​for​ ​his​ ​Sabarimala​ ​pilgrimage,​ ​he​ ​had​ ​come​ ​to​ ​the​ ​temple​ ​to​ ​perform​

​the​ ​sacred​ ​ritual​ ​of​ ​preparing​ ​the​ ​"Irumudikettu,"​ ​the​ ​two-compartment​ ​cloth​

​bundle​ ​that​ ​devotees​ ​carry​ ​on​ ​their​ ​heads​ ​during​ ​the​ ​pilgrimage.​ ​He​ ​laid​ ​out​ ​a​

​straw​​mat​​in​​front​​of​​the​​Ganapathy​​temple​​and​​began​​filling​​the​​Irumudikettu.​​At​

​that​​time,​​he​​heard​​the​​loud​​sound​​of​​a​​motorcycle​​and​​the​​shouts​​of​​several​​men.​

​He​ ​looked​ ​up​ ​and​ ​saw​ ​one​ ​person​ ​strike​ ​Sumesh​ ​from​ ​behind​ ​while​ ​another​

​slapped​ ​him​ ​on​​the​​cheek.​​A​​third​​person​​standing​​in​​front​​then​​stabbed​​Sumesh​

​in​ ​the​ ​chest.​ ​PW9​ ​froze​ ​momentarily​ ​on​ ​witnessing​ ​the​ ​attack.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​

​Ratheesh​​(CW6)​​and​​Rajesh​​(CW7),​​who​​were​​nearby,​​took​​a​​bath​​towel​​from​​him​

​and​ ​tied​ ​it​ ​around​​Sumesh's​​wound.​​He​​left​​for​​home​​immediately​​thereafter​​and​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​13​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​later​ ​learned​ ​that​ ​Sumesh​ ​had​ ​died.​ ​PW9​ ​further​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​just​ ​before​ ​the​

​incident,​ ​Sumesh​ ​was​ ​seen​ ​conversing​ ​with​ ​Muthu​ ​(PW8),​ ​a​ ​member​ ​of​ ​the​

​Temple​​Advisory​​Committee.​​He​​recognized​​one​​of​​the​​assailants​​as​​a​​mahout​​who​

​worked​ ​in​ ​a​ ​temple​ ​and​ ​identified​ ​him​ ​as​ ​accused​ ​No.​ ​1.​​He​​identified​​MO1,​​the​

​sword​ ​used​ ​by​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused,​ ​as​ ​well​ ​as​ ​the​ ​2nd​ ​accused​ ​as​ ​the​ ​person​ ​who​

​inflicted​ ​the​ ​stab​ ​injury,​​and​​MO6​​as​​the​​knife​​used​​by​​him.​​He​​also​​identified​​A3​

​as​ ​the​ ​person​​who​​slapped​​Sumesh.​​In​​cross-examination,​​he​​stated​​that​​he​​was​

​seated​ ​facing​ ​west,​ ​while​ ​the​ ​incident​ ​took​ ​place​ ​on​​the​​eastern​​side.​​He​​turned​

​back​ ​on​ ​hearing​ ​the​ ​commotion​ ​and​ ​then​ ​saw​ ​the​ ​attack.​ ​He​ ​saw​ ​three​ ​men​

​running​​toward​​the​​deceased​​and​​later​​leaving​​the​​temple​​together.​​It​​was​​brought​

​out​ ​that​ ​the​ ​occurrence​ ​took​ ​place​ ​on​ ​the​ ​southern​ ​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Namaskara​

​Mandapam.​​He​​admitted​​to​​having​​prior​​acquaintance​​with​​accused​​Nos.​​1​​and​​2,​

​though​ ​he​ ​was​ ​unaware​ ​of​ ​their​ ​names.​ ​When​ ​asked​ ​about​ ​their​ ​clothing,​ ​he​

​stated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​1st​ ​accused​ ​was​ ​wearing​ ​an​ ​ochre​​lungi​​and​​shirt,​​while​​the​​2nd​

​accused​ ​was​ ​wearing​ ​an​ ​ochre​ ​kaily​​and​​a​​white​​shirt​​printed​​with​​black​​flowers.​

​He​ ​added​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​questioned​ ​by​ ​the​ ​police​ ​only​ ​on​ ​the​ ​third​ ​day​ ​after​ ​the​

​incident.​​At​​that​​time,​​he​​had​​been​​sitting​​inside​​a​​temporary​​shed​​while​​preparing​

​the​ ​"Irumudikettu".​ ​He​ ​confirmed​ ​that​ ​he​ ​was​ ​familiar​ ​with​ ​Sumesh​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​the​

​incident​ ​but​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​he​ ​had​ ​not​ ​mentioned​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Police​ ​any​ ​distinctive​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​14​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​features of the motorcycle used by the assailants.​

​16.​ ​PW1​ ​is​ ​the​ ​attestor​ ​to​ ​Ext.P1​ ​Scene​ ​Mahazar.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​that​ ​upon​

​receiving​ ​information​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​incident,​ ​he​ ​proceeded​ ​to​ ​the​​temple,​​where​

​he​ ​found​ ​PW8​ ​and​ ​certain​ ​Police​ ​Officers​ ​already​ ​present.​​He​​further​​stated​​that​

​an​​Officer​​was​​engaged​​in​​collecting​​samples​​at​​the​​scene.​​PW1,​​being​​a​​resident​

​of​ ​the​ ​immediate​​vicinity​​of​​the​​temple,​​also​​deposed​​that​​he​​was​​present​​during​

​the seizure of the mobile phone and other articles from the spot.​

​17.​ ​PW2​ ​is​ ​the​ ​attestor​ ​to​ ​Ext.P2​ ​Seizure​ ​Mahazar.​​When​​examined,​​he​

​stated​ ​that​ ​on​ ​18.11.2015,​ ​the​ ​Police​ ​had​ ​arrived​ ​at​ ​the​ ​location,​ ​and​ ​one​

​Sreekuttan​ ​was​ ​also​​present​​along​​with​​him.​​However,​​the​​witness​​was​​unable​​to​

​identify​ ​the​ ​2nd​ ​accused,​ ​and,​ ​instead,​ ​erroneously​ ​pointed​ ​towards​ ​the​ ​1st​

​accused,​ ​Unnikuttan.​ ​According​​to​​PW2,​​the​​knife​​was​​kept​​on​​top​​of​​a​​television​

​set,​ ​and​ ​it​ ​was​ ​from​ ​that​ ​place​ ​that​ ​the​​weapon​​was​​seized.​​He​​further​​deposed​

​that​​the​​accused​​had​​also​​handed​​over​​a​​shirt​​and​​a​​lungi.​​The​​witness,​​however,​

​did​ ​not​ ​fully​ ​support​ ​the​ ​prosecution​ ​case,​ ​and​ ​upon​ ​the​ ​request​ ​of​ ​the​ ​learned​

​Public​ ​Prosecutor,​ ​permission​ ​was​ ​granted​ ​to​ ​put​ ​questions​ ​in​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​of​

​cross-examination by invoking Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.​

​18.​ ​PW3​ ​was​ ​examined​ ​to​ ​prove​​Ext.P3​​Seizure​​Mahazar​​relating​​to​​the​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​15​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​recovery​ ​of​ ​MO1​ ​sword,​ ​which​ ​was​ ​allegedly​ ​seized​ ​pursuant​ ​to​ ​the​ ​disclosure​

​statement​​made​​by​​the​​1st​​accused.​​PW4​​was​​examined​​to​​prove​​Ext.P4​​Mahazar​

​prepared​​at​​the​​time​​of​​seizure​​of​​the​​motorbike​​used​​by​​the​​accused​​to​​reach​​the​

​scene​ ​of​ ​occurrence.​ ​PW5,​ ​the​ ​Village​ ​Officer,​ ​was​ ​examined​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​Ext.P5​

​Scene​ ​Plan​ ​prepared​ ​by​ ​him.​ ​PW6,​ ​the​ ​Scientific​ ​Officer​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​the​ ​District​

​Crime​​Records​​Bureau,​​Kollam​​City,​​deposed​​that​​he​​had​​visited​​the​​scene​​of​​crime​

​and​ ​collected​ ​blood​ ​samples​ ​and​ ​other​ ​material​ ​evidence​ ​for​ ​scientific​

​examination.​

​19.​ ​Having​ ​carefully​ ​considered​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​adduced​ ​by​ ​the​

​prosecution,​​we​​find​​that​​the​​prosecution​​primarily​​relies​​on​​the​​oral​​testimony​​of​

​PWs​ ​8​ ​and​ ​9,​ ​who​ ​have​ ​categorically​ ​stated​ ​before​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​that​ ​they​ ​were​

​present​ ​inside​ ​the​ ​temple​ ​premises​ ​at​ ​the​ ​relevant​ ​time​ ​and​ ​had​ ​witnessed​ ​the​

​occurrence​ ​in​ ​which​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​sustained​ ​the​ ​fatal​ ​injury​ ​inflicted​ ​by​ ​the​

​accused.​ ​The​ ​prosecution​ ​further​ ​places​ ​reliance​ ​on​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​PW3​ ​to​

​establish​ ​the​ ​recovery​ ​of​ ​the​ ​weapon​ ​of​ ​offence,​ ​namely​ ​MO6​​knife,​​pursuant​​to​

​the disclosure statement made by the appellant.​

​20.​ ​A​​serious​​attempt​​was​​made​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​appellant​

​to​ ​assail​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​PWs​ ​8​ ​and​ ​9​ ​and​ ​to​ ​persuade​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​that​ ​their​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​16​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​testimonies​ ​were​ ​unreliable.​ ​Having​ ​carefully​ ​examined​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​of​ ​PW8​ ​in​

​detail,​ ​we​ ​find​ ​that​ ​the​ ​said​ ​witness,​ ​being​ ​a​ ​member​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Temple​ ​Advisory​

​Committee,​​had​​every​​reason​​to​​be​​present​​at​​the​​temple.​​The​​deceased​​was​​the​

​electrician​ ​engaged​ ​to​ ​fix​ ​certain​ ​tube​ ​lights​ ​in​ ​preparation​ ​for​ ​the​ ​impending​

​temple​ ​festivities.​ ​PW8,​ ​who​ ​had​ ​a​ ​passing​ ​acquaintance​ ​with​ ​the​ ​accused,​ ​has​

​given​ ​a​ ​cogent​ ​and​ ​consistent​ ​account​ ​of​ ​the​ ​incident.​ ​He​ ​stated​ ​in​ ​detail​ ​the​

​events​ ​commencing​ ​from​ ​the​ ​arrival​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​on​ ​a​ ​motorcycle,​ ​their​ ​loud​

​exhortations​ ​as​ ​they​ ​rushed​ ​toward​ ​the​ ​deceased,​ ​the​ ​individual​ ​roles​ ​played​​by​

​each​ ​accused,​ ​to​ ​the​ ​infliction​ ​of​ ​the​ ​fatal​ ​stab​ ​injury​ ​by​ ​the​ ​appellant​​and​​their​

​subsequent​​departure​​from​​the​​scene.​​It​​is​​evident​​from​​his​​testimony​​that​​he​​was​

​deeply​ ​shocked​ ​by​ ​the​ ​sudden​ ​and​ ​violent​ ​turn​ ​of​ ​events​ ​within​ ​the​ ​temple​

​premises.​ ​The​ ​witness,​ ​who​ ​was​ ​in​ ​his​ ​mid-sixties,​ ​narrated​ ​the​ ​sequence​ ​of​

​events​ ​in​ ​a​ ​manner​ ​that​ ​clearly​ ​establishes​ ​his​ ​presence​ ​at​ ​the​ ​scene​ ​and​ ​his​

​opportunity to witness the gruesome incident firsthand.​

​21.​ ​PW9,​​on​​the​​other​​hand,​​was​​a​​devotee​​who​​had​​come​​to​​the​​temple​

​to​​tie​​the​​"Irumudikettu."​​He​​too​​deposed​​that​​he​​saw​​a​​motorcycle​​arrive​​carrying​

​three​ ​persons,​ ​heard​ ​their​ ​loud​ ​shouts,​ ​and,​ ​upon​ ​turning​ ​in​ ​their​ ​direction,​

​witnessed​ ​the​ ​ensuing​ ​attack.​ ​In​ ​our​ ​view,​ ​his​ ​testimony​ ​also​ ​bears​ ​the​ ​ring​ ​of​

​truth and spontaneity.​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​17​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​22.​ ​The​ ​contention​ ​of​ ​the​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​​appellant​​that​​PWs​​8​

​and​ ​9​ ​are​ ​neither​ ​reliable​ ​nor​​truthful​​cannot​​be​​accepted.​​On​​a​​close​​reading​​of​

​the​ ​cross-examination,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​apparent​ ​that​ ​not​ ​even​ ​a​ ​single​ ​suggestive​ ​question​

​was​ ​put​ ​to​​indicate​​that​​these​​witnesses​​were​​interested,​​biased,​​or​​motivated​​to​

​falsely​ ​implicate​ ​the​ ​accused.​ ​As​ ​held​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Dalip​

​Singh​​v.​​State​​of​​Punjab​​5​,​ ​​a​​witness​​is​​normally​​considered​​independent​​unless​

​he​ ​or​ ​she​​emanates​​from​​sources​​likely​​to​​be​​tainted.​​Each​​case​​must,​​therefore,​

​be​​judged​​on​​its​​own​​facts.​​After​​evaluating​​the​​evidence​​of​​PWs​​8​​and​​9,​​we​​find​

​no​​reason​​to​​doubt​​their​​version.​​There​​is​​also​​no​​case​​for​​the​​appellant​​that​​these​

​witnesses​ ​were​ ​related​ ​to​ ​the​ ​deceased.​ ​In​ ​that​ ​view​ ​of​ ​the​ ​matter,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​no​

​plausible​​basis​​for​​suggesting​​that​​they​​had​​any​​reason​​to​​shield​​the​​real​​culprit​​or​

​falsely implicate the appellant.​

​23.​ ​The​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​has​ ​further​ ​urged​ ​that​ ​there​

​are​​material​​discrepancies​​in​​the​​evidence​​of​​PWs​​8​​and​​9,​​rendering​​their​​version​

​unsafe​​to​​rely​​upon.​​We​​are​​unable​​to​​accept​​this​​submission.​​The​​Apex​​Court​​as​

​well​ ​as​ ​this​ ​Court​ ​have​ ​repeatedly​ ​held​ ​that​ ​the​ ​testimony​ ​of​ ​a​​witness​​must​​be​

​viewed​ ​holistically​ ​and​ ​with​ ​due​ ​regard​ ​to​ ​human​ ​limitations​ ​in​ ​perception​ ​and​

​recollection.​ ​It​ ​would​​be​​wholly​​unrealistic​​to​​weigh​​the​​evidence​​of​​witnesses​​on​

​5​ ​[AIR 1953 SC 354]​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​18​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​the​​proverbial​​golden​​scale;​​rather,​​the​​approach​​should​​be​​to​​assess​​whether​​the​

​testimony​ ​as​ ​a​ ​whole​ ​inspires​ ​confidence​ ​and​ ​satisfies​ ​a​ ​reasonable​ ​standard​ ​of​

​cogency.​ ​Every​ ​individual​ ​perceives​ ​and​ ​recalls​ ​events​ ​differently.​ ​Two​

​eye-witnesses​ ​to​ ​the​ ​same​ ​incident​ ​may​ ​describe​ ​it​ ​in​ ​varying​ ​degrees​ ​of​ ​detail​

​depending​ ​on​ ​their​ ​mental​ ​state,​ ​vantage​ ​point,​ ​and​ ​composure​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time.​ ​A​

​brutal​ ​murder​ ​is​ ​a​ ​traumatic​ ​event,​ ​often​ ​witnessed​ ​only​ ​once​ ​in​ ​a​ ​lifetime,​ ​and​

​may​​leave​​a​​lasting​​but​​emotionally​​charged​​impression.​​One​​witness​​may​​have​​a​

​strong​ ​capacity​​to​​observe​​and​​retain​​fine​​details,​​whereas​​another,​​overwhelmed​

​by​ ​shock,​ ​may​ ​recall​ ​only​ ​the​ ​broader​ ​sequence​ ​of​ ​events.​ ​As​ ​observed​ ​by​ ​the​

​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​State​ ​of​​Rajasthan​​v.​​Kalki​​6​,​ ​​discrepancies​​in​​testimony​​are​

​inevitable,​ ​however​ ​honest​ ​and​ ​truthful​ ​the​ ​witness​ ​may​ ​be.​ ​Such​ ​variations​ ​are​

​often​​attributable​​to​​normal​​errors​​of​​observation,​​memory​​lapses​​due​​to​​time,​​or​

​the​ ​mental​ ​condition​ ​of​ ​the​ ​witness​ ​at​ ​the​ ​moment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​crime.​ ​Only​ ​those​

​discrepancies​​that​​are​​unnatural​​or​​inconsistent​​with​​the​​normal​​course​​of​​human​

​conduct​ ​can​ ​be​ ​termed​ ​material.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​equally​ ​well​ ​settled​ ​that​ ​minor​

​contradictions,​​inconsistencies,​​or​​embellishments​​on​​trivial​​matters,​​which​​do​​not​

​go​ ​to​​the​​root​​of​​the​​prosecution​​case,​​cannot​​form​​a​​valid​​ground​​to​​discard​​the​

​evidence in its entirety.​

​6​ ​[AIR 1981 SC 1390]​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​19​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​24.​ ​The​ ​defence​ ​had​ ​attempted​ ​to​ ​disprove​​the​​recovery​​of​​MO6​​at​​the​

​instance​ ​of​ ​the​ ​appellant​ ​on​ ​the​ ​strength​ ​of​ ​Exhibit​ ​P2​ ​mahazar.​ ​Through​ ​DW1,​

​Exts.D1​ ​and​ ​D2​ ​were​ ​marked.​ ​The​ ​attempt​ ​was​ ​to​ ​show​ ​that​ ​the​ ​building​ ​from​

​where​​the​​weapon​​was​​seized​​does​​not​​belong​​to​​the​​appellant​​or​​to​​his​​family.​​In​

​the​​case​​on​​hand,​​there​​is​​no​​reason​​to​​bank​​on​​the​​recovery​​of​​the​​weapon​​at​​the​

​instance of the accused.​

​24.​ ​The​​next​​contention​​advanced​​by​​the​​learned​​counsel​​is​​with​​regard​

​to​ ​the​ ​delay​ ​in​ ​registering​ ​the​ ​FIR.​ ​In​​the​​case​​on​​hand,​​the​​incident​​had​​taken​

​place​​at​​about​​7.40​​p.m.​​on​​18.11.2015.​​From​​the​​FI​​Statement​​itself,​​it​​is​​evident​

​that​ ​the​ ​injured​ ​was​ ​immediately​ ​rushed​ ​to​ ​the​ ​District​ ​Hospital,​ ​Kollam.​ ​Muthu​

​(PW8),​ ​an​ ​eye-witness​ ​to​ ​the​ ​occurrence,​ ​went​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Police​ ​Station​ ​and​​lodged​

​his​​statement​​at​​9.40​​a.m.​ ​From​​the​​evidence​​of​​PW11,​​the​​investigating​​officer,​​it​

​can​ ​be​ ​seen​ ​that​ ​he​ ​went​ ​to​ ​the​ ​mortuary​ ​at​ ​the​ ​District​ ​Hospital,​ ​Kollam​ ​and​

​prepared​​Ext.P9​​inquest.​ ​A​​perusal​​of​​Ext.P9​​would​​reveal​​that​​the​​preparation​​of​

​the​ ​inquest​ ​commenced​ ​at​ ​11​ ​a.m.​ ​on​ ​18.11.2015​ ​and​ ​ended​ ​at​ ​12.30​ ​p.m.​ ​on​

​18.11.2015.​ ​The​ ​inquest​ ​reached​ ​the​ ​court​ ​on​ ​19.11.2015.​ ​Ext.P8​ ​is​ ​the​ ​FIR,​

​which​ ​was​ ​registered​​at​​2.34​​p.m.​​on​​18.11.2015.​​After​​registration​​of​​the​​FIR,​​it​

​was​​forwarded​​to​​the​​court​​immediately​​and​​the​​same​​is​​seen​​to​​have​​reached​​the​

​court​​at​​4.20​​p.m.​​on​​the​​same​​day.​​From​​the​​above​​sequence​​of​​events,​​it​​can​​be​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​20​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​seen that there is not much delay in registering the FIR or the FIR reaching court.​

​25.​ ​A​ ​valiant​ ​attempt​ ​was​ ​made​ ​by​ ​the​ ​learned​​counsel​​to​​persuade​​us​

​to​​hold​​that​​the​​offence​​committed​​will​​attract​​the​​punishment​​under​​Section​​304​

​Part II of the IPC and not murder as defined under Section 300 of the IPC.​

​26.​ ​The​ ​Apex​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Andhra​ ​Pradesh​ ​v.​ ​Rayavarapu​

​Punnayya​​and​​Another​​7​ ​has​​delineated​​the​​principles​​to​​be​​borne​​in​​mind​​when​

​the​ ​court​ ​is​ ​confronted​ ​with​ ​the​ ​question​ ​of​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​offence​ ​is​ ​murder​ ​or​

​culpable​ ​homicide​ ​not​ ​amounting​ ​to​ ​murder.​ ​After​ ​referring​ ​to​ ​Virsa​ ​Singh​ ​v​

​State of Punjab​​8​​, the locus classicus, it was held​​as follows:​

​"21.​​From​​the​​above​​conspectus,​​it​​emerges​​that​​whenever​​a​​court​​is​ ​confronted​ ​with​ ​the​ ​question​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​offence​ ​is​ ​"murder"​ ​or​ ​"culpable​​homicide​​not​​amounting​​to​​murder",​​on​​the​​facts​​of​​a​​case,​ ​it​ ​will​ ​be​ ​convenient​ ​for​ ​it​ ​to​​approach​​the​​problem​​in​​three​​stages.​ ​The​ ​question​ ​to​ ​be​ ​considered​ ​at​ ​the​ ​first​ ​stage​​would​​be,​​whether​ ​the​​accused​​has​​done​​an​​act​​by​​doing​​which​​he​​has​​caused​​the​​death​ ​of​​another.​​Proof​​of​​such​​a​​causal​​connection​​between​​the​​act​​of​​the​ ​accused​ ​and​ ​the​ ​death​ ​leads​ ​to​ ​the​ ​second​ ​stage​ ​for​ ​considering​ ​whether​ ​that​ ​act​ ​of​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​amounts​ ​to​​"culpable​​homicide"​​as​ ​defined​ ​in​ ​Section​ ​299.​ ​If​ ​the​​answer​​to​​this​​question​​is​​prima​​facie​ ​found​ ​in​ ​the​ ​affirmative,​ ​the​ ​stage​ ​for​ ​considering​ ​the​ ​operation​ ​of​

​7​ ​(1976) 4 SCC 382​ ​8​ [​ (1958) SCR 1495]​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​21​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​Section​​300​​of​​the​​Penal​​Code,​​is​​reached.​​This​​is​​the​​stage​​at​​which​ ​the​ ​court​ ​should​ ​determine​ ​whether​ ​the​ ​facts​ ​proved​ ​by​ ​the​ ​prosecution​​bring​​the​​case​​within​​the​​ambit​​of​​any​​of​​the​​four​​clauses​ ​of​​the​​definition​​of​​"murder"​​contained​​in​​Section​​300.​​If​​the​​answer​ ​to​ ​this​ ​question​ ​is​ ​in​ ​the​ ​negative​ ​the​ ​offence​ ​would​ ​be​ ​"culpable​ ​homicide​​not​​amounting​​to​​murder",​​punishable​​under​​the​​first​​or​​the​ ​second​ ​part​​of​​Section​​304,​​depending,​​respectively,​​on​​whether​​the​ ​second​ ​or​ ​the​ ​third​ ​clause​ ​of​ ​Section​ ​299​ ​is​ ​applicable.​ ​If​ ​this​ ​question​ ​is​ ​found​ ​in​ ​the​ ​positive,​ ​but​ ​the​ ​case​ ​comes​ ​within​​any​​of​ ​the​​exceptions​​enumerated​​in​​Section​​300,​​the​​offence​​would​​still​​be​ ​"culpable​ ​homicide​ ​not​ ​amounting​ ​to​​murder",​​punishable​​under​​the​ ​first part of Section 304, of the Penal Code."​

​27.​ ​In​ ​Anpazhagan​ ​v​ ​State​ ​Represented​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Inspector​ ​of​

​Police​​9​​,​​the​​Apex​​Court,​​has​​observed​​that​​even​​if​​single​​injury​​is​​inflicted,​​if​​that​

​particular​ ​injury​ ​was​ ​intended,​ ​and​ ​objectively​ ​that​ ​injury​ ​was​ ​sufficient​ ​in​ ​the​

​ordinary​ ​course​ ​of​ ​nature​ ​to​ ​cause​ ​death,​ ​the​ ​requirements​ ​of​ ​Clause​ ​3rdly​ ​to​

​Section​​300​​of​​the​​IPC,​​are​​fulfilled​​and​​the​​offence​​would​​be​​murder.​​It​​was​​also​

​observed​​that​​when​​a​​single​​injury​​inflicted​​by​​the​​accused​​results​​in​​the​​death​​of​

​the​​victim,​​no​​inference,​​as​​a​​general​​principle,​​can​​be​​drawn​​that​​the​​accused​​did​

​not​ ​have​ ​the​ ​intention​ ​to​​cause​​the​​death​​or​​that​​particular​​injury​​which​​resulted​

​in​​the​​death​​of​​the​​victim.​​Whether​​an​​accused​​had​​the​​required​​guilty​​intention​​or​

​not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case.​

​9​ ​2023 SCC Online SC 857​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​22​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​28.​ ​In​​the​​case​​on​​hand,​​PW7,​​the​​Forensic​​Surgeon,​​has​​noted​​that​​the​

​deceased​​had​​sustained​​a​​single​​deep,​​incised-penetrating​​stab​​wound​​on​​the​​left​

​side​ ​of​ ​the​ ​front​ ​of​ ​the​ ​chest,​​about​​11cm​​below​​the​​top​​of​​the​​breastbone.​​The​

​wound,​​though​​only​​about​​1.9cm​​long​​on​​the​​surface,​​travelled​​inward​​with​​great​

​force​ ​through​ ​the​ ​4th​ ​intercostal​ ​space,​ ​cutting​ ​the​ ​4th​ ​and​​5th​​costal​​cartilages​

​and​ ​even​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​sternum.​ ​The​ ​stab​ ​track​ ​then​ ​pierced​ ​the​​protective​​sac​​of​

​the​​heart​​(pericardium)​​and​​passed​​through​​the​​wall​​of​​the​​right​​ventricle​​and​​part​

​of​ ​the​ ​left​ ​atrium,​ ​also​ ​cutting​ ​a​ ​portion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​aorta​ ​just​ ​above​ ​the​ ​semilunar​

​valve,​ ​one​ ​of​ ​the​ ​most​ ​vital​ ​and​ ​vulnerable​ ​regions​ ​of​ ​the​ ​heart.​ ​The​ ​blade​

​continued​ ​backward​ ​to​ ​enter​ ​the​ ​esophagus​ ​through​ ​its​ ​front​ ​wall​ ​and​ ​came​ ​to​

​rest​​at​​its​​back​​wall,​​showing​​that​​the​​weapon​​had​​completely​​traversed​​the​​chest​

​cavity.​ ​This​ ​single​ ​blow​ ​was​ ​inflicted​ ​with​ ​considerable​​force​​and​​passed​​through​

​several​ ​life-sustaining​ ​organs,​ ​the​ ​heart,​ ​aorta,​ ​and​ ​esophagus,​ ​causing​ ​massive​

​internal​ ​bleeding​ ​and​ ​resulting​ ​in​ ​instantaneous​ ​death.​ ​The​ ​nature,​ ​depth,​ ​and​

​direction​ ​of​ ​the​ ​wound​ ​clearly​ ​establish​ ​that​ ​it​ ​was​ ​a​ ​grave,​ ​homicidal​ ​injury,​

​sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.​

​28.​ ​In​​view​​of​​the​​discussion​​above,​​we​​are​​of​​the​​view​​that​​the​​learned​

​Sessions Judge has evaluated the entire evidence and has rightly arrived at the​ ​Crl.A. No.576 of 2020​ ​:​23​​:​ ​2025:KER:82570​

​finding​ ​of​ ​guilt,​ ​conviction​ ​and​ ​sentence.​ ​We​​find​​no​​reason​​to​​interfere​​with​​the​

​judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge.​

​This Appeal is dismissed.​

​Sd/-​ ​RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,​ ​JUDGE​

​Sd/-​ ​P.K.KRISHNA KUMAR,​ ​JUDGE​

​PS​​/01/11/2025​