State of Kerala v. Pattarvayal Kanakan and others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2014/10TH CHAITHRA, 1936 CRL.A.No. 671 of 2006 ( ) -------------------------SC 46/2002 of SESSIONS COURT,THALASSERY ## APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI K K RAJEEV RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- - 1. PATTARVAYAL KANAKAN, - S/O. NANU, CARPENTER, CHOKLI AMSOM MANAPRAM. 2. KOMATH MOHANAN, S/O. KUMARAN, DRIVER, CHOKLI AMSOM KAVIYOOR. 3. THAZHEPOYIL REMESH. (DIED) 4. THAYYULLATHIL MAHI @ MAHESH, S/O. VASU, COOLIE, CHOKLI AMSOM C.P.ROAD. 5. P.P.SREETHILAKAN @ SREELAN, S/O. BALAN, COOLIE, CHOKLI AMSOM DESOM. 6. MUNDARAL THAZHEKUNIYIL ASOKAN, S/O. GOPALAN, COOLIE, CHOKLI AMSOM DESOM. 7. T.MAHESH BABU @ ASARI BABU, S/O. KUMARAN, CARPENTER, CHOKLI AMSOM NIDUMBRAM. - .. R1 IS REMOVED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER DT.23.9.2011 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.671/2006. R2,4 TO 7 BY AD V. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN R2,4, TO 7 BY ADV. SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI R2,4 TO 7 BY ADV. SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY R2,4 TO 7 BY ADV. SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR R2,4 TO 7 BY ADV. SMT.K.M.RAMYA R2,4 TO 7 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAKESH KUMAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.1.14, THE COURT ON 31.3.14 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS JJ.,** **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006 **- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 31[st] day of March 2014 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Joseph Francis J., This Criminal Appeal is filed by the complainant State of Kerala in S.C. No.46 of 2002 on the file of Sessions Court, Thalassery against the judgment of acquittal against accused Nos.2 and 4 to 7 in that case. 2. S.C. No.46 of 2002 is a case charge sheeted against seven accused persons in Crime No.159 of 1998 of Chokli Police Station under Sections 143, 147 and 302 read with _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'the IPC'). 3. The prosecution case is briefly as follows. Deceased Purushothaman was a bus conductor. On 1.11.1998 at about 9 p.m. the deceased was watching television programme along with his family members in his house. While so, he got an information from his neighbour that somebody from his wife's house wanted to talk to him over phone and that the person will call after 15 minutes and insisted that the deceased himself should attend the call. By about 9.15 p.m. the deceased went out of his house followed by his sister Sarala and when they reached their courtyard they heard the sound of a whistle and saw some persons rushing towards the deceased from all sides. Apprehending danger, the deceased ran towards north to take asylum in the house of one Padmakshan and by the time he reached the house of Padmakshan, the assailants surrounded him and he was beaten with a pestle on his head. The other _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** accused were having deadly weapons like sword, iron rods, axes, knife etc. attacked the deceased, as a result of which he sustained fatal injuries. The injured was taken to the Government Hospital, Pallur from where he was referred to the Government Hospital, Thalassery for better treatment. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Thalassery, where the doctor examined and pronounced him as dead. 4. In the meantime, Sarala, the sister of deceased lodged the First Information Statement before the police regarding the incident. Based on the statement of Sarala, Crime No.159 of 1998 was registered by Chokli Police under Section 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The investigation was conducted by the C.I. of Police, Panoor. His investigation revealed that accused Nos.1 to 7, CPI(M) activists, on account of political enmity to the deceased, have assaulted him with intention to cause his death. After completing the investigation final charge _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** was submitted in court against the accused Nos.1 to 7 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 302 read Section 149 of the IPC. Accused Nos.1 to 7 appeared before the Sessions Court, Thalassery and they pleaded not guilty. The third accused expired on 22.6.2003. The other accused have faced the trial. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 and Exts.P1 to 16 were marked. MOs 1 to 12 were identified in Court. Exts.D1 to D6 were marked on the defence side. No witness was examined for the defence. After analyzing the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the first accused was guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 and for various terms under the other Sections. Accused Nos.2 and 4 to 7 were acquitted on all the charges. 5. Against that conviction, the first accused filed Crl. Appeal No.2107 of 2004 before this Court which was _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** dismissed as per judgment dated 1.12.2007. Against that judgment, the appellant first accused filed Crl. Appeal No.1163 of 2009 before Supreme Court, which was also dismissed as per order dated 8.1.2013. Against the judgment of acquittal of accused Nos.2 and 4 to 7 in S.C. No.46 of 2002, the complainant State filed this appeal. 6. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused. At the time of hearing, the learned Public Prosecutor raised the following arguments. The reasons stated by the learned Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused Nos.2 and 4 to 7 are not sustainable in law. The court below ought to have found that prosecution has adduced sufficient evidence for convicting all the accused who have faced the trial under Section 302 of the IPC with the help of Sessions 149. PW1 is the sister, PW2 is the younger brother and PW3 is the wife of the deceased. PWs 1 to 3 gave consistent version in _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ **==> picture [14 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** support of the prosecution case. Though the witnesses were cross examined at length, nothing has been brought out to discredit their evidence. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have placed reliance on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 for finding the respondents guilty of the offence as alleged by the prosecution. PW1 and PW2 have identified accused Nos.1 to 7 in Court. They have explained as to how they happened to be present in the scene of occurrence and could identify the accused. The explanations given by PW1 and PW2 in this regard appear to be true since it was not contradicted by the defence evidence. The contentions of the accused that PW1 and PW2 have not seen the incident was not supported with evidence. PW1 and PW2 are the sister and younger brother of the deceased and they will be interested to see that the real culprit who are responsible for causing the death of their brother to be convicted. There is no evidence adduced by the _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ **==> picture [14 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** defence to show that PW1 and PW2 were in enemical terms with any of the accused for implicating them in this case unnecessarily. The learned counsel for the for the respondents/ accused supported the judgment of acquittal. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court reported in **"Arulvelu and another v. State** " (2009(10) SCC 206), in which it was held in paragraphs 33 and 34 as follows: “33. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, this Court reiterated the legal position as under : "(1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ :8: circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. 34. In Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, a two Judge Bench of this Court of which one of us (Bhandari, J.) was a member had an occasion to deal with most of the cases referred to in this judgment. This Court provided guidelines for the Appellate Court in dealing with the cases in which the trial Courts have acquitted the accused. The following principles _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ :9: emerge from the cases above : 1. The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial Court. The trial Court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent. 2. The power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate Court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial Court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law, but the Appellate Court must give due weight and consideration to the decision of the trial Court. 3. The appellate Court should always keep in mind that the trial Court had the distinct advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. The trial Court is in a better position to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. 4. The appellate Court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial Court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. 5. If two reasonable or possible views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate Courts must rule in favour of the accused.” 8. PW1 Sarala is the sister and PW2 Pradeep Kumar is the younger brother of deceased Purushothaman. PWs 1 and 2 _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** deposed that during the relevant time themselves, their mother, deceased Purushothaman, his wife (CW11) were all staying in the same house. They deposed that at about 9 p.m. on 1.11.1998 they were watching the television programme along with CW5 and Purushothaman at their house. Then CW16 came to their courtyard and informed Purushothaman that somebody from his wife's house was calling him over phone to the house of PW3 (Asma) and that the caller would call Purushothaman at about 9.15 in that night. On hearing this, Purushothaman wore his shirt and took a torch and went out to go to the nearby house of PW3 in order to attend the telephone call. PW1 Sarala accompanied Purushothaman and when they reached in front of their court yard, PW1 and PW2 heard the sound of a whistle and saw about 10 persons rushing from different sides towards Purushothaman. They smelt danger and Purushothaman ran towards the house of CW13. PWs 1 and 2 _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ **==> picture [19 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** rushed to that spot. Pws 1 and 2 saw the accused Nos.1 to 7 and others assaulting Purushothaman with deadly weapons. First accused beat Purushothaman with MO1 pestle and accused Nos.2 to 7 beat him with Mos1 to 4 and other weapons. PWs 1 and 2 pleaded to the accused not to beat Purushothaman. PW1 deposed that herself and and the wife of Purushothaman interfered and they were pushed down by the accused. After that A1 left behind MO1 pestle and A2 to A7 carrying their weapons escaped from the scene of occurrence. Purushothaman was taken to Pallur Government hospital in a tempo van and the doctor advised to take Purushothaman to Government Hospital, Thalassery and accordingly Purushothaman was taken to that hospital and the doctor of that hospital declared Purushothaman as dead. PWs 1 and 2 identified MO1 as the pestle used by first accused to assault the deceased on the head, MO2 as the sword used by second _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** accused and MOs 3 and 4, as the iron rods used by accused Nos.4 and 6 to assault the deceased. Mos 5 to 8 are the torch, chappals, lunki and shirt, the deceased was wearing at the relevant time. MO9 is the chappal of PW1 which fell at the place of occurrence. MO10 is the turki towel of the deceased. 9. PW9 the Civil Surgeon of the Government Hospital, Thalassery conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of Purushothaman and issued Ext.P6 post-mortem certificate. The following are the injuries sustained by Purushothaman before his death as noted in Ext.P6. “(i) Incised wound 5x2xscalp deep left parietal region. (ii) Incised wound below the Rt. submandibular region extending horizontally from midline to the posterior auricular region 13 cmx5 cm x5cm deep cutting sternomastoid and injuring external and internal jugular vessals. (iii) Incised wound 5 cmx3 x3 front of neck at the thyroid region injuring the tracheo larngeal junction and exposing trachea. (iv) Incised wound 10 cmx2x5 deep extending 2 cm below lt. ear and running horizontally to the midline cutting both jugular vessals, sternomastoid on lt. side. (v) Incised wound 2x1x cm in the midclavicular region on _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ :13: lt. side (vi)_ Incised wound 2x1x1 cm below the lt. clavicle on the first intercostal space 5 cm from the midline. (vii) Incised wound 2x1x2 cm in the mid clavicular region on the rt. side in the supraclavicular fossa. (viii) Incised wound 2x1x2 cm on the first intercostal space on rt. side 6 cm from the midline. (ix) Vertical incised wound medial side of sternum on rt. side 10x5x3 cm deep fracturing and dislocating 4[th] , 5[th] and 6[th] sternocostal joints. (x) Horizontal incised wound below the right nipple, 4x2cm muscle deep. (xi) Horizontal incised wound 5x2 cmx muscle deep extending from xiphoid region to the left fracturing the xiphoid. (xii) Skin abrasion 15 cm in horizontal direction on the left side of chest in the 6[th] intercostal space. (xiii) Incised wound 2x1cmx muscle deep on the right upper arm 3 cm from axial fold. (xiv) Contusion 5x2 in the right upper arm 2 cm below injury No.xiii (xv) Skin abrasion horizontal in direction lateral side of rt. upper arm. (xvi) Incised wound rt. palm 4x2cmx muscle deep between rt. index and middle fingers cutting digital blood vessals. (xvii) Skin abrasion ® Knee. (xviii) Skin abrasion with contusion 3x2 cm middle of rt. leg. (xix) Incised wound 3x2cm x muscle deep in the middle line over abdomen 3 cm above the umbilicus. (xx) Incised wound lateral side of Rt. thigh 5 cm below the inguinal region horizontal in direction 17 cm x 6 cm x bone deep cutting the lateral side thigh muscles and blood vessals. (21) Contusion 9x2 cm in the right leg middle part. (22) Incised wound over left wrist 8 cm x 4x2 cm exposing the _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ :14: wrist joint fracturing and dislocating (Lt) wrist and injuring extensor tendons of (Lt) hand. (23)Incised wound 9x4x3 cm deep, wound lateral side of (L) upper and injuring the muscles and blood vessals in the upper 3[rd] horizontal in direction (24) Incised wound 15x6 cm lateral side of (L) thigh, horizontal in direction and injuring the muscles, blood vessals, extending deep to femur (25) Incised wound 7x3cm xmuscle deep in the upper part of (L) scapula. INTERNAL APPEARANCE: Skull - Crack fracture (L) parietal bone with extra dural, intradural haemorrhage, brain congested. Thorax: lungs pale, heart pale, chambers empty. Abdomen: Stomach contained partly digested rice, liver, spleen kidneys pale, intestine pale, urinary bladder empty.” PW9 opined that the cause of death of Purushothaman was due to haemorrhage and injury to the vital structure of the neck. 10. Ext.P1 is F.I. statement given by PW1 Sarala on 1.11.1998 at 11.15 in the night, which was recorded by PW10 A.S.I. of police. In Ext.P1 FI. statement it is stated by PW1 that she saw about 10 persons attacking Purushothaman with deadly _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** weapons. PW1 stated in Ext.P1 that she identified A1 Kanakan. PW1 did not mention the names of other assailants and she described them as the persons belonging to Nedumbram. In cross-examination, PW1 stated that the names of accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were known to her before the occurrence and that she was aware about their names from her early childhood. PW12 is the Circle Inspector of Police, Panoor who investigated the case. Ext.P9 is the inquest report prepared by him on 2.11.1998. In Ext.P9 the statement of Bhaskaran who was residing in the house of Purushothaman at that time was recorded. Purushothaman is the son of the uncle of Bhaskaran. In that statement, Bhaskaran has stated the name of first accused Kanakan alone and he has not stated the names of other accused. In that statement, the presence of PW2 Pradeepkumar is also mentioned by Bhaskaran as the person who witnessed the occurrence. PW12 admitted that PW2 was _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** first questioned by him on 8.11.1998 and then only he got information about the names of accused Nos.2 to 7. PW12 admitted that before 8.11.1998, he had no information about the name and address of accused Nos.2 to 7. PW12 had no proper explanation as to why he had not questioned PW2 earlier. On going through the Ext.P1 FI statement it is not possible to hold that PWs 1 and 2 identified accused Nos.2 to 7 at the time of occurrence. It has come out in evidence that even when PW12 questioned PW1 on 5.11.1998, she has not disclosed the names of accused Nos.2 to 7. In Ext.P1 statement PW1 mentioned about the accused other than first accused as the persons belonging to Nedumbram. In cross-examination PW1 stated that accused Nos.2 to 6 are persons not belonging to Nedumbram and that she does not know about the native place of accused No.7. _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ :17: ## 11. In the decision reported in **Malkhansingh v. State of** ## **M.P. (** 2003(5) SCC 746), it was held in paragraph 7 as follows: “7. It is trite to say that the substantive evidence is the evidence of identification in Court. Apart from the clear provisions of Section 9 of the Evidence Act, the position in law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court.The facts, which establish the identity of the accused persons, are relevant under Section 9 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule, the substantive evidence of a witness is the statement made in Court. The evidence of mere identification of the accused person at the trial for the first time is from its very nature inherently of a weak character. The purpose of a prior test identification, therefore, is to test and strengthen the trustworthiness of that evidence. It is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of witnesses in Court as to the identity of the accused who are strangers to them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of prudence, however, is subject to exceptions, when, for example, the Court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such or other corroboration. The identification parades belong to the stage of investigation, and there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, which obliges the investigating agency to hold, or confers a right upon the accused to claim, a test identification parade. They do not constitute substantive evidence _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** and these parades are essentially governed by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Failure to hold a test identification parade would not make inadmissible the evidence of identification in Court. The weight to be attached to such identification should be a matter for the Courts of fact. In appropriate cases it may accept the evidence of identification even without insisting on corroboration.” 12. In Ext.P1 F.I. statement the only fact stated by PW1 about the identity of the accused other than first accused was that they belong to Nedumbram. When examined as PW1, she deposed that accused Nos.2 to 7 do not belong to Nedumbram. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the test identification regarding the identity of accused Nos.2 to 7 ought to have been conducted at the time of investigation. As observed by the court below, MO2 to MO4 were recovered on the information given by accused Nos.2 to 4 and 6, is not a sufficient corroboration for the identification of accused Nos.2 to 7 made by PW1 in Court. In the absence of _Crl. Appeal No.671 of 2006_ **==> picture [20 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** any reliable evidence, the court below is perfectly justified in acquitting the accused Nos.2 to 4 and 7 by giving benefit of doubt. Therefore, this appeal has to be dismissed as it is without any merits. Accordingly this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. **Sd/** **K.T. SANKARAN,** **(JUDGE)** **Sd/ M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, (JUDGE)** dl/ // TRUE COPY //