Thanksappan @ Kunjumon v. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER, 2011 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1933 CRL.A.No. 160 of 2010 -----------------------------(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC.146/2009 of ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOTTAYAM) .................... APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- THANKAPPAN @ KUNJUMON, S/O.KUTTY, MANNIL HOUSE, ALAPPARA AREA, MANIMALA VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.A.LOWSY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/11/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J.** ## **----------------------------------------** ## **Crl.A.No. 160 of 2010** **----------------------------------------** Dated this the 15[th] day of November, 2011 ## **J U D G M E N T** The sole accused in S.C.No.146 of 2009 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADHOC)-II, Kottayam is the appellant, as he is aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.12.2009 of the said court, by which he is convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that at 6.15 p.m. on11.4.2007, the accused was found transporting 5 litres of arrack near the ration shop ARD No.77 of B.C.Sathyan at Alapra in PonthenpuzhaChungappara Road, 2 kms. west from Ponthenpuzha junction in Manimala Village, Kanjirappally Taluk. Thus, according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punsihable under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. On the basis of the above allegation, Crime No,.13 of 2007 was registered in the Excise Range, Kanjirapally and on completing the investigation, a report was filed CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-2-: before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, wherein C.P.No.19 of 2008 was instituted and subsequently, by order dated 20.9.2008, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court wherein the same is received as S.C.No,146 of 2009 and thereafter, the case is made over to the trial court for disposal. When the accused appeared, after hearing the prosecution as well as the defence, a formal charge was framed for the offences punishable under Section 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act which when read over and explained to the accused, he denied the same and pleaded not guilty. Consequently, the prosecution adduced its evidence consisting of the depositions of Pws.1 to 6 and Exts.P1 to P4 documents. MO1 can was also identified and also marked as material object. On hearing the accused under Section 313, he denied the incriminating circumstances and evidence and finally, the trial court has found that there is no inherent improbability in the evidence of prosecution witnesses examined and there are sufficient materials to inspire the confidence in the mind of the court to hold that the accused was found possessing arrack in CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-3-: violation of the Abkari Act and further found that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thus, he is found guilty of the offence under Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act and accordingly he is convicted thereunder. On such conviction, the trial court sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months. Set off is allowed under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. It is the above conviction, finding and sentence challenged in this appeal. 3. I have heard Sri.Surin George Ipe, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 4. To substantiate the prosecution allegation, the prosecution adduced the above evidence which I indicated earlier. Among the prosecution witnesses, PW1 is the star witness of the prosecution, who was then working as Sub Inspector, Excise Enforcement and Anti CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-4-: Narcotic Special Squad, Kottayam. When he was examined, he had deposed that on 11.4.2007 at 6 p.m. when he reached in front of the ration shop No.77 being conducted by Sathyan in Ponthenpuzha-Chungappara Road 2½ Kms. west from Ponthenpuzha Junction in Manimala Village, Kanjirappally taluk, doing patrol duty, he found the accused in front of him 5 metres away coming to the road carrying a black can in his hand. According to PW1, on suspicion, he stopped the vehicle near to the accused and on examination of the can in the presence of witnesses, he had identified that the liquid contained in the can was arrack by tasting and smelling. According to PW1, the witnesses and the members in the patrol party were also convinced that the liquid contained in the can, which was carried by the accused is arrack. Thus, according to PW1, he arrested the accused as per Ext.P1 arrest memo and arrest intimation was given to the brother of the accused as per Ext.P2. According to PW1, he collected 200 ml. liquid from the can in a bottle having 375 ml. capacity as sample and affixed label on the same by putting the signature of himself, ## CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-5-: witnesses and accused and sealed the sample bottle and the can. According to PW1, the entire proceeding including the arrest of the accused and the drawing of sample were recorded in Ext.P3 mahazar. According to him, thereafter, he proceeded to the Excise Range Office and handed over the accused as well as the records and the MOs. to the Excise Range Officer in charge of Kanjirappally Excise Range. During the examination of PW1, he had identified MO1 can and Exts.P1 to P3 documents and Ext.P4 specimen of the sample seal. 5. Besides PW1, another witness examined by the prosecution is that of PW2, who is an independent witness and attestor to Ext.P3 mahazar. When PW2 was examined, he had not supported the prosecution case as such. According to him, though he had identified the signature that is seen in Ext.P3 as his signature, he had given entirely a different version. During the cross-examination, he had stated that he had put his signature in Ext.P3 in the ration shop of one Sathyan. According to him, when he had put his signature in Ext.P3, nothing was recorded therein. According to him, the accused was also CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-6-: there in the ration shop to purchase ration articles. According to PW2, thus, while himself and accused were in the ration shop, the Excise Party reached there and asked, who is Kunjumon? Thus, according to PW2, the accused replied that he is Kunjumon. To a question put forward by the defence counsel, he had answered that at that time, the excise party was having a black can. It was further deposed by him that when the Excise party asked the accused as to whether the said can is belonging to the accused, he answered negatively. According to PW2, at that time, the Excise Party had taken the accused to the Excise vehicle. Thereafter, though PW2 was subjected to reexamination, nothing was brought on record to discredit the version of PW2 and during the re-examination, PW2 has stated that the signature was obtained after the arrest of the accused and according to him, he had put his signature as the witness for the arrest of the accused. He had also stated that the accused was arrested for the possession of arrack. PW3 is the Village Officer who prepared Ext.P5 scene plan. PW4 is the thondi section clerk of the committal court and according CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-7-: to him, on 12.4.2007, the property in Crime No.13/2007 was received in the court and the sample was sent to the Chemical Analysis Laboratory on 21.7.2007 through the Excise Guard, Krishna Kumar. Ext.P6 is the relevant page of the property register marked through PW4. PW5 is the then Preventive Officer who was in charge of the Excise Range Inspector, Kanjirappally. According to him, on 11.4.2007, while he was in charge of the Excise Range Inspector, he had received the accused, records and the property and accordingly, on 12.4.2007, he had registered Crime No.13 of 2007 in the above Excise Range. Ext.P7 is the occurrence report. According to PW5, he produced the accused, records and property before the court as per Ext.P8 property list. PW5 has also identified MO1 as the can produced before the court. PW6 is the then Excise Range Inspector, Kanjirappally, who undertook the said investigation and interrogated the witnesses and finally laid the charge. PW6 is the person who prepared Ext.P9 forwarding note requesting the court to send the sample for chemical analysis and he had also prepared Ext.P10 scene ## CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-8-: mahazar. Ext.P11 is the chemical analysis report, which is marked through PW6. It is the above evidence and materials relied on by the court below in support of its finding and for convicting the appellant/accused. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegation against the appellant/accused and the finding of the court below is against the evidence and materials on record. It is the submission of the learned counsel that regarding the prosecution allegation, there are two views. One is proved through PW1 and the other through PW2, the independent witness and the second version is in favour of the accused, but the trial court opted to accept the version of PW1 and rejected the second version, and such approach is against the settled position of law. According to the learned counsel, the evidence on record would show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt whereas the available materials and evidence are in consonance with the innocence of the accused. ## CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-9-: Learned counsel pointed out that the procedural and legal infirmities and irregularities crept in the prosecution case create serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case itself. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel has pointed out that the evidence of PW2 would show that the accused was arrested from the ration shop of one Sathyan and not as deposed by PW1. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that though PW1 has admitted during cross-examination that there is receipt to show that the accused, thondi articles and records were produced before PW4 on 11.4.2007, he did not produce the receipt whereas the evidence of PW4 is not satisfactory for not registering Ext.P7 occurrence report on 11.4.2007 itself. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the samples were reached in the chemical analysis lab only after three months from the date of entrustment of the same with one of Excise Guards. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegation against the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-10-: 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has pointed out that the evidence of PW1 is intact and though PW2 has not supported the case of the prosecution, the evidence of PW1 is sufficient to prove the allegation against the accused that he was found in possession of 5 litres of arrack. It is also the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that though PW2 is not declared as hostile and deposed against the prosecution on the material aspects, to a certain extent PW2 has supported the case of the prosecution. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, PW4 has raised sufficient reasons for not registering Ext.P7 occurrence report on 11.4.2007 itself. Thus, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the finding of the court below is purely on the basis of the evidence and materials on record and no interference is warranted. 8. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the judgment of the trial court carefully and also perused the deposition of the witnesses and other materials and evidence on CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-11-: record. 9. In the light of the rival contentions advanced by the counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and in the light of the evidence and materials on record, the question to be considered is whether the trial court is correct and legal and justified in its finding that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and (2) of the Abkari Act. 10. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that when PW1 and party were on patrol duty, on 11.4.2007 at about 6.15 p.m., PW1 has detected the crime as the accused was found transporting 5 litres of arrack near the ration shop ARD No.77 of B.C.Sathyan. Thus, according to the prosecution, PW1 arrested the accused. Thus, the can and the contraband articles were seized as per Ext.P3 mahazar. Thereafter, the accused, the contraband article and the records were produced before the officer in charge of the Excise Range, Kanjirappally Excise Range/PW5 who in turn prepared Ext.P7 occurrence report on 12.4.2007 and produced the accused, the CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-12-: material objects and records before the committal court. The specific contention raised by the defence is to the effect that regarding the seizure, the prosecution has two versions and the one which is in favour of the accused is to be accepted. If that be so, the accused is entitled to a clear acquittal. In support of the above contention, it is pointed out that PW2, the independent witness relied on by the prosecution has given an entirely different version regarding the seizure of the contraband article and though PW2 deposed against the prosecution on substantial point, the prosecution has not chosen to declare PW2 as a hostile witness and therefore, the version given by PW2, the independent witness, which is in favour of the accused, has to be accepted. In support of the above submission, the learned counsel for the appellant heavily relied upon the decision of the v. Honourable Apex Court reported in **Raja Ram State of Rajasthan** [JT 2000(7) SC 549]. 11. In order to appreciate the above contention, it is absolutely necessary to refer the defence taken by the accused during CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-13-: the trial. According to the accused, when he was in the ration shop for the purchase of ration article, the Excise Party including PW1 came there and enquired about a person by name Kunjumon and accordingly, he was booked whereas the case of the prosecution as per the evidence of PW1 is that when himself and party were on patrol duty, PW1 had seen the accused within a distance of 5 metres while the accused was stepping down to the main road from the A.R.D. shop. The evidence of PW1 would be examined in detail later. When PW2 was examined, he categorically deposed that himself and accused came to the said ration shop in the same bus, but not together and when himself and accused were in the ration shop, PW1 came to the ration shop and asked about the person by name Kunjumon and the accused replied that he is the said person and thereafter, PW1 took the accused in their vehicle. The above version of PW2 is in consonance with the case of the defence. But, during the trial, though PW2 has deposed in such a manner, which is against the prosecution allegation itself, no step is taken by the prosecution. In this juncture, CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-14-: it is relevant to consider the decision of the Apex Court cited supra. In the decision reported in **Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari** v. **State** [AIR ## 2005 SC 2804], in paragraph 34 it was held as follows:- “ _34. ......................Ved Prakash Goel had been examined as a prosecution witness in this case as PW-1. He, however, did not support the prosecution. The prosecution never declared PW-1 “hostile”. His evidence did not support the prosecution. Instead, it supported the defence. The accused hence can rely on that evidence. “_ In paragraph 35 of the very same decision, after considering the ' s case decision reported in Raja Ram (cited supra), it was held as follows:- _“35............................................This Court held that it was open to the defence to rely on the evidence of the Doctor and it was binding on the prosecution.”_ ## v. Now let us consider the decision of the Apex Court in **Raja Ram** ## **State of Rajasthan** [JT 2000(7) SC 549]. which referred to earlier. ## In paragraph 9 of the above judgment, it was held as follows:- “ _9. But the testimony of PW-8-Dr.Sukhdev Singh, who is another neighbour, cannot easily be surmounted by the prosecution. He has testified in very clear terms that he saw PW-5 making the deceased believe that unless she puts the blame on the Appellant and his parent, she would have to face the consequences like prosecution proceedings. It_ CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 ## :-15-: _did not occur to the public prosecutor in the trial court to seek permission of the court to hear PW-8 as a hostile witness for reasons only known to him. Now, as it is, the evidence of PW-8 is binding on the prosecution. Absolutely no reason, much less any good reason, has been stated by the Division Bench of High Court as to how PW-8's testimony can be side-lined.”_ On application of the above dictum laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it can be seen that regarding the seizure, there are two versions and as long as the prosecution has not declared PW2 as a hostile witness, the defence can very well rely on the evidence of PW2 and if that be so, the case of the prosecution that the accused was found in possession of 5 litres of arrack as alleged by the prosecution on the basis of evidence of PW1 has to be rejected and the consequent benefit will go in favour of the accused. 12. Besides the above, in this case, it is pertinent to note that the specific case of the accused is that he was arrested from the ration shop when he was there for purchasing the ration article. The defence has succeeded, during the cross-examination of PW1, that PW1 CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-16-: reached in the ration shop. The above fact is to a certain extent admission of the case of the defence. But, PW1 has got an explanation as to why he reached in the ration shop and according to him, he reached there for the purpose of ascertaining the location or the place of occurrence, by asking the persons found in the ration shop. But, the above explanation of PW1 is contrary to his evidence given during his chief examination. When PW1 was examined in chief, he had categorically stated that “77- നനര റ�ഷന കടയ�ടട മ�ന�ശ� എത�യറ��ള ഉറ�ശ� 5 മ���ര മ�ന�ല�യ� പ�ത� തട �ലത� കയ�ല ഒര� ക��ത കന�സ' ത(ക���ട�ച' റ��ഡ�റലക' ഇ�ങ� �ര�നത� കണ�. സ�ശയ� റത�ന� ട�ട0ന' ��ഹന� പ�ത�യ�ടട സമ��ത' ന�രത� അ��ടട ഉണ�യ�ര �ന സ�ക�കള �ടട സ�ന�ദ6ത�ല പ�ത�യ �ടട കക�ശ� ഉണ�യ�ര �ന കന�സ' ��ങ� �ര�റശ�ധ�ച�.” If the above version of PW1 is true and correct, there was no necessity for him to visit the ration shop for the purpose of ascertaining the locality or the area since there were independent persons from the locality itself, when he intercepted the accused. The above approach of PW1 to patch up his failure or to give an explanation for his arrival in the ration shop is not sufficient to inspire the confidence of the CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 **==> picture [27 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** court, especially when the case of the defence is to the effect that the accused was arrested from the ration shop. 13. It is also relevant to note that though PW5 has stated that the accused, the contraband article and records were entrusted with him by PW1 on 11.4.2007, there was no procedural or legal impediment in registering the crime on that day itself and producing the accused before the Magistrate on that day itself though it was belated. The non-production of the receipt, which is allegedly in possession of PW1 to show the entrustment of the accused, the contraband article and the records with PW5, under the above failure of PW4 is another circumstance creating doubt in the mind of the court. It is also relevant to note that there is no explanation as to why three months time taken to produce the sample before the chemical analyst. 14. Thus, on an overall assessment and evaluation of the evidence on record, especially in the light of the evidence of PW2, it appears to me that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-18-: case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, I am unable to uphold the finding and the judgment of the trial court. Thus, I am of the firm view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegation against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently, the appellant/accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. Therefore, the finding and conviction recorded against the appellant/accused is set aside. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 24.12.2009 in S.C.No.146 of 2009 of the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Kottayam and the appellant/accused is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him and he is set at liberty. In the light of the acquittal recorded in favour of the appellant/accused who is undergoing imprisonment, he is entitled to get release from the jail forthwith if he is not required in any other case. Therefore, the Registry is directed to forward a gist of this judgment to the **Superintendent of Central Prison,** CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-19-: ## **Thiruvananthapuram** for appropriate action. **V.K.MOHANAN, Judge** MBS/ CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-20-: ## **V.K.MOHANAN, J** . CRL.A.No. 796 OF 2003 **JUDGMENT** Dated:4.10.2011 CRL.A.NO.160 0f 2010 :-21-: