Raman vs State Of Kerala

and Unnikrishnan @ Bapputty-deceased were living at

Edayattur, District Mambarakunnu. On 21.04.2000 at about

8:00 p.m., PW-1 and PW-6 were chatting by the side of the

road when they heard the appellant and the deceased

indulging in wordy quarrel. PW-6 intervened and separated

them. Unnikrishnan then proceeded to his house and the

appellant went towards the house of PW-6. PW-6 returned to

the courtyard of the house of PW-1 along with Unnikrishnan.

The appellant alleged to have uttered abusive language

against Unnikrishnan who in retaliation pulled the appellant's

shirt collar. The appellant is alleged to have stabbed

Unnikrishnan in his abdomen with knife (MO.1).

Unnikrishnan collapsed on the spot and uttered that he was

finished. PW-6 bandaged the wound of Unnikrishnan. PW-1 3

informed Velayudhan (PW-2), the younger brother of

Unnikrishnan about the incident who arrived at the spot

where Unnikrishnan was lying on the embankment by the

side of the road. PW-2 and others took Unnikrishnan to the

District Hospital, Manjeri, where the Casualty Medical Officer

examined him but he was declared dead.

4. PW-6 went to Melattur Police Station and made

statement on the basis of which First Information Report (Ext.

P4) came to be registered by Abdulla (PW-9), Sub-Inspector.

After registering the case, K. Manoharakumar, Circle

Inspector (PW-10) went to the Hospital and conducted Inquest

Report (Ext. P1) on the body of Unnikrishnan-deceased. The

Investigating Officer seized clothes (MO2) of the deceased. He

sent the body of the deceased to the Medical College Hospital,

where Dr. Cyriyac Jose (PW-13) conducted post mortem

examination. PW-10 visited the place of occurrence and

prepared scene-cum-seizure mahazar (Ext.P2), recovered

blood-stained soil and stones (MO 3). He arrested the

appellant and the clothes (MO 4) worn by him were taken into

possession under Seizure Mahazar (Ext. P3). At the instance 4

of the appellant, knife (MO 1) was recovered. Further

investigation was conducted by D. Rajan (PW-11) and Majeed

(PW-12), both Circle Inspectors. PW-11 and PW-12 recorded

the statements of the witnesses. On receipt of post mortem

report (Ext. P8) and report of chemical analysis (Ext. P7), PW-

12 filed a charge sheet against the appellant for an offence

punishable under Section 302, IPC.

5. The trial court found a prima facie case against the

appellant and, accordingly, charged him for the murder of

Unnikrishnan. During trial of the case, the prosecution

examined as many as 13 witnesses. The appellant in his

statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure denied his involvement in the commission of the

crime. He pleaded that on the day of occurrence when he was

going to his house, the deceased took quarrel with him and it

was PW-6 who intervened and separated them. He stated that

Unnikrishnan came back from his house to the place of

occurrence and he was holding a knife in his hand and

suddenly held his neck. A scuffle ensued between them, in

which the knife accidentally struck into the abdomen of the 5

deceased. He pleaded that due to fear he ran away from the

scene of occurrence.

6. The learned trial Judge, on analysis of the entire oral and

documentary evidence on record, found the appellant guilty of

the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly

sentenced him as aforesaid.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the

High Court, which came to be dismissed by a Division Bench.

Hence, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave

questioning the correctness and legality of the judgment of the

High Court.

8. We have heard Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Advocate for the

appellant, and Mr. R. Sathish, Advocate for the respondent-

State and with their assistance examined the material on

record.

9. It is not in dispute that Unnikrishnan @ Bapputty died

because of knife injuries caused to him. PW 13, Dr. Cyriyac

Jose in the post mortem Report has given the details of the

injuries noticed in the abdomen of the deceased. In the

opinion of the doctor, the injuries found on the body of the 6

deceased could be caused by knife (MO 1). PW-6 is the eye-

witness of the occurrence who has given the entire description

of the incident in the First Information Report (Ext. P4), which

has been corroborated by him in his deposition before the

Court. It is his evidence that on the day of occurrence at

about 8.00 p.m. when he was chatting with PW-1 by the side

of the road, the appellant came there and in front of the house

of Unnikrishnan, the appellant and Unnikrishnan indulged in

a wordy quarrel. He and PW-1 intervened and separated them

who were locked in a push and pull war. PW-6 advised both

of them to go to their respective houses. He stated that he

went with PW-1 and when they reached in front of the house

of PW-1, the appellant and Unnikrishnan again started

hurling abuses against each other and in the process

Unnikrishnan pulled the collar of the shirt of the appellant

who in retaliation stabbed Unnikrishnan in his abdomen with

a knife and as a result thereof Unnikrishnan uttered that he

was finished. He also stated that the appellant ran away from

the scene of occurrence with the knife. He carried the injured

Unnikrishnan with the help of PW-1 and laid him on the 7

raised portion in front of the house of PW-1. Intestine of

injured Unnikrishnan had been protruded through the wound

and he bandaged the said wound. PW-2, the brother of

injured Unnikrishnan, was also called at the spot. They took

the injured to the hospital where he was declared dead by the

doctor.

10. PW-1 deposed that on the day of occurrence he was in

the kitchen of his house, he heard a commotion outside and

when came out on the road side, he noticed the appellant and

Unnikrishnan quarrelling with each other. PW-6 intervened

and separated them and at that time he saw Unnikrishnan

collapsing on the road and uttered that he was stabbed by

Raman. He along with PW-6 carried injured Unnikrishnan

and laid him on the raised portion near his house and

thereafter he informed PW-2, the brother of the deceased,

about the incident. The evidence of this witness corroborates

the presence of PW-6 on the spot, whose evidence has been

found sufficient, cogent and convincing by the courts below.

The prosecution has proved the recovery of knife from the

possession of the appellant at his instance. The evidence of 8

PW-6 has not been shattered or impeached by the appellant.

PW-6 has given truthful narration of the events leading to the

unfortunate death of the deceased at the hands of the

appellant. The testimony of PW-6 is consistent and

convincing which finds corroboration from the evidence of PW-

1 and the medical evidence of the doctor. The appellant has

not disputed the presence of PWs-1 and 6 on the scene of the

occurrence. He has also not disputed the recovery of knife

(MO 1). The trial court and the High Court both have

disbelieved the defence version of the appellant that in the

process of scuffle the knife had accidentally struck the body of

the deceased and, in our view, the finding and reasoning

recorded by the courts below to that extent cannot be found

faulty.

11. This Court on 15.02.2008 issued notice to the

respondent limited to the question of sentence. On

independent scrutiny of the oral evidence of PWs-1 and 6, as

noticed above, we find that it was the deceased who first

pulled the collar of appellant's shirt and tried to press his

neck, but in the process, the appellant inflicted knife blow in 9

the abdomen with a view to escape from the clutches of the

deceased, but the appellant clearly exceeded the right of

private defence. In these circumstances, his case fell under

Section 304 Part I IPC. We, accordingly, convict the appellant

under Section 304 Part-I IPC for causing the death of

Unnikrishnan @ Bapputty and sentence him to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In

default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo simple

imprisonment for one month.

12. In the result, for the afore-said reasons, this appeal is

partly allowed to the extent of holding the appellant guilty of

the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I, IPC, and

imposing the aforesaid sentence upon him. The judgment and

order of the High Court confirming the conviction of the

appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to

undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-

shall stand modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.

........................................J. (R. V. Raveendran) 10

........................................J. (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

New Delhi, August 20, 2008.