,,,,
G. Girish, J",,,,
1. The appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the commission of offence under section 302 I.P.C. As per the,,,,
judgment dated 14.06.2019 in S.C.No.464/2017, the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thalassery found the appellant guilty of murder and sentenced him",,,,
to life imprisonment and fine Rs.50,000/- with a default clause of rigorous imprisonment for one year.",,,,
2. The prosecution case is summarised as follows:,,,,
One Nazar, aged 36 years, the victim of the crime involved in this case, had been conducting a meat stall at the place called Chunkakkunnu. The",,,,
above said Nazar and the accused had the occasion to reside in the rooms of a lodge at Memana, belonging to PW18, on rental arrangement during",,,,
December, 2005. At that time, the accused had quarreled with the deceased alleging that the deceased had an amorous approach to the wife of the",,,,
accused. The accused was of such a character of nurturing doubts that the men in and around were inclined to have illicit relationship with his wife.,,,,
The accused had a quarrel with PW12 also for the same reason. In connection with the above issue, the accused was having bitter enmity with the",,,,
deceased Nazar. Finding that the quarrelsome nature of the accused has been causing difficulties for the smooth conduct of the lodge, PW18 asked",,,,
the accused to vacate the lodge, and accordingly, he left the lodge after two weeks. On 08.01.2006 at about 2:30 p.m, while the above said Nazar was",,,,
coming in a motorbike through Kelakam-Kottiyoor public road, the accused waylaid Nazar in front of the main entrance of Kottiyoor temple and",,,,
stabbed him with a double edged knife at the right shoulder towards the right chest inflicting deep penetrating injury. The victim moved a few steps,,,,
after leaving the motorbike and collapsed in the road with profuse bleeding. PW1 and PW2, two elderly ladies who happened to see the incident,",,,,
raised a hue and cry and appealed to the persons who came across that place at that time to hospitalize the victim. PW5 and his friends who happened,,,,
to pass by that place in their motorbike, saw the victim struggling for life, and at their intervention, the victim was taken in a jeep to a nearby hospital at",,,,
Kelakam but he could not be admitted there. The victim was thus taken to Reshmi Hospital, Peravoor where the doctor who attended him declared",,,,
that he was no more.,,,,
3. Upon getting information about the unfortunate incident, PW12, an employee of the deceased, rushed to the hospital and found the deceased lying",,,,
dead there. The Doctor present in that hospital (PW22) handed over a bundle of currency notes amounting to Rs.50,000/- found in the pocket of the",,,,
deceased to PW12 and asked to remove the dead body to Pariyaram Medical College for inquest and other proceedings. PW12 reported the incident,,,,
to the Kelakam Police which registered Ext.P11 F.I.R at 5:00 p.m on 08.01.2006. PW26, the Circle Inspector of Police, Peravoor took over the",,,,
investigation and arrested the accused at 4:45 p.m on 09.01.2006. The Investigating Officer proceeded with the usual formalities of preparation of,,,,
inquest report, mahazar etc and making arrangements for autopsy. The weapon used for the commission of the crime, which was a double edged",,,,
knife of peculiar nature, along with its sheath, was recovered from a nearby canal on 10.01.2006 on the basis of the information received from the",,,,
accused. After the completion of the investigation, PW26 laid the final report before the Magistrate concerned.",,,,
4. The committal proceedings in this case appeared to have prolonged for a long time since the accused happened to be under treatment for some,,,,
mental derangement. Even after the commitment of the case, the Sessions Court concerned had to wait for a long time to get the report from the",,,,
hospital where the accused was undergoing treatment for mental illness, that he is fit for standing trial.",,,,
5. On getting an affirmative report from the Medical Officer concerned about the fitness of the accused for standing trial, the learned Additional",,,,
Sessions Judge, after considering the prosecution records and relevant materials, heard the State Brief representing the accused and the learned",,,,
Public Prosecutor, and framed charge under section 302 I.P.C against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused to which",,,,
he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 26 witnesses as PW1 to PW26 and marked 27 documents as Exts.P1 to P27. 14 material objects,,,,
were identified as MO1 to MO14. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under section 313(1)(b) of",,,,
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Finding that there are no grounds for acquittal under section 232 Cr.P.C, the case was posted for defence evidence,",,,,
but the accused did not opt to adduce any evidence. After hearing both sides, and evaluating the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions",,,,
Judge arrived at the finding that the accused committed the offence of murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C. He was accordingly awarded the,,,,
sentence of life imprisonment and fine Rs.50,000/-. Aggrieved by the above conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed before this",,,,
Court.,,,,
6. The main ground raised in this appeal against the conviction and sentence of the appellant is that the Trial Court went wrong in relying on the,,,,
evidence of PW1 and PW2 who are said to have witnessed the incident. It is stated that the first time identification of the accused on virtual,,,,
appearance through video conference, by those elderly ladies, is totally unbelievable in view of the long time gap of about 16 years from the date of",,,,
incident. Thus, it is stated that the Trial Court reposed on inadmissible evidence and irrelevant facts to convict the accused.",,,,
7. Heard Adv.Smt.Nidhi Balachandran, the learned counsel for the appellant and Adv.Sri.Neema.T.V, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor",,,,
representing the State of Kerala.,,,,
8. As already stated above, PW1 and PW2 are the eyewitnesses to the offence, who stated before the Trial Court in unequivocal terms that they saw",,,,
the accused way laying the victim while he was coming in a motorbike, and thereafter, inflicting the fatal stab injury upon his right chest. Both the",,,,
above witnesses also stated before the Trial Court about the circumstances under which they happened to be at the scene of crime. The accused has,,,,
been identified by the above witnesses though his appearance was through video conferencing. PW3 is a person having residence near to the place of,,,,
occurrence. He has stated before the Trial Court that he had the occasion to see the accused at the sitout of his house shortly after the commission of,,,,
the crime, and that the accused by displaying the sheathed knife held by him, told that he had put to task the person who destroyed his family. PW4 is",,,,
a relative of the deceased, who had worked along with the deceased during the year 2006. PW4 stated before the Trial Court about the cause of",,,,
enmity of the accused in connection with his alleged suspicion that the victim looked at the wife of the accused inappropriately. PW5 is a person who,,,,
was actively involved in the hospitalization of the victim. PW6 is a business associate of the victim. PW7 is an attestor to Ext.P2 inquest report. PW8,,,,
is an attestor to Ext.P3 scene mahazar. PW9 is the brother of the deceased. PW10 was the Civil Police Officer, who signed as attestor to Ext.P4",,,,
seizure mahazar prepared by the Investigating Officer, when the dress worn by the accused at the time of commission of the crime were taken into",,,,
custody. PW11 was a Police personnel associated with Kannur SBCID, who is said to have received information about the crime involved in this case",,,,
at about 3:00 p.m. on 08.01.2006. PW12 was the employee of the deceased, who gave Ext.P5 First Information Statement to the Kelakam Police.",,,,
PW13 and PW15 are attestors to Ext.P6 recovery mahazar prepared by the Investigating Officer. PW14 is a person conducting a chicken stall at,,,,
Kelakam, where the accused is said to have kept a sack containing some items a few days before the commission of the crime. PW16 is a",,,,
Photographer who took the photographs of the scene of crime as instructed by the Investigating Officer. PW17 is a toddy tapper who had the,,,,
occasion to see the accused shortly before and after the commission of the crime in front of the gate of Kottiyoor temple. PW18 is the owner of the,,,,
lodge, where the accused and the deceased had resided in their rented rooms in the month of December, 2005. PW19 is an attestor to Ext.P8",,,,
mahazar prepared by the Police when the rental agreement of the house where the accused resided at the time of commission of the crime, was taken",,,,
into custody. PW20 was the Village Assistant of Kottiyoor Village Office, who prepared the site plan of the scene of crime. PW21 is the Professor of",,,,
Forensic Medicine, Pariyaram Medical College, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased and issued Ext.P10 postmortem certificate. PW22 is the",,,,
Doctor of Resmi Hospital, Peravoor, where the deceased was brought dead. PW23 was the HeadConstable of Kelakam Police Station, who recorded",,,,
,,,,
,,,,
