Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :1: 2024:KER:65590

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVAN V

&

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEG.GIRISH

FRIDAY,THE30

TH

DAYOFAUGUST2024/8THBHADRA,1946

CRL.ANO.489OF2017

AGAINSTTHEJUDGMENTDATED28.02.2017INSCNO.37/2013ONTHE

FILEOFADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE-III,KOLLAM

APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2:

1CHANDRABABU@BABU

S/O.DIVAKARAN,CHITHITHEKKETHIL,

NEARTELEPHONEEXCHANGE,PAMPALILCHERRY,

PANAYAMVILLAGE,KOLLAM.(DIED)

2SUPPLEMENTALAPPELLANTNO.2:

SREEJAM.,AGED55YEARS

W/O.LATECHANDRABABUD.,VETTIYILTHEKKATHIL,

PAMBALLIL,PERINADUP.O.,KOLLAM,PIN-691601.

(ISSUOMOTUIMPLEADEDASPERORDERDATED

05.10.2023INCRL.M.A.1/2023 INCRL.A.489/2017)

BYADVS.

SRI.C.PRATHAPACHANDRAN PILLAI

SRI.N.ANAS

SRI.R.SURAJKUMAR

SRI.V.K.UNNIKRISHNAN KOLLAM

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :2: 2024:KER:65590

RESPONDENT:

STATEOFKERALA

REPRESENTEDBYPUBLICPROSECUTOR,

HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM

SMT.NEEMATV,SENIORPUBLICPROSECUTOR

THISCRIMINALAPPEALHAVINGCOMEUPFORFINALHEARING

30.08.2024,ALONGWITHCRL.A.381/2017, THECOURTONTHESAME

DAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :3: 2024:KER:65590

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVAN V

&

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICEG.GIRISH

FRIDAY,THE30

TH

DAYOFAUGUST2024/8THBHADRA,1946

CRL.ANO.381OF2017

AGAINSTTHEJUDGMENTDATED28.02.2017INSCNO.37/2013ONTHE

FILEOFADDITIONALSESSIONSJUDGE-III,KOLLAM

APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1&3:

1ANILKUMAR@KUNJUMON@KUTTIRAMAN,

AGED55YEARS,S/O.SUDHAKARAN,

ANILBHAVAN,NEARTELEPHONEEXCHANGE,

PAMPALILCHERRY,PANAYAMVILLAGE,

KOLLAMDISTRICT-691601.

2SANTHOSH

AGED45YEARS,S/O.SASIDHARAN,

SASIKALABHAVAN,NENMENI,VADAKKEMURI,

MANTROTHURUTHVILLAGE,

KOLLAMDISTRICT-691502.

BYADVS.

P.K.VARGHESE

C.PRATHAPACHANDRAN PILLAI

SMT.SINDHUK.S.

SRI.VIMALVIJAY

V.RENJITHKUMAR

M.T.SAMEER(K/3346/1999)

DHANESHV.MADHAVAN(K/298/2006)

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :4: 2024:KER:65590

JERRYMATHEW(K/658/2015)

DEEPAK.RADHAKRISHNAN(K/001131/2010)

SOJANK.VARGHESE(K/1611/2019)

ARJUNKUMARK.S.(K/1680/2019)

REGHUSREEDHARAN(K/653/2020)

RAMEEZM.AZEEZ(K/001008/2022)

NAMITHAK.S.(K/2262/2022)

SUDARSANANU.(K/2436/2022)

ANUASHOKAN(K/1343/2023)

ATHUL.P(K/001590/2023)

R.ROHITH(K/203/2011)

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

STATEOFKERALA

(REP.BYTHECIRCLEINSPECTOROFPOLICE,

KOLLAMWESTPOLICESTATION-CR.NO.612/2010

OFANCHALUMMOODUPOLICESTATION)

REPRESENTEDBYTHEPUBLICPROSECUTOR,

HIGHCOURTOFKERALA,ERNAKULAM,

KOCHI-682031.

SMT.NEEMAT.V,SENIORPUBLICPROSECUTOR

THISCRIMINALAPPEALHAVINGCOMEUPFORFINALHEARINGON

30.08.2024,ALONGWITHCRL.A.489/2017, THECOURTONTHESAME

DAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :5: 2024:KER:65590

‘CR’

JUDGMENT

[CRL.ANos.489/2017,381/2017]

RajaVijayaraghavan,J.

TheaboveappealshavebeenpreferredbytheaccusedinS.C.No.37of

2013onthefileoftheAdditionalSessionsJudge-III,Kollam.Crl.A.No.489of

2017hasbeenfiledbythe2ndaccusedandCrl.A.No.381of2017hasbeen

preferredbyaccusedNos.1and3intheabovecase.Intheabovecase,the

appellantswerechargedforhavingcommittedoffencespunishableunder

Sections324,341,and302r/w.Section34oftheIPC.Thoughinthefinal

report,fourpersonswerearrayedasaccused,inthecourseofproceedings,the

4thaccusedpassedawayandthecaseagainsthimstoodabated.

2.Prosecutionversion:

a)Thedeceased,Shafi,wasthebrotherofPW1,Ashraf.Ashrafoperated

abakeryatThannickalMukku,whilethedeceasedwasanautodriver.

The1staccused,Kunjumon,ranashopatVettiyilMukkuandalso

ownedaJeep.The2ndaccusedishisbrother.Aweekbefore,on

10.06.2010,anincidentoccurredinvolvingtheJeepdrivenbythe1st

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :6: 2024:KER:65590

accusedandtheSumovehicleownedbyPW1.Theprosecutionalleges

thattheJeepcollidedwiththeSumo,causingdamage.Immediately

followingtheincidentatThannickalMukku,therewasawordy

altercationbetweenthe1staccusedandPW1,duringwhichShafi,who

wasnearby,intervened.

b)On10.06.2020,whilePW1wasclosinghisbakery,the1staccused

arrivedonascooterwithhisdaughterasapillionpassengerat

Devarajan’sshop,locatedadjacenttoPW1’sshop.PW1calledthe1st

accusedandquestionedwhyhehadnottakenstepstorepairthecar.

The1staccusedrespondedthatifhisyoungerbrotherapologized,he

mightconsiderit.PW1thensuggestedthathewouldcometothe

houseofthe1staccusedtoresolvetheissue.Afterclosinghisshop,

PW1,accompaniedbyhisautodriverShihabandSri.Biju,thedriverof

theSumovehicle,wenttothehomeofthe1staccused.The

prosecutionallegesthatupontheirarrival,the1staccused,enraged

byPW1’saudacitytovisithishouse,beganthrowingwoodenblocks

fromtherooftop.PW1retreatedandstoodnearthehouseof

AyyappanPillai,closetotheroad.WhilePW1wasengagedin

conversation,the1staccusedapproachedfrombehindandattacked

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :7: 2024:KER:65590

himwithabamboostick.Ascuffleensued,duringwhichPW1fellto

theground.Shihab,Biju,andothersintervenedtorescuePW1.Biju

andShihabwerethenaskedtoreturntothehouseofPW1inthe

auto,whilePW1walkedback.ItisallegedthatShihabcalledPW1’s

brothers,includingthedeceasedShafi,Salim,andWahid.Whilethey

wereconversing,Omanamma(PW5)advisedthemnottoescalatethe

situationandinstead,reportthemattertothepolice.Heedingher

advice,PW1,Shihab,andBijuproceededtothePoliceStationinthe

autodrivenbyShafi.

c)AstheyturnedthevehicletowardsthewestonreachingVettiyilMukku

toproceedtoThannickalMukku,theynoticedthattheJeepownedby

the1staccusedwasparkedontheeasternsideofKandachira

AlummooduRoad,facingsouth,withtheengineon.Uponseeingthe

auto,theJeepwasdrivenrecklesslytowardit,corneringtheautoand

pushingittowardthehouseofPachanPillai,situatedwestofthe1st

accused'sshopandtowardsthesouthernsideofVettiyilMukku-

ThannickalMukkuRoad.The1staccused,alongwithBabu(A2),

Santhosh(A3),andoneKannan(sincedeceased),werepresent.The

1staccusedallegedlyexhortedtheotherstokill.Shafiattemptedto

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :8: 2024:KER:65590

fleebutwaschasedbythe1staccusedandothers.BabuandKannan

restrainedShafi,whilethe1staccusedisallegedtohaveinflicteda

stabwoundonShafi’sabdomen,followedbytwosubinjuriesinflicted

bythe3rdaccusedonhisback.PW1,standingatadistance,

witnessedtheentireincident,theplaceofoccurrencebeing

illuminatedbythelightfromPachanPillai’sshopandthestreetlight.

The1staccusedlosthisdhotiatthescenebeforetheassailantsfledin

theJeep.ThedeceasedwasinitiallyrushedtoMarthaHospitalat

Anchalummoodu,fromwherehewastransferredtoSankersHospital,

Kollam,wherehewaspronounceddead.

3.Registrationofthecrimeandinvestigation:

Atabout1:00a.m.,PW1reportedtheincidentattheAnchalummoodu

PoliceStation,leadingtotheregistrationofCrimeNo.612of2020for

offencespunishableunderSection302readwithSection34oftheIPCby

PW21,theSubInspectorofPolice.Onthenextday,theinvestigationwas

takenoverbyPW22,theCircleInspectorofPolice.TheOfficerconcludedthe

investigationandlaidthefinalreportbeforetheJudicialMagistrateofthe

FirstClass-IKollam.

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :9: 2024:KER:65590

4.ProceedingsbeforetheCourt:

Committalproceedingswereinitiatedandthecasewasnumberedas

C.P.No.36of2012bythelearnedMagistrate.OncommittaltotheCourtof

Session,thecasewasmadeovertotheAdditionalSessionsCourtwherethe

samewastakenonfileasS.C.No.37of2013.Afterhearingbothsides,the

learnedSessionsJudgeframedchargesunderSections324,341,and302

r/w.Section34oftheIndianPenalCode.Theaccusedpleadednotguiltyto

thechargesandclaimedtobetried.

5.Evidencetenderedduringtrial:

TheprosecutionexaminedPWs1to22toproveitscaseandthrough

them,Exts.P1toP33wereexhibitedandmarked.MaterialObjectswere

producedandidentifiedasMOs1to6.Afterthecloseoftheprosecution

evidence,theincriminatingmaterialswereputtotheaccusedunderSection

313oftheCr.P.C.Theyemphaticallydeniedthecircumstancesbroughtout

againstthemandmaintainedtheirinnocence.Onfindingthattheaccused

couldnotbeacquittedunderSection232oftheCr.P.C.,theywerecalled

upontoentertheirdefence.Ontheirside,DWs1to5wereexamined.

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :10: 2024:KER:65590

6.FindingsofthelearnedSessionsJudge:

a)PWs1,2,and4weretreatedastrustworthywitnesses.PW3,an

independentwitness,whowascitedtoprovetheincidentwasheldto

beunreliable.

b)TherecoveryofMOs1and2weaponsattheinstanceofaccusedNos.

1and3wereheldtobebelievable.

c)Thecourtconcludedthattheprosecutionhassuccessfullyprovedthat

accusedNos.1to4interceptedtheautorickshawinwhichthe

deceased,PW1andothersweretravelingwhilethevehiclereachedthe

frontofthehouseofPachanPillaiandthereafter,theaccusedNos.1

and3inflictedstabinjuriesontheabdomenandthebackofthechest

ofthedeceased.

7.Thesentenceimposed:

a)Theaccusedwerefoundguiltyandweresentencedtoundergo

imprisonmentforlifeandtopayafineofRs.1,00,000/-eachforthe

offenceunderSection302r/w.Section34oftheIPCandindefaultto

undergosimpleimprisonmentforaperiodofoneyear.

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :11: 2024:KER:65590

b)ForoffenceunderSection341r/w.Section34oftheIPC,theaccused

wereconvictedandsentencedtoundergoSimpleImprisonmentfor

onemonth.

8.Thecontentionoftheappellant:

a)Sri.Rohit,thelearnedcounselappearingfortheappellantssubmitted

thatthetrueversionoftheincidentwasnotplacedbytheprosecution

beforetheCourtofSession.Noincidentofthenatureasallegedhad

takenplaceinfrontoftheresidentialhomeofSri.PachanPillai.Ifthe

versionofPW1isaccepted,the1staccusedhadinflictedastabinjury

ontheabdomenofthedeceased,andthesmallintestinewascutat

therootandhisbowelshadcomeout.However,notevenasingle

dropofbloodwasfoundanywhereneartheplaceoftheoccurrence

eitherontheroadinfrontofthehouseofPachanPillaiorinthe

courtyardofhishouse.

b)ThelearnedSessionsJudgehaderredinplacingimplicitrelianceon

theevidenceofPW1,whoclaimedthathewastheonewhoalongwith

PW2,Shibu,hadtakentheinjuredtotheMathahospitalandfrom

there,toSankersHospital,Kollam,whichhospitalfacilitatedfairlyata

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :12: 2024:KER:65590

distancefromthesceneofthecrime,hewasthepersonwhohad

gonetothePoliceStationat1:00a.m.andsetthelawinmotion.

However,theprosecutionhasnocasethattherewasbloodonhis

clothes.NeithertheclotheswornbyPW1northeautoinwhichhehad

travelledwiththeinjuredtoMathaHospitalwasseized.Thiswould

showthatPW1hadnooccasiontowitnesstheincidentandhewas

madetostateutterfalsehoodbeforethecourt.Furthermore,serious

omissionsandcontradictionswerebroughtoutfromtheevidenceof

PW1todiscredithistestimony.

c)ThelearnedSessionsJudgehaderredinrelyingontheevidenceof

PW2astherewereseriousdiscrepanciesbetweenhisevidenceand

thatofPW1.Furthermore,thoughPW1wasalsopresentinthe

autorickshawalongwithPW1,hehasnocasethathehadwitnessed

theinflictionofstabinjurybythe1staccusedonthedeceased.

d)ThoughPW12,sonofPachanPillai,wasexaminedtoprovethatthere

wasthepresenceoflightinandaroundthesceneofthecrime,hedid

notsupportthecaseoftheprosecution.

e)Theevidenceletinbytheprosecutiontoprovetherecoveryofthe

weaponsusedforthecommissionoftheoffenceallegedlyatthe

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :13: 2024:KER:65590

instanceoftheaccusedistotallyunreliable.However,thelearned

SessionsJudgereliedonthesametoarriveatthefindingofguilt.

f)Thewifeanddaughterofthe1staccusedwerecitedasCWs25and

26.However,theyweregivenupbytheprosecution.Thedefence

examinedthemasDWs1and2,toprovetheversionofthedefence.

However,thelearnedSessionsJudgedidnotgivedueweightageto

theirevidence.

9.SubmissionsmadebythelearnedPublicProsecutor:

Smt.Neema,thelearnedPublicProsecutorpointedoutthatPWs1,2,

and4arereliablewitnesses,whoseevidencegaveaclearpictureastowhat

hadtranspiredon10.06.2010infrontofthehouseofSri.PachanPillai.The

learnedSessionsJudgehasalsotakennoteofthemedicalaswellas

scientificevidencetocometotheconclusionthattheprosecutionhasproved

itscasebeyondtheshadowofadoubt.Therecoveryofweaponsatthe

instanceoftheaccusedledcredencetotheprosecutioncase.Itissubmitted

thattheprosecutionisnotrequiredtomeeteachandeveryhypothesisput

forwardbytheaccused.RelyingontheobservationsinSahabraoBobade

v.StateofMaharashtra

1

,itissubmittedthattheApexCourthas

1

[1974(1)SCR489]

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :14: 2024:KER:65590

deprecatedtheexaggerateddevotiontotheruleofbenefitofthedoubtat

theexpenseofsocialdefenceandtothesoothingsentimentthatall

acquittalsarealwaysgoodregardlessofjusticetothevictimandthe

community.Itisfurthersubmittedthatmeremarginalvariationsinthe

statementsofawitnesscannotbedubbedasimprovementsasthesamemay

beelaborationsofthestatementmadebythewitnessearlier.Onlythose

omissionswhichamounttocontradictionsinmaterialparticulars,i.e.,goto

therootofthecase/materiallyaffectthetrialorcoreoftheprosecution's

casewouldrenderthetestimonyofthewitnessunreliable.Accordingtothe

learnedPublicProsecutor,thelearnedSessionsJudgehasevaluatedthe

evidenceinmeticulousdetailandhasarrivedatthefindingofguilt.

10.Guidingprinciples:

a)Beforeweproceedtoevaluatetheevidenceinthiscase,itneedstobe

borneinmindthatinamurdertrialwhenanaccusedpersonstands

chargedwiththecommissionofanoffencepunishableunderSection

302,hestandstheriskofbeingsubjectedtothehighestpenalty

prescribedbytheIndianPenalCode;andnaturally,judicialapproach

indealingwithsuchcaseshastobecautious,circumspectandcareful.

Indealingwithsuchappealswherethequestionofconfirminglife

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :15: 2024:KER:65590

imprisonmentimposedagainstindividualsfortheirparticipationinthe

murderofapersonisinvolved,thisCourthastodealwiththematter

carefullyandexamineallrelevantandmaterialcircumstancesbefore

upholdingtheconvictionandsentence.Italsoneedstobebornein

mindthatwhileappreciatingtheevidenceofawitness,minor

discrepanciesontrivialmatterswithoutaffectingthecoreofthe

prosecutioncase,oughtnottopromptthecourttorejectevidencein

itsentirety.Ifthegeneraltenoroftheevidencegivenbythewitness

andthetrialcourtuponappreciationoftheevidenceformsanopinion

aboutthecredibilitythereof,innormalcircumstancestheappellate

courtwouldnotbejustifiedtoreviewitonceagainwithoutjustifiable

reasons.(See:StateOfU.Pv.M.KAnthony.

2

;LeelaRamv.

StateofHaryana

3

).Itisalsotritethatwhenaneyewitnessis

examinedatlengthitisquitepossibleforhimtomakesome

discrepancies.Notruewitnesscanpossiblyescapefrommakingsome

discrepantdetails.Perhapsanuntruewitnesswhoiswelltutoredcan

successfullymakehistestimonytotallynon-discrepant.Butcourts

shouldbearinmindthatitisonlywhendiscrepanciesintheevidence

3

(1999)9SCC525)

2

[(1985)1SCC505]

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :16: 2024:KER:65590

ofawitnessaresoincompatiblewiththecredibilityofhisversionthat

thecourtisjustifiedinjettisoninghisevidence.Buttooseriousaview

tobeadoptedonmerevariationsfallinginthenarrationofanincident

(eitherasbetweentheevidenceoftwowitnessesorasbetweentwo

statementsofthesamewitness)isanunrealisticapproachforjudicial

scrutiny.Itisequallysettledlawthattheevidenceofahostilewitness

wouldnotbetotallyrejectedifspokeninfavouroftheprosecutionor

theaccused,butitcanbesubjectedtoclosescrutinyandthatportion

oftheevidencewhichisconsistentwiththecaseoftheprosecutionor

defencemaybeaccepted.(See:StateofU.PV.RameshPrasad

Misra

4

).InDudhNathPandeyvsStateofU.P.

5

andStateof

HaryanaVsRamSingh

6

,ithasbeenheldthattheevidenceof

defencewitnesseshastobetreatedatparwiththatoftheprosecution

witnessesandaCourtshouldnotproceedonthepremisesthatitisa

taintedone.Trueitis,thatthestandardofproofprescribedforthe

prosecutioninacriminaltrialisnotapplicableinassessingthedefence

evidence.However,ifonconsiderationoftheevidenceonrecord,the

testimonyofthedefencewitnessdoesnotappeartofitinwiththe

6

(2002)2SCC426)

5

(AIR1981SC911)

4

(1996)10SCC360

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :17: 2024:KER:65590

factsandcircumstancesofthecase,thesamehastoberejected.

b)InHimachalPradeshAdministrationv.ShriOmPrakash

7

,the

ApexCourtwhiledelineatingtheprinciplesthataretobebornein

mindbytheCourtwhileappreciatingtheevidenceofwitnesseswho

havedeposedagainsttheaccusedwhohasbeenchargedofmurder

hadthistosayinparagraphNo.7ofthejudgment,whichreadsas

under:

7.WhileitisnotthefunctionofthisCourttodeterminewhoother

thanthepersonwhohasbeenchargedwiththemurderhad

committedit,thelinewhichthedefenceadoptedwastoestablish

thatthewitnessesreferredtoabovehadaninterestinimplicating

theaccusedoratanyratetocreateuncertaintyanddoubtsufficient

togivethebenefittotheaccused.Itisnotbeyondthekenof

experiencedableandastutelawyerstoraisedoubtsand

uncertaintiesinrespectoftheprosecutionevidenceeitherduring

trialbycross-examinationorbythemarshallingofthatevidencein

themannerinwhichtheemphasisisplacedthereon.Butwhathas

tobeborneinmindisthatthepenumbraofuncertaintyinthe

evidencebeforeacourtisgenerallyduetothenatureandqualityof

thatevidence.Itmaybethewitnessesasarelyingorwherethey

arehonestandtruthful,theyarenotcertain.Itistherefore,difficult

toexpectascientificormathematicalexactitudewhiledealingwith

suchevidenceorarrivingatatrueconclusion.Becauseofthese

difficultiescorroborationissoughtwhereverpossibleandthemaxim

thattheaccusedshouldbegiventhebenefitofdoubtbecomes

7

[(1972)1SCC249]

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :18: 2024:KER:65590

pivotalintheprosecutionofoffenderswhichinotherwordsmeans

thattheprosecutionmustproveitscaseagainstanaccusedbeyond

reasonabledoubtbyasufficiencyofcredibleevidence.Thebenefit

ofdoubttowhichtheaccusedisentitledisreasonabledoubt—the

doubtwhichrationalthinkingmenwillreasonably,honestlyand

conscientiouslyentertainandnotthedoubtofatimidmindwhich

fightsshy—thoughunwittinglyitmaybe—orisafraidofthe

logicalconsequences,ifthatbenefitwasnotgiven.Orasonegreat

Judgesaiditis“notthedoubtofavacillatingmindthathasnotthe

moralcouragetodecidebutsheltersitselfinavainandidle

skepticism”.Itdoesnotmeanthattheevidencemustbesostrong

astoexcludeevenaremotepossibilitythattheaccusedcouldnot

havecommittedtheoffence.Ifthatweresothelawwouldfailto

protectsocietyasinnocasecansuchapossibilitybeexcluded.It

willgiveroomforfancifulconjecturesoruntenabledoubtsandwill

resultindeflectingthecourseofjusticeifnotthwartingit

altogether.Itisforthisreasonthephrasehasbeencriticized.Lord

Goddard,C.J,inRoxv.Kritz,saidthatwheninexplainingtothe

jurieswhattheprosecutionhastoestablishaJudgebeginstouse

thewords“reasonabledoubt”andtotrytoexplainwhatisa

reasonabledoubtandwhatisnot,heismuchmorelikelyto

confusethejurythanifhetellstheminplainlanguage.“Itisthe

dutyoftheprosecutiontosatisfyyouoftheprisoner'sguilt”.What

ineffectthisapproachamountstoisthatthegreatestpossiblecare

shouldbetakenbytheCourtinconvictinganaccusedwhois

presumedtobeinnocenttillthecontraryisclearlyestablished

whichburdenisalwaysintheaccusatorysystem,onthe

prosecution.Themerefactthatthereisonlyaremotepossibilityin

favouroftheaccusedisitselfsufficienttoestablishthecasebeyond

reasonabledoubt.Thisthenistheapproach.(emphasissupplied)

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :19: 2024:KER:65590

Withtheaboveguidingprinciplesinmind,weshallevaluatethe

evidence.

11.Causeofdeath:

ItisnotdisputedthatthedeathofMuhammedShafiwasacaseof

homicide.Ext.P15postmortemcertificateissuedbyPW18,theAssistant

SurgeonandForensicSurgeon,disclosesthat19antemorteminjurieswere

foundinthebodyofdeceasedMuhammedShafi.InjuryNos.1and2were

deepincisedpenetrativewoundsontherightsideandleftsideofthebackof

thechest.InjuryNo.3wasanincisedpenetrativewoundobliquelyplacedon

theleftsideofthefrontoftheabdomen.Thedoctorhasalsogivenevidence

thatdeathwasduetopenetratinginjuriessustainedtothechestand

abdomenandthattheywereindependentlysufficientintheordinarycourse

ofnaturetocausedeath.

12.Evidenceadducedbytheprosecutiontoprovetheincident:

a)PW1isthekeywitnessfortheprosecution.Hetestifiedbeforethe

courtthat,severaldayspriortotheincident,the1staccused(A1)

collidedhisjeepwithPW1'sSumocar,causingdamage.A1promised

torepairthevehiclebutdidnotdoanythingthereafter.On

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :20: 2024:KER:65590

08.06.2010,A1,accompaniedbyhisdaughter,arrivedatThannickal

Mukkujunction.PW1demandedthathisvehicleberepaired.In

response,A1statedthatthosewhohadinsultedhimshouldpublicly

apologize,andinvitedPW1tohishouseforfurtherdiscussion.Later

thatday,PW1,alongwithPW2andCW2,wenttoA1'shouseinan

autorickshaw.SincetheroadleadingtoA1’shousewasnotmotorable,

PW2andCW2stayedwiththeautorickshawatVettiyilmukku,while

PW1walkedtoA1'shouse.Uponringingthebell,A1’sdaughter(DW2)

informedhimthatA1wasnotathome.AsPW1wasleaving,A1threw

woodenblocksfromtheterraceofthehouse.PW1rantowards

AyyappanPillai’shousetoescape.Whileconversingwiththepeople

there,A1approachedfrombehindandstruckhimonthebackwitha

bamboostick.Ascuffleensued,causingPW1tofall.PW2,CW2,and

othersintervenedandseparatedthem.PW1theninstructedBijuand

Shihabtotaketheautorickshawbacktohishouse,whilehechoseto

walkhome.Itwasdrizzlingatthetime.Ashewalkedback,PW1

stoppedatthehouseofOmanamma(PW5)andconversedwithher.

Meanwhile,PW2informedPW1’syoungerbrothers-MohammedShafi

(thedeceased),Salim,andWahid-abouttheearlierincident.They

arrivedatPW1'shouseandthencametomeethimatOmanamma’s

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :21: 2024:KER:65590

house.PW5advisedthemnottoescalatethesituationandsuggested

theygotothepolicestationtolodgeacomplaint.Followingher

advice,PW1,Biju,andShihabproceededtothePoliceStationinan

autorickshawdrivenbyShafi,headinginthedirectionofThannickal

Mukku.A1’sshopislocatedatthewesterncornerofVettiyilMukku.As

theyreachedVettiyilMukkuandcontinuedwestward,theyobserveda

jeepparkedonthesideoftheroadfacingsouth,withtheengine

runningandheadlightson.Uponseeingtheirautorickshaw,thejeep

wasdriventowardsthemrecklessly,forcingtheautorickshawto

swerveintothecourtyardofPachanPillai'shouse.A1jumpedoutof

thejeepholdingaknife,followedbyBabu(A2),Santhosh(A3),and

Biju,allarmedwithweapons.A1urgedtheotherstokill.PW1andthe

othersfledindifferentdirections.ShafiranbutwaschasedbyA1and

theothers.A2andA4restrainedShafiwhileA1drewaknifeand

stabbedhiminthelowerabdomen.Whenaskedspecificallywhether

theweaponwasadaggeroraknife,thewitnessconfirmeditwasa

knife.A3,Santhosh,inflictedstabwoundsonShafi’sbackandchest.

AsShafifell,additionalstabwoundswereinflictedonhiskneeand

back,causinghisintestinestoprotrudefromtheabdominalwound.

PW1andtheothershidbehindacoconuttree,witnessingtheassault

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :22: 2024:KER:65590

bythelightfromastreetlampandatubelightfromPachanPillai's

house.Aftertheattack,A1fledthesceneinhisjeep,leavingbehind

hisdhoti,whichhadcomeoffduringthealtercation.Shafiwas

immediatelytransportedtoMathaHospitalinthesameautorickshaw.

ThedoctoratMathaHospitalsuggestedthattheinjuredbetransferred

toSankersHospital.Anambulancewassummoned,andShafiwas

takentoSankersHospital,wherehewaspronounceddead.Hisbody

wassubsequentlytakentotheDistrictHospitalinKollam.PW1then

wenttothePoliceStationandlodgedExt.P1statement,onthebasis

ofwhichthecrimewasregistered.Duringcross-examination,he

statedthathedidnotstatebeforethepolicethattheincidenthad

takenplaceontheroad,infrontofthehouseofPachanPillai.He

statedthathehadnotchangedtheplaceofoccurrencefrominfront

oftheroadtothecourtyardofthehouseofPillai.Hestatedthathe

hadnotlodgedanycomplaintbeforethepoliceforassaultbyA1.He

alsodidnotsecureanytreatmentforthesame.Hestatedthathe

witnessedtheincidentbyhidingbehindacoconutpalm.Hestated

thattheinjuredwasexaminedbyDr.ShajiatMathaHospital,where

hewasinitiallytaken.ThedetailswereprovidedbyPW1.Hedenied

thathehadattackedA1whenhehadcometoDevarajan’sshopwith

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :23: 2024:KER:65590

hisdaughter.Ext.D2contradictionwasmarked,wherein,PW1denied

thathehadstatedtoA1thatitwouldnotbepropertohavea

conversationthereandsaidhewouldcometothehouseofA1laterin

theevening.HedeniedthathehadstabbedA1’sdog.Hedeniedthat

PW1,hisbrothers,andhisemployeesweretheactualaggressors.He

deniedthathehadchangedtheplaceofoccurrencetosubstantiate

thattherewaslightneartheplacewheretheincidenthadoccurred.

HedeniedthathehadfailedtostateinExt.P1thattheentireincident

hadtakenplaceinthecourtyardofthehouseofPachanPillai.He

statedthatA1’shouseisjust100metersawayfromOmanaAmma’s

House.Hedeniedthathehadnotgivenastatementtothepolicethat

heandothershadhiddenbehindthejeepandhadwitnessedthe

incident.Heassertedincross-examinationthattheincidenthad

happenedinthecourtyardofthehouseofPillai.Hefurtherstatedin

cross-examinationthathehadinitiallytakentheinjuredtothehospital

andthentothePoliceStation.Accordingtohim,Shafiwaslyingonhis

lap,whilehewasbeingtakentothehospital.Whenhewasaskedas

totheabsenceofbloodinhisclothesandtheabsenceofany

referenceofbloodeitheronhisbodyoronhisclothesintheFI

Statement,hepleadedignorance.Hedeniedthesuggestionofthe

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :24: 2024:KER:65590

defencethathewasnotpresentatthesceneofthecrime.The

defencewasabletobringoutD1toD4contradictions,fromthe

evidencetenderedbyPW1.

b)Shibu@ShihabudeenistheAutoDriverofPW1.Hestatedthaton

10.06.2010,atabout10:30p.m.,hewenttoPW1’sBakerytosettle

thepaymentandtoparkthevehicle.HewastoldbyPW1thatthey

neededtogotothehouseofKunjumon(A1),togetsomepayment.

Healsospokeaboutthecollisionbetweenthevehicles.Healongwith

PW1,Biju(PW2),wenttothehouseofA1intheautorickshaw.The

vehiclewasparkedbytheroadsideandPW1walkedtothehouseof

A1.Aftersometime,hesawPW1runningtowardshimandA1

followingclosebehindwithastickinhishand.Thereoccurreda

skirmishinfrontofthehousesituatedontheroadside.They

intervenedandseparatedthem.Alotofpeopleassembledatthespot.

Later,PW1askedhimtoparkthevehicleathishouse.Hewentto

PW1'shouse,calledShafi,andinformedhimabouttheincident.Shafi,

Salim,andWahidimmediatelycametothehouseofPW1inanAuto.

TheyallwenttomeetPW1,whowasstandingwithOmanaAmma,

whotoldthemtogoandlodgeacomplaintbeforethePoliceStation.

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :25: 2024:KER:65590

IntheAutodrivenbyShafi,PW1,PW2,SharafandAshrafproceeded

tothePoliceStation.WhentheyturnedtowardsthewestatVettiyill

Mukku,thejeepdrivenbyA1cameatagreatspeedandcorneredthe

autorickshaw.Therewerefourpersonsinsidethejeep,andA1andA3

gotoutinitially.ThereoccurredabrawlbetweenShafiononeside,

andA1andA3ontheotherside.Immediately,theotherscameoutof

thejeep.Theywerearmedwithknives.Onseeingtheaggressors,

PW2andotherstooktotheirheelsandhidthemselves.Then,A3

inflictedastabinjuryonShafi.Toapointedquestionputbythe

ProsecutorastowhetherA1hadstabbedShafi,thewitnessanswered

intheaffirmative.However,headdedthathedidnotwitness,A1

inflictinganyinjuryonthedeceased.Hestatedthattheintestineof

Shafiprotrudedoutside,consequenttothestabinjuryinflictedonthe

abdomen.However,heheardthedeceasedcryingoutthathewas

stabbedbyA1.Hestatedthattherewasapresenceoflightinthe

area,enablinghimtowitnesstheincident.Aftertheincident,the

accusedleftinthejeep.TheyliftedShafiandtookhimtoMatha

HospitalinitiallyandthentoSankar’sHospital.Hestatedthatthere

wasbloodonhisclothes,whichwasentrustedtothepolice.He

identifiedMOs1and2knives,allegedlyusedbyA1andA3for

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :26: 2024:KER:65590

inflictingtheinjuries.HestatedthatthelargeramongMO1andMO2

wasusedbyA3.HealsoidentifiedMO4DhotiandMO5Kailywornby

A1atthetimeoftheincident.Incross-examination,hespokeabout

thepreviousincident,involvingthecollisionofvehiclesofA1andPW1.

Itwasbroughtoutincross-examinationthatinhispreviousstatement

topolice,henevermentionedthatShafi,afterreceivingthestab

injury,yelledthatA1hadstabbedhim.HedeniedthatPW1andothers

hadgonetothehouseofA1,lateinthenight,demandingmoneyand

that,anincidenthadoccurredinandaroundthehouseofA1,andin

themeleethatfollowed,someinjurywassustainedbyShafi.The

defencewasabletobringoutD5toD9contradictionsintheevidence

tenderedbyPW2.D7toD9contradictionsrefertotheearlier

statementsgivenbythewitnesstothepolice,wherein,hementioned

theaggressivestandtakenbyPW1andShafi,consequenttothe

motoraccident.However,hedeniedtheearlierstatements.

c)PW3Kareemkutty,isanotherwitnesscitedbytheprosecutiontoprove

theincident.Hestatedthathehadwitnessedtheincidentthattook

placeat10:30p.m.,on10.06.2010.Accordingtohim,theincident

tookplaceinthecourtyardofthehouse,ownedbyPillai.Accordingto

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :27: 2024:KER:65590

him,Pillai’shouseissituatedonthewesternsideofA1’sshop.He

cametomeetA1,totakeonrenttheconcretemixerownedbyA1.

Earlierintheday,hehadgonetomeetA1.However,A1’swifetold

himthathehadgoneoutwithhisdaughter.Atabout10:00p.m.on

thesameday,heagainwenttomeetA1.Hefoundthatajeepwas

parkedonthesideoftheroad,onthesouthernsideoftheshop.He

alsofoundaccusedNos.1to4comingoutfromthedirectionof

Kunjumon’shouse.A1andA3hadweaponsintheirhand.Theywere

loudlyblurtingoutabusivewords.Seeingtheminabadmood,PW3

chosenottorequesttheconcretemixer.Whilehewasstandingthere,

anautorickshawcamefromthesouthtowardsthenorth,anditturned

towardsthewestatVettiyilMukku.Thejeep,whichwasparkedonthe

oppositeside,wasdrivenparalleltotheauto,andtheautowasforced

toturnleftintothecourtyardofthepropertyofPillai.Thepeoplewho

wereinsidetheAutogotoutinitially.Immediately,thepeoplewho

wereinsidethejeepjumpedout.TheyrestrainedonepersonandA1

inflictedastabwithapointedweaponontheleftsideoftheabdomen.

TheinjuredyelledthatKunjumonhadstabbedhim.WhenShafibent

down,A3inflictedmultiplestabinjuriesonthebackside.Theother

twopersonswhowerewiththeassailantsphysicallyattackedShafi,

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :28: 2024:KER:65590

whowaslyingontheground.Afterinflictinginjuries,theaccusedgot

intothejeepandleftthespot.Thewitnesswentneartheinjuredand

foundthatitwasShafi.Hisbrotherscameandtookhimtothe

hospital.Hestatedthathewashavingacquaintancewithallthe

accused.Hestatedthatthepolicehadarrivedatthespotabout10to

20minutesaftertheincident.Hestatedthathehaddisclosedthe

incidenttothepoliceonlyon12.06.2010,thoughheisarelativeof

PW1.Accordingtohim,hehadthemobilephonenumberofA1.He

statedthathehadstoodonthesouthernsideoftheshoproomofA1.

Toapointedquestionthathewouldnotbeinapositiontowitnessthe

incidentwhilestandinginthatplace,hedeniedthesame.Healso

deniedthesuggestionthathewasstatingfalsehood,withoutbeing

presentatthetimeandplace.Severalmaterialomissionswere

broughtoutwhilecross-examiningthewitness,includingthefactthat

thejeepandtheautohadtravelledparalleltoeachother,thatthe

occupantsinsidetheautorickshawhadjumpedoutfirst,thatthe

smalleramongtheweaponswereinthehandsofA1,andthatinjured

hadcalledoutthenameofA1,aftersustainingtheinjury.The

improbabilityofthewitness,comingtothehouseofA1at10:00p.m.,

particularlywhenhehadhismobilenumberandhisactofhiding

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :29: 2024:KER:65590

behindtheshopofA1toenablehimtowitnesstheincident,thelong

delayinfurnishingthestatementtothepolice,despitebeinganear

relativeofthedeceasedwereallbroughtoutbythedefencewhile

cross-examiningthewitness.ThelearnedSessionsJudgechoseto

rejecthisevidenceashewasfoundtobeuntrustworthy.

d)PW4isoneAbdulSalim,theyoungerbrotherofPW1.Heisan

autorickshawdriver.Hestatedthaton07.06.2010,atabout3:30p.m.,

hewitnessedtheincidentwherein,thejeepofthe1staccuseddashed

ontotherightbumperandindicatorlightoftheSumoCar,ownedby

PW1.HestatedthatthereoccurredawordyaltercationbetweenPW1

andA1.On08.06.2010,whilethewitnesswasintheAutorichaw

Stand,CW2BijuaskedA1,whyhewasnotcarryingouttherepair

works.A1statedtohimthatthepersonswhoabusedhimwereto

apologize,hewouldconsiderthesame.Atthattime,Shafiwasthere.

ShafiwentandtalkedtoA1,andthisledtoanaltercation.On

10.06.2010,atabout8:30p.m.,afterparkinghisvehicle,hewentto

theshopofPW1.A1alongwithhisdaughtercametotheadjacent

shop.WhenPW1againaskedwhenthevehiclewouldberepaired,A1

invitedhimtohishouse.Laterintheevening,ShafialongwithWahid,

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :30: 2024:KER:65590

cametohishouseandtoldhimthatsomeincidenttookplacebetween

PW1andA1,andrequestedthathealsocomealong.Theywentto

thehouseofPW1andfoundthatCW2andPW2werethere.Inthe

sameautorickshaw,theyallwenttowardstheroadandfoundPW1

talkingtoOmanaAmma.Allofthemgotdown.OmanaAmmathen

toldthemtogotothepoliceandlodgeacomplaint.PW4andWahid

gotdownfromthevehicle,andPW1,Shafi,PW2,andCW2proceeded

tothePoliceStation.Shafiwasdrivingthevehicle.Whilethewitness

andWahidwereproceedingtothehouseofPW1,theyheardthe

soundofanacceleratingjeepandtheyranback.Thentheyheard

ShafiscreamingthathewasstabbedbyA1.Theaccusedgotintothe

jeepanddroveoff.A1wasfounddrivingthejeep.PW4pushedthe

auto,whichwaslyingonthepropertyofPillaitotheroad.Bythat

time,PW1andShibulifteduptheinjuredandlaidhimonthe

autorickshaw.Thewitnessdrovetheautorickshawandtookthe

injuredtotheMathaHospital.Sincetherewasnofacilitytoprovide

oxygen,thebodywasshiftedtoanambulanceanditwasrushedto

Sankar’sHospital,wheretheDoctorexaminedandpronouncedthe

injureddead.Hestatedthathehadseenalltheaccusedimmediately

aftertheincidentandthathehadpreviousacquaintancewithallof

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :31: 2024:KER:65590

them.Healsospokeaboutthepresenceoflight,whichemanatedfrom

thetubelightplacedinfrontofPillai’shouse.Incross-examination,

PW4statedthathehadfivebrothers,outofwhichfourwerepresent

inandaroundtheplacewheretheincidenthadtakenplace.He

admittedthathehadgiventhestatementtothepoliceonlyabout3-4

daysaftertheincident.Whenhewasaskedwhyhehadnotstatedto

thepolicethathehadoccasionedtowitnesstheincident,hehadno

answertooffer.Toapointedquestionofwhethertherewasthe

presenceofbloodinandaroundthesceneofthecrime,hestatedthat

theremighthavebeenthepresenceofblood.Numerousomissions

werebroughtoutfromhisevidenceaswell.Toapointedquestionthat

thebrothersledbyPW1andtheiremployees,hadattemptedtoattack

A1andthatinthemeleethatfollowed,theinjurywassustainedby

Shafi,thewitnessansweredinthenegative.Hestatedthattherewas

nobloodinhisclothesandthathewasdrivingtheautorickshaw

ownedbyShafi.

e)PW5isOmanaAmma.Shewasexaminedtoprovethatsheadvised

PW1andShafitogotothePoliceStationandlodgeacomplaint,

insteadoftakingrevengeonA1forassaultingPW1.Ext-D11

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :32: 2024:KER:65590

contradictionwasbroughtoutinherevidencetotheeffectthat,inher

previousstatement,shestatedthatthebrothersofPW1wereinan

agitatedstate.Shedeniedthesame.

f)PW6Sreedharanwasexaminedtoprovethattherewasawordy

altercationbetweenShafiandA1atThannickalMukkuJunctionand

thattheywereseparatedbypeoplewhowerepresentthere,including

PW6.

g)PW7istheattestertotheinquest,andPW8istheattestertoP5

Mahazar,preparedatthetimeoftheseizureofthejeepandshirt.In

cross-examination,itwasbroughtoutthatPW8wasarelativeofA1.

PW9istheattestertothescenemahazar.PW10istheattestertoP8

Mahazarpreparedatthetimeoftheseizureofsandals,twobuttons,

twoKailys,andsomesandfromthepropertyofPillai.PW11isthe

attestertoP9MahazarpreparedatthetimeofseizureofMO2knife,

shirt,andKaily,usedandwornbyA3,atthetimeofoccurrence.He

statedthathewasresidingabouttwokilometersaway,andwhenhe

reachedthere,about25peoplehadalreadyassembledatthespot.He

wasaskedtoputinasignatureanddulyobliged.

h)PW12isoneSomarajanPillai,whoisthesonofPachanPillai.He

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :33: 2024:KER:65590

statedthathewasawareoftheincidentwhichtookplaceinfrontof

hishouse.However,heassertedthattheincidenttookplaceonthe

roadandnotinthecourtyardofhishouse.Accordingtohim,the

policeknockedonhisdoorat11.30andhewasaskedtosignona

blankpaper.Hestatedthatsomesandals,buttonsandamobilephone

wasfoundinfrontofhishouseandthepoliceseizedthesame.Hedid

notsupporttheprosecutionandhencepermissionwassoughttoput

leadingquestionswhichwasallowedbythecourt.Hehoweverstated

thatthereisnotubelightinfrontofhishouse.Hestatedthata

personstandingonthesouthernsideofA1’sshopwillnotbeableto

seethehappeningsinthenortherncourtyardofhishouse.Healso

statedthatthereisafenceontheeasternsideandtreeshavebeen

plantedthere.

i)PW13istheVillageofficerwhopreparedExhibitP10plan.Shestated

thatsincetherewasnomentionofelectricpostinthemahazar

preparedbytheInvestigatingofficer,shedidnotnotethesameinthe

plan.

j)PW14istheattestortoExhibitP11recoverymahazarpreparedatthe

timeofseizureofMO1knifeattheinstanceofA1.Hestatedthathe

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :34: 2024:KER:65590

isanautodriverbyprofessionandsawanassemblyofpersons

standingnearatransformer.Hesawapersontakingoutaknifeand

statedthatthesaidpersonwasA1.Incross-examination,hestated

thatheisresidingabout22kmawayfromtheplacefromwhichthe

weaponwasrecovered.

k)PW16wasexaminedtoprovethattherewasnodisruptionof

electricitysupplyon10.6.2010inandaround10.30p.m.onthesaid

dayintheVettiyilMukkuArea.Hestatedthattheletterhandedoverto

theinvestigatingofficerwaspreparedafterperusingthecomplaint

register,whichalonewasavailable.Hedidnothaveanyoccasionto

perusetherelevantregistersmaintainedattheKundaraSubStation.

l)PW19istheSubInspectorofPolice,AnchallummooduPoliceStation,

whoregisteredExhibitP19FIRincrimeNo612/2010basedon

informationfurnishedbyPW1.HeadmittedthatintheFIstatement,

itwasstatedbyPW1thattheincidenthadtakenplaceontheroadin

frontofthehouseofPillai.Severalomissionswhichwerebroughtout

fromthestatementofPW1wereputtohim.HestatedthatPW1did

notstatetohimthatanyincidenthadtakenplaceinthecourtyardof

thehouseofPillai.HealsostatedthatPW1inhisinitialstatementdid

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :35: 2024:KER:65590

notmentionthatthedeceasedhadcriedoutthatA1hadstabbedhim.

m)TheinvestigatingofficerwasexaminedasPW22.Hedetailedthe

stepstakenbyhimduringtheinvestigationwhichculminatedinthe

filingofthefinalreport.Hestatedthatseparatemahazarswere

preparedoftheplacewhereinthefirstincidenttookplaceinfrontof

theshopofAyyappanPillaiandalsooftheplacewhereinjurieswere

inflictedbytheaccusedonShafi.On12.06.2010,hesubmitteda

reportbeforethejurisdictionalCourtfurnishingthenamesofthe

accusedinvolvedinthecrime.Healsoseizedthematerialobjects

whichwerefoundatthesceneofthecrime.A1wasarrestedon

12.06.2010andbasedonthedisclosurestatementfurnishedbyhim,

theJeepusedbyhimtoreachthesceneofthecrimeandalsothe

shirtwornbyhimwhichwaskeptintheJeep,wereseizedfromthe

parkingareaatAnchallumoodu.Onthesamedayitself,theshirtand

kailywornbytheA2wereseizedfromhishome.On13.06.2010,

basedontheconfessionalstatementgivenbyA3,MO2knifewas

seizedfromanalmirahinsidehisresidentialhome.Heseizedthe

dhotiwornbyPW2ShihabudeenonthestrengthofaMahazar

preparedon16.6.2010asitwaswornbyhimatthetimeofshifting

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :36: 2024:KER:65590

thedeceasedtothehospital.ThecustodyofA1wasagainobtainedon

24.06.2010andbasedonthestatementfurnishedbyhim,MO1knife

wasseizedinthepresenceofwitnesseson25.06.2010.Inhis

cross-examination,hestatedthataspertheFIstatement,theincident

hadtakenplaceontheroad.ThoughA1wasarrestedon12.06.2010,

hispolicecustodywasagainsoughton24.6.2010anditwaswhilein

custodythatthedisclosurestatementleadingtotherecoveryofMO1

weaponwasmadeconsequenttowhichrecoverywaseffectedon

24.06.2010.Headmittedthattherelevantportionofthedisclosure

madebytheaccusedhasnotbeenextractedassuchinthemahazar.

Hestatedthathehadnotperusedthereportoftheserologistbefore

submittingthefinalreportbeforethecourt.Themobilethatwas

seizedfromtheplaceofoccurrenceisthatofA1accordingtohim.

However,thecalldetailswerenotperusedtofixtheidentity.Tothe

questionputbythedefensethattheincidenthadoccurrednearthe

shopofA1inthedeadofnightwhenPW1andhisbrotherswentthere

todemandmoney,PW22respondedbysayingthatnosuchincident

hadoccurred.Healsodeniedthatthetruegenesisoftheincidentwas

suppressedbytheprosecution.Thecontradictionsandomissions

broughtoutfromtheevidenceofwitnesseswereputtothe

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :37: 2024:KER:65590

investigatingofficer.HewasalsoaskedwhythedoctorsattheMatha

HospitalandSanker’sHospital,whohadseentheinjuredimmediately

aftertheincidentwerenotcitedasawitnessorexamined.

13.Thecaseofthedefencepleadedbythe1staccusedduringhis

examinationunderS.313(1)(b)ofCrPCwasasunder:

a)A1statedthathewasfalselyimplicatedinthecase.Accordingtohim,

hetookhisdaughtertomeetthedoctorandwhenhereturnedgot

downatDevarajan’sshoptobuybread.PW1andhishenchmencame

towardshimandtookoutthekeyofhisbikeandbehavedinahostile

mannertowardshim.Thisisconsequenceofanincidentinvolvingthe

collisionofvehiclesofPW1andA1.PW1alsoabusedhimandpulled

outhisdhoti.LocalpeopleintervenedandhelpedA1toleavethearea.

Hewentbackhome.Later,PW1andseveralotherscametohishome

lateinthenightandrangthebell.Theystabbedthedogand

committedmischiefthere.TheneighborsgottogetherandaskedPW1

andotherstoleave.Later,hisfamilymemberspersuadedA2tocome

withhimtolodgeacomplaintbeforethePolice.WhenA2attemptedto

gowithA1,hewasassaultedbyagroupofpersonswhocameinan

auto.A1wenttothepolicestationandlodgedhiscomplaint.Hewas

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :38: 2024:KER:65590

askedtogiveawrittencomplaint.Hethenrequestedalocal

PanchayathMember(DW3)tolodgethecomplaintbeforethepolice.

Theywereadvisedtogotothehospital.Whiletheywereleaving,the

policementoldhimthatsomeissuehadhappenedandaskedhimtobe

atthepolicestationitself.Sincehewastired,hedozedoff.Atabout

12-1.00amhewaswokenupanditwasthenthatheheardaboutthe

incident.

b)A2statedthathewasanautodriver.On10.6.2010,whilehewasat

homelateintheevening,DW2Anila,thedaughterofA1cametohis

houseandrequestedhisassistancetogowithherfathertothepolice

stationtolodgeacomplaint.Whiletheywereontheirwaytothe

stationintheJeep,theirvehiclewasinterceptedbyanauto,and

severalpeoplejumpedoutwithweapons.Anotherautocamefrom

behind.Sensingdangerhetooktohisheels.Hestatedthathehad

nothingtodowiththemurderofShafi.

c)A3reiteratedthatheisinnocent.

14.Evidenceadducedbythedefence:

a)Smt.Ajitha,w/oAnilKumar,wasexaminedasDW1.Shestatedthat

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :39: 2024:KER:65590

Anilaisherdaughter.A2Chandrababuisrelatedtoher.On10.6.2010,

whenshereachedhome,shefoundthatherdaughterwashavinga

fever.A1tookhisdaughtertoMangalodayamHospitaltogetmedicine.

Whentheyreturnedbackhome,herhusbandanddaughtertoldher

thathewasbeatenupbyPW1andhisbrotherswhentheywentto

ThannickalMukkuJunctiontobuybread.Whileso,someoneknocked

onthedoorofherhomeandstartedabusingA1.Theyclosedthedoor

andstayedtogether.Whentheylookedoutthroughtheventilator,she

foundPW1standingoutsidebrandishingaknife.Someotherswere

standingwithhimarmedwithsticksandknives.ShestatedthatMO2

knifewasheldbyPW1.Theirdogbarkedattheintrudersandlatershe

heardherdogscreamandthenhisbarkingstopped.Theythreatened

themembersofthefamilyandthenwentback.Herhusbandhid

himselfunderthebed.SherequestedA1tocallA2,whowasresiding

nearbysothattheycouldgotothepolicestationandlodgea

complaint.DW1andherdaughterwenttoA2’shouseandrequested

hisassistance.A2refusedtocome.However,hisailingmotherasked

himtohelpDW1and2.A2alongwithA1thenwentouttolodgea

complaintbeforethepolice.Later,thepolicecameandinformedthat

someincidenthadhappened.DW1wenttothepolicestationwith

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :40: 2024:KER:65590

Jayakumarandfoundthatherhusbandwasthereatthestation.

b)DW2isAnila,thedaughterofDW1andA1.Shereiteratedwhatwas

spokentobyDW1.Shestatedthatshewassickon10.6.2010andafter

seeingthedoctorwenttobuybread.PW1and6othersapproached

themandtookoutthekeyofherfather’sscooter.Theysnatchedhis

dhotiaswell.PW1tookapeduncleandattackedherfatherwiththe

same.Shewas16yearsoldthenandwasfrightenedbythemeleethat

tookplacethere.Peoplewhohadassembledtheregotthekeyback

fromAshrafandhandeditback.Theaboveincidentoccurredat9:00

am.Theywentbackhomethereafter.Atabout9:30/9:45p.m.,they

heardacommotionoutside.Atablewaspushedagainstthefrontdoor

asanadditionalsafetymeasure.Whenherfatherlookedoutside

throughtheventilator,Asharafwasfoundstandingoutsidewithafew

othersandtheywereallarmedwithweapons.Theirdogstopped

barkingallofasudden.Later,thearmedassailantslefttheplace.When

theycameout,shefoundthatthedogwaslyingdeadoutside.DW1

toldherfatherthattheassailantshaddestroyedthemixermachine.

ShewenttotheneighboringhouseofA2topersuadehimtogowith

A1tothepolicestation.Whileso,Biju,anemployeeofA1,cameand

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :41: 2024:KER:65590

theyallwenttothepolicestationtolodgethecomplaint.Thewitness

wascross-examinedindetailbythedefence.

c)DW3wasthenamemberoftheThrikkaruvaGramaPanchayath.He

gaveevidencethaton10.6.2010,A1andotherscametohishouseand

soughthisassistancetolodgeacomplaintbeforethePolice.Hewent

withthemandassuggestedbytheofficer,awrittencomplaintwas

submitted.Hewascross-examinedanditwasbroughtoutthathewas

havinglongacquaintancewithA1.

d)DW4RajendraPrasad,isanimmediateneigbourofA1.Hestatedthat

on10.06.2010,whilehewashavingdinner,heheardloudexhortations

andadogbarkingfromthehouseofA1.Whenhewenttoenquire,he

foundthatPW1wasstandingoutsideA1’shouseafterstabbingA1’s

dogandkillingtheanimal.HeintervenedandpersuadedPW1and

otherstoleavebyassuringthattheissuescouldbesettledthenext

day.Thereafter,A1cameoutfromhishouse.DW1wenttothehouse

ofA2andhealongwithA1wenttothepolicestationtolodgethe

complaint.WhentheycameneartothehouseofAyyappanPillai,near

tothejunction,Ashrafandhisbrotherswerepresentthere.Oneyoung

manwhowaswithPW1calledShafi,whowasstandingnearby.Anil

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :42: 2024:KER:65590

wenttopickuphisJeepwhichwasparkednearby.Bythattime,Shafi

andfourotherscamethereinanautorickshawandblockedtheJeep.

A1tookhisvehicleforwardandpushedasidetheAutowiththeJeep

anddroveofftowardthewest.Afightensuedbetweenbothfactions

thereafter.Itwasdrizzlingthenandtherewasnoelectricitysupplyin

thearea.

e)DW5AnilKumarisanotherneighborofA1whospokeinthesamelines

asDW4.

15.Evaluationoftheevidence:

a)Onanevaluationoftheentireevidence,aswellasthecourtcharge,it

canbeseenthattheprosecutionisattemptingtobringhomethe

chargeagainstaccusedNos.1to3bythefollowingevidence:

i)The1staccusedhadamotivetodoawaywithPW1andthe

deceasedastheydemandedmoneyforrepairingthecarownedby

PW1,andowingtotheimpertinentactofPW1ingoingtothe

homeofA1,demandingmoney.

ii)AnincidenthadtakenplaceinfrontofthehouseofSri.Ayyappan

Pillai,wherein,the1staccusedhadchasedPW1andattackedhim

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :43: 2024:KER:65590

withabamboostick,andpushedhimdowntothesit-out,as

spokentobyPW1andPW2.

iii)The2ndincidentwhichtookplaceinfrontofthehouseofSri.

Pillai,whenthe1staccusedcorneredtheautorickshawdrivenby

Shafi,wherein,PW1,PW2,andCW2weretravelling,andafter

chasingShafi,whotriedtoescapeinflictedmultiplestabinjurieson

hisabdomenandthebackofhischest.

b)Theversionofthedefenceisthatthetruefactsofthecasehavenot

beenplacedbeforetheCourt.Thetenorofevidencetenderedbythe

defencebyexaminingthewifeanddaughterofA1andtwoofhis

daughtersisthat,afterabout10:00p.m.,PW1Ashrafandhis

employeesarmedwithknivesandsticks,hadcometothehouseofA1,

killedhisdogandhadcreatedafrighteningsituationoutsidehis

house.SomeconstructionequipmentofA1wasalsodestroyed.While

A1andhisbrotherwereonthewaytolodgeacomplaintbeforethe

police,theywereattackedbyShafiandothers,andinthemeleethat

followed,aninjurywassustainedbyShafi.Theycontendthatno

incidentasallegedhadtakenplaceinfrontofthehouseofPillai,and

accordingtothem,PW1wasnowherepresentatthesceneofthe

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :44: 2024:KER:65590

crimeandhewasgivingafalseversionbeforetheCourt.

c)Nowthequestioniswhethertheevidenceletinbytheprosecutioncan

bereliedupontoenteruponafindingofguiltagainsttheaccused.

d)WhileevaluatingtheevidenceofPW1,itcanbeseenthataspecific

caseisthatasrequestedbyA1,healongwithhisemployeeshadgone

tothehouseofA1afterclosinghisshop.Hesaysthathewasattacked

byA1,whilehewasstandinginfrontofAyyappanPillai’shouse.

However,thefactremainsthathehadnotlodgedacomplaintbefore

thepolice,nordidheseekanytreatmentfromtheDoctor.Hethen

statesthathedidnotreturnbacktogetherwithPW2andBijuinhis

autorickshaw,evenaftertheincident,butdecidedtowalkback

despitethefactthatitwasdrizzlingthen.ItwasShibu,whohadcalled

hisbrothers-Shafi,Wahid&Salim,andtheyhadpromptlycomeafter

hearingtheassaultupontheirelderbrotherbyA1.Assuggestedby

PW5OmannaAmma,PW1decidedtolodgeacomplaintbeforethe

police,forwhichheenteredtheautorickshawdrivenbyShafiand

proceededtothePoliceStationalongwithPW2ShihabandCW2Biju.

WhiletheywereproceedingtowardsThannickalMukkuandwhenthey

reachedinfrontofthehouseofPillai,A1alongwiththerestofthe

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :45: 2024:KER:65590

accusedcameinajeep,corneredtheautorickshaw,jumpedoutofthe

jeepandchasedShafi,andafterrestraininghim,stabbedhimwith

MO1andMO2knives.Fromaperusaloftheevidence,itdoesnot

standtoreasonwhyA1andotherstargetedShafiinsteadofPW1,with

whomhewashavingagrievance.Ofcourse,PW2andPW4had

spokenaboutanincidentthattookplaceon08.06.2010,between

ShafiandA1.Furthermore,theresidenceofOmanaAmmaissituated

justonthesouthernsideoftheshopofA1,andfromtheevidenceof

PW4,itisevidentthathehadheardthesoundofanacceleratingjeep

andhehadrushedback,andalsoheardShaficryingout.Itiscurious

astowhyPW1,hisemployees,andhisbrothersdidnotintervene

whenalessernumberofindividualscorneredtheirownbrotherand

inflictedstabinjuries.IftheversionofPW1istobebelieved,heand

hisemployeeslefthisyoungerbrotherandranofftoaplaceabout50

metersawayandhidbehindacoconutpalmtoenablethemtoseethe

incident.

e)ThenextistheevidenceofPW2.Hestatedaboutthe1stincident

whichtookplaceinfrontoftheshopofAyyappanPillai,andthe2nd

incidentwhichtookplaceinfrontofthehouseofPillai.Hisversionis

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :46: 2024:KER:65590

similartothatofPW1,exceptforthefactthathestatedthathehad

notseenA1stabShafiinhisabdomen.However,hestatedthatShafi

hadcriedoutthatA1hadstabbedhim.However,during

cross-examination,itwasbroughtoutthathehadnosuchcasewhen

hewasquestionedbythePolice.WhenhestatesthatPW1wasalso

withhimandthattheyhadtogethertransportedthedeceasedtothe

hospital,itcanonlybededucedthathewasalsonotspeakingthe

truthwithregardtothemostvitalpartoftheincident.Ofcourse,the

presenceofbloodinhisclothesmayleadtotheconclusionthathe

wasinstrumentalinshiftingtheinjuredtothehospital,andnothing

further.

f)PW4isthebrotherofPW1andthedeceased.Hedidnotwitnessthe

incidentbutheheardthecryofthedeceasedthathewasstabbedby

A1.Hestatedthatwhenhereachedtheplaceofoccurrence,hefound

theaccusedescapinginaJeep.PW1andPW2werefoundliftingShafi

andputtinghimintotheautorickshaw,whichwasparkednearby.

However,incross-examination,itwasbroughtoutthathehadno

occasiontostatebeforethepolicethatShafihadcriedoutthename

ofA1.HisspeakingaboutthepresenceofA1andofA1assistinginthe

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :47: 2024:KER:65590

transportationofthedeceasedintotheautorickshawwouldclearly

disclosethathewaslyingaboutamaterialpartoftheincident.

g)Themostimportantquestionisonwhatbasisdidtheprosecutionfix

theplaceofoccurrenceasthecourtyardofthehouseofPillai.Ifthe

versionoftheprosecutionwitnessesisbelievedShafiwasstabbed

whenhehadgottenoutoftheautoalongwithPW1,2,andCW2Biju.

TheFIRandtheRemandApplicationindicatethatthestabinjurywas

inflictedontheroadinfrontofPachanPillai'sresidence.However,in

thepolicecharge,aswellasinSceneMahazar,theincidentisstatedto

haveoccurredonthenortheasterncorneroftheresidentialhomeof

PachanPillai,thefatherofPW12.ThelearnedSessionsJudgebelieved

theprosecutionversionandcametotheconclusionthatthe

prosecutionsuccessfullyprovedthatthedeceasedwaswrongfully

restrainedandthereafter,stabinjurieswereinflictedinfrontofthe

courtyardoftheresidenceofPachanPillaiandnotedasitemNo.10in

thesceneplan.Wehavedifficultyinacceptingthesaidcontention,

duetoaveryseriousflawintheprosecutioncase.Aperusalofthe

Postmortemreportwouldrevealthatthedeceasedhadsustainedtwo

incisedpenetratingwoundsonhisbackandanincisedpenetrating

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :48: 2024:KER:65590

woundontheleftsideofhisabdomen.Itisalsostatedthataloopof

theintestinewasprotrudingthroughthewound.PW1andPW2had

alsostatedthattheintestineofthedeceasedhadprotrudedoutwhen

thefirststabinjurywasinflicted.Theinjuredhadfallenontheground

accordingtothewitnessesandPW1&PW2hadliftedhimup.

However,theinvestigatingofficerhasnotnotedthepresenceofblood,

inoraroundtheallegedsceneofcrime.Ofcourse,intheevidenceof

PW1andthescene-mahazar,itiscasuallymentionedthattherewas

drizzleonthepreviousday.If,infact,theinjurywasinflictedwithin

thecompoundoftheproperty,orontheroadinfront,thepresenceof

bloodwouldinallcertaintybenotedatthesceneofcrime.Notevena

speckofbloodwasfoundanywhereontheroadoronthepropertyof

PachanPillai.Thisaspectofthematterthrowsseriousdoubtonthe

casesetupbytheprosecutionthattheincidenthadoccurredinthe

courtyardofthehouseofPachanPillai.Furthermore,thesonof

PachanPillai,whowasexaminedasPW12,didnotsupportthecaseof

theprosecutionthattheincidenthadtakenplaceinhiscourtyard.His

evidenceistotheeffectthatthepolicehadcometothespotat11:30

p.m.andthiswasstatedinthechiefexaminationitself.Ifthatbethe

case,theforemostthingthattheprosecutingagencyoughttohave

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :49: 2024:KER:65590

donewastofixtheplaceofoccurrenceonthebasisofthepoolof

bloodfoundatthesceneofthecrime.Thereisnomentionofthe

presenceofbloodanywhereinthescenemahazarorintheevidence

oftheInvestigatingOfficerwhenhewasexaminedasPW22.The

failureonthepartoftheprosecutiontofixtheplaceofoccurrenceon

thebasisofthepresenceofbloodandtheirfailuretofurnishanysort

ofexplanationfornotingthesamewouldcreateaseriousdoubtinthe

prosecutioncase.Itcannotbesafelyconcludedthattheincident

happenedattheplaceasallegedbytheprosecution.Thenecessary

corollaryisthatPWs1,2and4whoareinterestedwitnessesarenot

statingthetruthbeforetheCourtastothemannerinwhichthe

incidenthadtakenplace.AsheldbythisCourtinSivan@Sivav.

StateofKerala

8

,itisnotenoughifanallegationismadethatthe

incidenthappenedataparticularplace,butitmustbeprovedtothe

satisfactionoftheCourt,especiallywhenthereisarivalversionabout

theincidentinquestion.Itisnotenoughiftwowitnessessaythatthe

incidenthappenedataparticularplace,butwhensuchastatementis

madebyinterestedwitnesses,theCourtmustseekcorroborationfrom

othersourcesespeciallyifcertainfactsemergingfromrecordscast

8

[2012KHC629]

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :50: 2024:KER:65590

doubtontheirversion.

h)ThereareevenmorecriticalissuestodoubttheversionofPWs1,2,

and4.Inordertolendcredencetohispresenceatthesceneofthe

crime,PW1statedthathehadhidbehindacoconutpalm,whichwas

situatedabout50metersaway.Thewitnessesabovealsoasserted

thatwhenA1andothersleftthesceneintheJeep,PW1and2lifted

upthedeceasedwhowaslyinginjuredwithmultiplestabinjuriesand

whomusthavebeenprofuselybleeding,andrushedhimtoMatha

HospitalintheautorickshawownedbyShafi.Tothequestionposedby

thecounselappearingforthe2ndaccusedincross-examination,PW1

statedthatShafiwaslyingonhislap.Assuggestedbythedoctorat

MathaHospital,theinjuredwasshiftedtotheSankersHospitalinan

ambulance.AfterShafiwaspronounceddead,hewastakentothe

DistrictHospital,andthenPW1rushedtothePoliceStationand

lodgedtheFIStatementat1:00a.m.Inthebodynoteappendedto

theFIStatement,itisstatedthatPW1waswearingaredshirtand

blackpants,andtherewasnothingnoteworthytobenoted.When

PW1hasnocasethathehadchangedhisclothesaftertheincident,

hisversionthathewaspresentonthespot,andhadoccasionto

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :51: 2024:KER:65590

witnesstheoccurrence,thathehadtakentheinjuredtothehospital,

thatthebleedinginjuredwasonhislap,etc.,canonlyberejectedfor

thereasonthatnotevenadropofbloodwasfoundinhisclothes.

i)Thereisyetanotherstrikinginconsistencyintheprosecutioncase.The

deceasedhadcometomeetPW1,pursuanttothecallmadebyPW2

inanautorickshaw.Thesaidautorickshawwasallegedlyblockedby

A1,anditwasthereafterthatthestabinjurieswereinflictedonShafi.

ItwasinthesaidautorickshawthatShafiwasshiftedtoMatha

Hospital.InviewoftheinjuriessustainedbyShafi,hewouldhavelost

asubstantialamountofbloodandnecessarily,theinsideoftheauto

andpassengerslikeShibu,andPW1wouldhavebeendrenchedin

blood.However,thesaidvehiclewasalsonotseizedbythepolice.The

doctorattachedtotheMathaHospitalwasalsonotexaminedtoprove

thatShafiwasbroughttothesaidhospital,andafternotingthe

injuries,hewasreferredtoahighercenter.Thefailureofthe

prosecutiontoseizetheclotheswornbyPW1,andtheautorickshawin

whichthedeceasedwastakentoMathaHospital,coupledwiththe

absenceofbloodanywhereneartheprojectedplaceofoccurrence

wouldthrowseriousdoubtsastothepresenceofPW1attheplaceof

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :52: 2024:KER:65590

occurrence,andthemannerinwhichtheincidenthadtakenplace.If

PW1andhisbrothersandemployeeswereinfactpresentatthescene

ofthecrime,adifferentsortofresponsewasexpectedbyanyprudent

person.Furthermore,theprosecutionhasattemptedtoplantPW3,a

nearrelativeofPW1atthesceneofthecrime,toprobablizeits

version.However,thelearnedSessionsJudgeanalyzedtheevidenceof

PW3andfoundhimnottobetrustworthyatall.

j)Toaddtothisanotherimportantcircumstanceistheomissiononthe

partoftheprosecutiontosendthebloodstainedearthwhichmost

certainlywouldhavebeenfoundattheplaceofoccurrencefor

chemicalexaminationwhichcouldhavefixedthesitusoftheassault.

Inalmostallcriminalcases,thebloodstainedearthfoundfromthe

placeofoccurrenceisinvariablysenttotheChemicalExaminerandhis

reportalongwiththeearthisproducedinthecourt,andyetthisisone

exceptionalcasewherethisprocedurewasdepartedfromforreasons

bestknowntotheprosecution.Thisalso,therefore,showsthatthe

defenceversionmaybetrue.Itiswellsettledthatitisnotnecessary

forthedefencetoproveitscasewiththesamerigourasthe

prosecutionisrequiredtoproveitscase,anditissufficientifthe

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :53: 2024:KER:65590

defencesucceedsinthrowingareasonabledoubtontheprosecution

casewhichissufficienttoenablethecourttorejecttheprosecution

version.(See:LakshmiSinghAndOthersv.StateOfBihar

9

)

k)Thecircumstancesdescribedabovecastseriousdoubtsonthecase

setupbytheprosecutionandthepresenceofPWs1,2,and4.It

seemsthattheinvestigatingagencyhasdeliberatelyattemptedto

presentaspecificversionoftheincidenttothecourtwhileconcealing

thetruefacts.Inconsistenciesandcontradictionsrunthroughoutthe

prosecution'scase,makingitimpossibletodistinguishtruthfrom

falsehood.

l)Afairtrialfortheaccused,aconstitutionalguaranteeunderArticle21

oftheConstitution,becomesmeaninglessiftheinvestigationina

murdercaseraisesseriousconcernsaboutitsfairness.The

prosecutionbearstheresponsibilitytoclearlydemonstratethatthe

investigationwasfairandjudicious,withoutanycircumstancesthat

couldraisedoubtsaboutitscredibility.Theobligationtoproveguilt

beyondareasonabledoubtencompassestherequirementforafair

investigation;withoutit,therecanbenofairtrial.Iftheinvestigation

9

[(1976)4SCC394]

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :54: 2024:KER:65590

itselfisbiasedorunfair,expectingtheaccusedtodemonstrate

prejudiceisdangerous,asitgrantsarbitrarypowerstothepolice,

potentiallyleadingtofalseaccusations.Insuchcases,the

investigationbecomesamereformalityandafarce.

m)AsheldinBabubhaiv.StateofGujarat

10

,theinvestigationintoa

criminaloffencemustbefreefromobjectionablefeaturesorinfirmities

thatcouldlegitimatelyleadtheaccusedtobelievethatthe

investigationwasunfairormotivatedbyulteriormotives.Itisalsothe

dutyoftheinvestigatingofficertoconducttheinvestigationina

mannerthatavoidsanyformofmischieforharassmenttowardsthe

accused.Theofficermustbefairandvigilant,ensuringthatno

evidenceisfabricatedandthattheirimpartialconductdispelsany

suspicionabouttheinvestigation'sgenuineness.Theinvestigating

officer'sroleisnotmerelytobolstertheprosecution'scasetosecurea

convictionbuttouncoverthereal,unvarnishedtruth.

n)InAnkushMarutiShindev.StateofMaharashtra

11

,theSupreme

Courtwhilespeakingabouttheneedforanimpartialandtruthful

investigationobservedasunder:

11

[(2019)15SCC470]

10

[(2010)12SCC254]

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :55: 2024:KER:65590

“10.2.Nothingisallowedbythelawwhichiscontraryto

thetruth.InIndiancriminaljurisprudence,the

accusedisplacedinasomewhatadvantageous

positionthanunderdifferentjurisprudencesofsome

ofthecountriesintheworld.Thecriminaljustice

administrationsysteminIndiaplaceshumanrights

anddignityforhumanrightsatamuchhigher

pedestalandtheaccusedispresumedtobe

innocenttillprovenguilty.Theallegedaccusedis

entitledtofairandtrueinvestigationandfairtrial

andtheprosecutionisexpectedtoplayabalanced

roleinthetrialofacrime.Theinvestigationshould

bejudicious,fair,transparent,andexpeditiousto

ensurecompliancewiththebasicruleoflaw.These

arethefundamentalcanonsofourcriminal

jurisprudenceandtheyarequiteinconformitywith

theconstitutionalmandatecontainedinArticles20

and21oftheConstitutionofIndia.”

o)Acarefulconsiderationofallthefactsnarratedandthediscussions

heldwouldleadustotheirresistibleconclusionthattheprosecution

hasnotplacedthetruefactsbeforetheCourtorrathertheyhave

madeanattempttosuppressthematerialfactsfromthenoticeofthe

Court.TheevidenceofPWs1,2,and4cannotbestatedtobe

confidence-inspiringasitdoesnotappearthattheyhadoccasionto

witnesstheincidentasnarratedbythem.Theyhavestatedadistorted

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :56: 2024:KER:65590

versionbeforethisCourttomakeitappearthattheincidentofthe

natureallegedbythemhadtakenplaceinthecourtyardofthehouse

ofPillai.AsheldbythisCourtinSivan(supra),theinvestigationor

trialdevoidofitstruespiritandmeritwillunderminetheconfidenceof

thesocietyinthecriminalsystemofadministrationofjusticeaswellas

inthesublimevaluesenshrinedinourConstitution.Afairinvestigation

ofthecaseisnotamereexerciseofformulatingaparticulartheoryas

theprosecutioncasewithsuchevidencesoastosecureaconviction

oftheaccusedbasedonthattheory.Theprosecutioncasemustbe

oneplacingthetruefactsincludingthosefactswhicharebeneficialto

theaccusedtothenoticeoftheCourt.Aconvictionsecuredwithout

adheringtothefairprinciplesofcriminaljusticewouldbeanathema.

Thepresumptionofinnocenceoftheallegedaccusedisfundamental

innatureinthecriminaljusticedeliverysystemuntilthecharges

framedagainsthimareprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtbywayof

credible,cogent,andunimpeachableevidence.Theevidencecollected

bytheinvestigationandadducedbeforetheCourtduringtrialshallnot

createsuspicionandcastashadowofdoubtonthecredibilityand

truthfulnessoftheprosecutioncasespokenthroughtheirwitnesses.

Thefactsnarratedandthediscussionsheldinthiscasewould

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :57: 2024:KER:65590

definitelycreateserioussuspicionandcastagreatshadowofdoubton

theprosecutioncase.

p)WenoticethatthelearnedSessionsJudgehasimplicitlyacceptedthe

evidenceofPWs1,2,and4withoutproperlyconsideringthe

deficienciesandthecontradictionsintheirevidence.Inouropinion,

someoftheomissionsanddiscrepanciesintheevidenceofthe

eyewitnesses,whichwehavealreadypointedoutareglaring.PW1and

PW4beingbrothersandPW2beinganemployeeofPW1,their

evidencehastobesubjectedtothemostseriousofscrutiny.Their

presenceatthesceneofthecrimebeingfounddoubtful,andthere

beingnosuchcorroborationfromindependentsources,wefindit

ratherdifficulttoaccepttheevidenceofPWs1,2,and4.

q)Atthisjuncture,itwouldbeprofitabletorefertotheevidenceof

DWs1to4.DW1andDW2hadnarratedadifferentversionincourt.

Accordingtothem,afterA1hadreturnedbackfromThannickal

Mukku,PW1andhisemployeeshadcomeoutsidethehouseofA1,

armedwithweapons.Whentheirdogbarkedatthem,theanimalwas

killed.ThisisspokentobyPW4and5aswell.Theneighbors

intervenedanddispersedtheviolentcrowd.Later,A1alongwithA2

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :58: 2024:KER:65590

gotouttolodgeacomplaintbeforethepolice.Bythattime,PW1and

hisbrothershadassembledandhadgangedup.WhenA1and

ChandrababuattemptedtofleefromtheplaceintheirJeep,theywere

blockedusingtheauto.Therewasnolightintheareaandthere

occurredameleeduringwhichShafisustainedinjury.Inviewofthe

inconsistencieswehavenotedintheevidenceoftheprosecution,we

arenotinapositiontoignoretheversionputforwardbythedefence.

16.Recoveryofweaponsattheinstanceoftheaccused:

a)AnothermaterialevidencereliedonbythelearnedSessionsJudgeto

linktheaccusedwiththeoffenceistherecoveryofMO1andMO2

knivesatthehandsofaccusedNos.1and3respectively.Insofarasthe

recoveryofweaponsbasedonthedisclosurestatementofA1is

concerned,therecordsrevealA1wasarrestedon12.06.2020.Based

onthestatementfurnishedbyhim,theJeepandashirtwereseizedon

13.06.2020fromAnchallummodu.Thereafter,therewasalulltill

24.06.2020,onwhichday,afreshapplicationwasfiledtoobtainpolice

custodyofA1.AsperExt.P11seizuremahazar,whenA1was

questionedagain,hedisclosedthatMO1knifewasthrownawayby

him,andbasedonhisdisclosurestatement,hewastakentoaplace

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :59: 2024:KER:65590

leadingtoThannickalMukku,andfromaneartransformer,heisalleged

tohavetakenoutMO1knife.PW14istheattestertotheMahazar.In

hisevidence,hestatedthatheisanautorickshawdriverandwhileona

trip,hesawapersonwearingspectacles,takingoutaknife.However,

incross-examination,headmittedthatwhenhegotdowntothatplace,

severalpeoplehadalreadyassembled.Healsostatedthatheis

residingabout22kms.awayfromtheplace,fromwheretheweapon

wasrecovered.Theprosecutionhasnocasethatthedisclosure

statementwasgivenbytheaccusedinthepresenceofthewitness,or

thatthewitnesswaspresentwhenthepolicehadcometothespot

withtheaccused.Thecontentionofthedefencethattheknifewas

plantedbythepoliceandthereafter,custodywassought,andthe

wholerecoveryoftheweaponwasstagemanagedcannotbeignored.

Atanyrate,allthatthewitnessstatedwasthathefoundtheaccused

takingaknifeoutofshrubsandnothingmore.Insofarasthe3rd

accusedisconcerned,itisbasedonExt.P9(a)DisclosureStatement,

thattheknife,shirt,andkailyrecoveredinthepresenceofPW11,the

attester.PW11statedthatheisanautorickshawdriver.Hestatedthat

hehadoccasiontosignonExt.P9Mahazar.Hestatedthatwhenhehad

gotdownonseeingthepolicejeep,about25personshadalready

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :60: 2024:KER:65590

assembled.HesawtheknifeandclothesbeinghandedoverbyA3to

thepolice.Insofarasthe2ndaccusedisconcerned,hewasarrestedat

7:30p.m.on12.06.2010fromtheKSRTCBusStand,Kollam.Hispolice

custodywasobtainedandbasedonExt.P22DisclosureStatement,the

SaffronDhotiandShirtwereseized.However,theattestertothe

Mahzarwasnotexaminedasawitness.

b)InStateofRajasthanv.BhupSingh

12

,theApexCourthas

observedthefollowingastheconditionsprescribedinSection27ofthe

EvidenceAct,1872forunwrappingthecoverofthebanagainstthe

admissibilityofstatementoftheaccusedtothepolice(1)afactshould

havebeendiscoveredinconsequenceoftheinformationreceivedfrom

theaccused;(2)heshouldhavebeenaccusedofanoffence;(3)he

shouldhavebeeninthecustodyofapoliceofficerwhenhesupplied

theinformation;(4)thefactsodiscoveredshouldhavebeendeposed

tobythewitness.TheCourtobservedthatiftheseconditionsare

satisfied,thatpartoftheinformationgivenbytheaccusedwhichledto

suchrecoverygetsdenudedofthewrapperofprohibitionandit

becomesadmissibleinevidence.

12

(1997)10SCC675

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :61: 2024:KER:65590

c)TheaspectwhichthisCourthastoconsiderinthepresentcaseis

whethertheserecoverieshavebeenmadeinaccordancewithlawand

whethertheyareadmissibleinevidenceornot,andmostimportantly,

thelinkwithandeffectofthesamevis-a-visthecommissionofthe

crime.Atthisjuncture,itwouldbeprofitabletobearinmindthe

observationsoftheApexCourtinSubramanya v.Stateof

Karnataka

13

whereintheSupremeCourthasdelineatedtheprinciples

thataretobeborneinmindbytheCourtwhileconfrontedwiththe

questionofadmissibilityofrecoveryeffectedattheinstanceofthe

accused.ItwasobservedasfollowsinparagraphNos.77and78ofthe

judgment.

“77.Thefirstandthebasicinfirmityintheevidenceofallthe

aforesaidprosecutionwitnessesisthatnoneofthemhave

deposedtheexactstatementsaidtohavebeenmadebythe

appellanthereinwhichultimatelyledtothediscoveryofa

factrelevantunderSection27oftheEvidenceAct.

78.If,itissayoftheinvestigatingofficerthatthe

appellant-accusedwhileincustodyonhisownfreewilland

volitionmadeastatementthathewouldleadtotheplace

wherehehadhiddentheweaponofoffence,thesiteofburial

ofthedeadbody,clothes,etc.thenthefirstthingthatthe

13

[(2022SCCOnLineSC1400)]

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :62: 2024:KER:65590

investigatingofficershouldhavedonewastocallfortwo

independentwitnessesatthepolicestationitself.Oncethe

twoindependentwitnesseswouldarriveatthepolicestation

thereafterintheirpresencetheaccusedshouldbeaskedto

makeanappropriatestatementashemaydesireinregardto

pointingouttheplacewhereheissaidtohavehiddenthe

weaponofoffence,etc.Whentheaccusedwhileincustody

makessuchstatementbeforethetwoindependentwitnesses

(panchwitnesses)theexactstatementorrathertheexact

wordsutteredbytheaccusedshouldbeincorporatedinthe

firstpartofthepanchnamathattheinvestigatingofficermay

drawinaccordancewithlaw.Thisfirstpartofthepanchnama

forthepurposeofSection27oftheEvidenceActisalways

drawnatthepolicestationinthepresenceofthe

independentwitnessessoastolendcredencethata

particularstatementwasmadebytheaccusedexpressinghis

willingnessonhisownfreewillandvolitiontopointoutthe

placewheretheweaponofoffenceoranyotherarticleused

inthecommissionoftheoffencehadbeenhidden.Oncethe

firstpartofthepanchnamaiscompletedthereafterthepolice

partyalongwiththeaccusedandthetwoindependent

witnesses(panchwitnesses)wouldproceedtotheparticular

placeasmaybeledbytheaccused.Iffromthatparticular

placeanythingliketheweaponofoffenceorbloodstained

clothesoranyotherarticleisdiscoveredthenthatpartofthe

entireprocesswouldformthesecondpartofthepanchnama.

Thisishowthelawexpectstheinvestigatingofficertodraw

thediscoverypanchnamaascontemplatedunderSection27

oftheEvidenceAct.Ifwereadtheentireoralevidenceofthe

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :63: 2024:KER:65590

investigatingofficerthenitisclearthatthesameisdeficient

inalltheaforesaidrelevantaspectsofthematter.”

d)InRamanandaliasNandlalBhartiVs.StateofUttarPradesh

14

,

theprincipleswereclarifiedfurtheranditwasobservedasunder:

“56. Therequirementoflawthatneedstobefulfilled

beforeacceptingtheevidenceofdiscoveryisthatby

provingthecontentsofthepanchnama.Theinvestigating

officerinhisdepositionisobligedinlawtoprovethe

contentsofthepanchnamaanditisonlyifthe

investigatingofficerhassuccessfullyprovedthe

contentsofthediscoverypanchnamainaccordancewith

law,theninthatcasetheprosecutionmaybejustifiedin

relyinguponsuchevidenceandthetrialcourtmayalsoaccept

theevidence.Inthepresentcase,whatwehavenoticedfrom

theoralevidenceoftheinvestigatingofficer,PW­7,Yogendra

Singhisthathehasnotprovedthecontentsofthediscovery

panchnamaandallthathehasdeposedisthatas

theaccusedexpressedhiswillingnesstopointoutthe

weaponofoffencethesamewasdiscoveredundera

panchnama.Wehaveminutelygonethroughthispartofthe

evidenceoftheinvestigatingofficerandareconvincedthatby

nostretchofimaginationitcouldbesaidthattheinvestigating

officerhasprovedthecontentsofthediscoverypanchnama

(Exh.5).Thereisareasonwhywearelayingemphasison

provingthecontentsofthepanchnamaattheendof

14

2022SCCOnLineSC1396

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :64: 2024:KER:65590

theinvestigatingofficer,moreparticularlywhenthe

independentpanchwitnessesthoughexaminedyethavenot

saidawordaboutsuchdiscoveryorturnedhostileandhave

notsupportedtheprosecution.InordertoenabletheCourtto

safelyrelyupontheevidenceoftheinvestigatingofficer,itis

necessarythattheexactwordsattributedtoanaccused,as

statementmadebyhim,bebroughtonrecordand,forthis

purposetheinvestigatingofficerisobligedtodeposeinhis

evidencetheexactstatementandnotbymerelysayingthata

discoverypanchnamaofweaponofoffencewasdrawnasthe

accusedwaswillingtotakeitoutfromaparticularplace.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

71.Thus,intheabsenceofexactwords,attributedtoan

accusedperson,asstatementmadebyhimbeingdeposedby

theinvestigatingofficerinhisevidence,andalsowithout

provingthecontentsofthepanchnama(Exh.5),thetrialcourt

aswellastheHighCourtwasnotjustifiedinplacingreliance

uponthecircumstanceofdiscoveryofweapon

72.IfitisthecaseoftheprosecutionthatthePW­2,

ChhatarpalRaidas,s/oRameshwarRaidashadacted

asoneofthepanchwitnessestothedrawingofthe

discoverypanchnama,thenwhythePW­2,ChhatarpalRaidasin

hisoralevidencehasnotsaidawordabouthehavingactedas

apanchwitnessandthediscoveryoftheweaponofthe

offenceandbloodstainedclothesbeingmadeinhispresence.

Thefactthatheisabsolutelysilentinhisoralevidenceonthe

aforesaiditselfcastsadoubtontheverycredibilityofthetwo

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :65: 2024:KER:65590

policewitnessesi.e.PW­6andPW­7respectively.”

e)Inthecaseonhand,whentheinvestigatingofficerwasexamined,he

merelystatedthattheaccusedwhileincustodyfurnishedastatement

andnothingmore.Inhisevidence,hehasnotprovedthecontentsof

therecoverymahazar.Hehasalsonotmentionedthathehad

procuredthepresenceofindependentwitnessesofthelocalityto

witnessthesearch.Furthermore,thewitnessestotherecovery

effectedattheinstanceoftheA1andA3areconcerned,theyonly

statedthattheyonlysawtheMOsbeingtakenoutbytheaccused,

andbythetimetheyhadreachedtherescoresofpeoplehad

assembledattheplacebythen.Insofarastherecoveryeffectedatthe

instanceofthe2ndaccusedisconcerned,theprosecutiondidnot

choosetoexaminetheattestor.Inotherwords,therecoveryof

weaponsattheinstanceoftheaccusedwillnotadvancethecaseof

theprosecution.

17.Whethertheflawsintheprosecutioncasecanbeignoredonthe

groundofdefectiveinvestigation:

a)ThelearnedSessionsJudgehasignoredsomeoftheflawsinthe

prosecutioncaseonthegroundthatdefectiveinvestigation,byitself

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :66: 2024:KER:65590

cannotbeagroundforacquittaloftheaccused.

b)Inthiscontext,itwouldbeappositetobearinmindtheobservations

madebytheApexCourtinC.Muniappanv.StateofTamil

Nadu

15

whereinitwasobservedasunder:

“55.Theremaybehighlydefectiveinvestigationinacase.

However,itistobeexaminedastowhetherthereisany

lapsebytheIOandwhetherduetosuchlapseanybenefit

shouldbegiventotheaccused.Thelawonthisissueiswell

settledthatthedefectintheinvestigationbyitselfcannotbe

agroundforacquittal.Ifprimacyisgiventosuchdesigned

ornegligentinvestigationsortotheomissionsorlapsesby

perfunctoryinvestigation,thefaithandconfidenceofthe

peopleinthecriminaljusticeadministrationwouldbe

eroded.Wheretherehasbeennegligenceonthepartofthe

investigatingagencyoromissions,etc.whichresultedin

defectiveinvestigation,thereisalegalobligationonthepart

ofthecourttoexaminetheprosecutionevidencedehors

suchlapses,carefully,tofindoutwhetherthesaidevidence

isreliableornotandtowhatextentitisreliableandasto

whethersuchlapsesaffectedtheobjectoffindingoutthe

truth.Therefore,theinvestigationisnotthesolitaryareafor

judicialscrutinyinacriminaltrial.Theconclusionofthetrial

inthecasecannotbeallowedtodependsolelyonthe

probityofinvestigation.

15

[(2010)9SCC567]

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :67: 2024:KER:65590

c)WemayalsorefertoadecisionofthisCourtinthecaseofSurajit

Sarkarv.StateofW.B.

16

,asunder:

“49.Wearenotpreparedtoacceptasabroadpropositionof

lawthatinnocasecandefectiveorshoddyinvestigations

leadtoanacquittal.Itwouldeventuallydependonthe

defectspointedout.Iftheinvestigationresultsinthereal

culpritofanoffencenotbeingidentified,thenacquittalofthe

accusedmustfollow.Itwouldnotbepermissibletoignore

thedefectsinaninvestigationandholdaninnocentperson

guiltyofanoffencewhichhehasnotcommitted.The

investigationmustbepreciseandfocusedandmustleadto

theinevitableconclusionthattheaccusedhascommittedthe

crime.Iftheinvestigatingofficerleavesglaringloopholesin

theinvestigation,thedefencewouldbefullyentitledto

exploitthelacunae.Insuchasituation,itwouldnotbe

correctfortheprosecutiontoarguethatthecourtshould

glossoverthegapsandfindtheaccusedpersonguilty.Ifthis

werepermittedinlaw,theprosecutioncouldhavean

innocentpersonputbehindbarsontrumpedupcharges.

Clearly,thisisimpermissibleandthisisnotwhatthisCourt

hassaid.

Inthecaseonhand,wehavecarefullyexaminedtheevidenceletinby

theprosecutiondehorsthelapsesininvestigationandwehavefoundthatthe

evidenceletinbytheprosecutiontocanvasstheguiltoftheaccusedsuffers

16

[(2013)2SCC146]

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :68: 2024:KER:65590

fromseriousinconsistenciesandlapses.Withtheaidofsuchevidence,it

wouldnotbepossibleforustoarriveatafindingofguiltagainsttheaccused.

18.Ourconclusion:

Everyaccusedpersonispresumedinnocentuntilprovenguilty.This

presumptionofinnocenceisnotjustalegalprinciplebutafundamental

humanright.Whiletherearestatutoryexceptionstothisrule,itformsthe

cornerstoneofcriminaljurisprudence.Inassessingguilt,thenature,

seriousness,andgravityoftheoffencemustbecarefullyconsidered.

However,incaseswherethestatutedoesnotexplicitlyplacetheburdenof

proofontheaccused,itunequivocallyrestswiththeprosecution.Onlyin

exceptionalcircumstances,asprovidedbyspecificstatutes,doestheburden

shifttotheaccused.Evenwhenastatutepresumesguilt,itmustmeetthe

standardsofreasonablenessandlibertyenshrinedinArticles14and21ofthe

Constitution.Aconvictioncannotbebasedonsurmises,conjectures,oreven

strongsuspicion,regardlessofhowgravethatsuspicionmaybe.Strong

coincidencesandgravedoubtscannotsubstituteforlegalproof.The

prosecutioncannotfulfillitsobligationbymerelypointingtostrongsuspicions

orhighlysuspiciouscircumstancestoincriminatetheaccused.Norcanafalse

defensetaketheplaceoftheproofthattheprosecutionmustestablishto

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :69: 2024:KER:65590

secureaconviction.Whileafalsepleabythedefensemightbeconsideredan

additionalcircumstance,itisonlyrelevantifotherevidenceunerringlypoints

totheaccused'sguilt(See:DigamberVaishnavv.TheStateof

Chhattisgarh

17

).Suspicion,howeverstrong,isnosubstituteforproof.There

isasignificantdistancebetween"maybetrue"and"mustbetrue,"andthe

prosecutionmustcoverthisdistancebyprovingitscasebeyondall

reasonabledoubt.Inthecaseathand,theprosecutionnotonlyfailedto

proveitscasebutalsopresentedpalpablyfalseevidence,fallingfarshortof

thestandardrequiredtoestablishtheappellant'sguiltbeyondallreasonable

doubt(See:VarkeyJosephv.StateofKerala

18

).

Weholdthattheprosecutionhassuppressedthegenesisandthe

placeofoccurrenceandhasthusnotpresentedthetrueversion.Wealso

holdthatthewitnesseswhoareprojectedaseyewitnessesarelyingona

mostmaterialpointandthereforetheirevidenceisunreliable.Thusinviewof

theinherentimprobabilities,theseriousomissionsandinfirmities,the

interestedorinimicalnatureoftheevidenceandothercircumstancespointed

outbyus,weareclearlyoftheopinionthattheprosecutionhasmiserably

failedtoprovethecaseagainsttheappellantsbeyondreasonabledoubt.We

18

[AIR1993SC1892]

17

[(2019)4SCC522]

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :70: 2024:KER:65590

thereforeconcludethattheprosecutionhasfailedtoprovetheguiltofthe

accusedbeyondreasonabledoubt,thebenefitofwhichhastobeextendedto

theaccused.

Intheresult,theseappealsareallowed.Theconvictionandsentence

oftheaccusedfortheoffencespunishableundersections341,324,302r/w.

section34IPCaresetasideandtheappellants/accusedareacquittedofall

chargesundersection235(1)Cr.P.C.Theirbailbondsshallstandcancelled

andtheyshallbesetatliberty,iftheircontinuedincarcerationisnotrequired

inanyothercase.

Sd/-

RAJAVIJAYARAGHAVAN V,

JUDGE

Sd/-

G.GIRISH,

JUDGE

PS&APM/30/8/24

Crl.A.Nos.489&381of2017 :71: 2024:KER:65590

APPENDIXOFCRL.A489/2017

PETITIONERANNEXURES

Annexure1 TRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHEDEATHCERTIFICATEDATED

13.7.2022ISSUEDBYTHEREGISTRAROFBIRTHS

ANDDEATHS,PANAYAMGRAMAPANCHAYATH WITH

RESPECTOFTHEDEATHOFAPPELLANT.