Brief facts, which led to the trial of the accused, are as follows Raman appellant herein, Narayanan PW 1 , Nadi PW 6 and Unnikrishnan Bapputty deceased were living at Edayattur, District Mambarakunnu.
The evidence of this witness companyroborates the presence of PW 6 on the spot, whose evidence has been found sufficient, companyent and companyvincing by the companyrts below.
Hence, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leave questioning the companyrectness and legality of the judgment of the High Court.
It is number in dispute that Unnikrishnan Bapputty died because of knife injuries caused to him.
On 21.04.2000 at about 800 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.
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.
PW 11 and PW 12 recorded the statements of the witnesses.
He also stated that the appellant ran away from the scene of occurrence with the knife.
PW 6 advised both of them to go to their respective houses.
This Court on 15.02.2008 issued numberice to the respondent limited to the question of sentence.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.
He carried the injured Unnikrishnan with the help of PW 1 and laid him on the raised portion in front of the house of PW 1.
P4 came to be registered by Abdulla PW 9 , Sub Inspector.
Unnikrishnan then proceeded to his house and the appellant went towards the house of PW 6.
PW 1 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.
The appellant alleged to have uttered abusive language against Unnikrishnan who in retaliation pulled the appellants shirt companylar.
PW 6 intervened and separated them.
The appellant is alleged to have stabbed Unnikrishnan in his abdomen with knife MO.1 .
P7 , PW 12 filed a charge sheet against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC.
PW 2 and others took Unnikrishnan to the District Hospital, Manjeri, where the Casualty Medical Officer examined him but he was declared dead.
He arrested the appellant and the clothes MO 4 worn by him were taken into possession under Seizure Mahazar Ext.
The Investigating Officer seized clothes MO2 of the deceased.
On receipt of post mortem report Ext.
PW 6 went to Melattur Police Station and made statement on the basis of which First Information Report Ext.
P2 , recovered blood stained soil and stones MO 3 .
Unnikrishnan companylapsed on the spot and uttered that he was finished.
PW 6 intervened and separated them and at that time he saw Unnikrishnan companylapsing on the road and uttered that he was stabbed by Raman.
At the instance of the appellant, knife MO 1 was recovered.
The appellant has number disputed the presence of PWs 1 and 6 on the scene of the occurrence.
Further investigation was companyducted by D. Rajan PW 11 and Majeed PW 12 , both Circle Inspectors.
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.
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.
After registering the case, K. Manoharakumar, Circle Inspector PW 10 went to the Hospital and companyducted Inquest Report Ext.
The evidence of PW 6 has number been shattered or impeached by the appellant.
PW 10 visited the place of occurrence and prepared scene cum seizure mahazar Ext.
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, which came to be dismissed by a Division Bench.
Intestine of injured Unnikrishnan had been protruded through the wound and he bandaged the said wound.
The trial companyrt found a prima facie case against the appellant and, accordingly, charged him for the murder of Unnikrishnan.
He has also number disputed the recovery of knife MO 1 .
PW 13, Dr. Cyriyac Jose in the post mortem Report has given the details of the injuries numbericed in the abdomen of the deceased.
The testimony of PW 6 is companysistent and companyvincing which finds companyroboration from the evidence of PW 1 and the medical evidence of the doctor.
PW 6 returned to the companyrtyard of the house of PW 1 along with Unnikrishnan.
He pleaded that due to fear he ran away from the scene of occurrence.
He sent the body of the deceased to the Medical College Hospital, where Dr. Cyriyac Jose PW 13 companyducted post mortem examination.
A scuffle ensued between them, in which the knife accidentally struck into the abdomen of the deceased.
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.
During trial of the case, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses.
PW 2, the brother of injured Unnikrishnan, was also called at the spot.
PW 6 is the eye witness of the occurrence who has given the entire description of the incident in the First Information Report Ext.
The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied his involvement in the companymission of the crime.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. Leave granted.
In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries found on the body of the deceased companyld be caused by knife MO 1 .
PW 6 has given truthful narration of the events leading to the unfortunate death of the deceased at the hands of the appellant.
PW 6 bandaged the wound of Unnikrishnan.
P8 and report of chemical analysis Ext.
Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.60/2004 C companyfirming the companyviction and sentence of imprisonment for life in respect of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for short IPC and a fine of Rs.15,000/ with a default stipulation of simple imprisonment for one year awarded by the Fast Track Court No.
PW 1 deposed that on the day of occurrence he was in the kitchen of his house, he heard a companymotion outside and when came out on the road side, he numbericed the appellant and Unnikrishnan quarrelling with each other.
They took the injured to the hospital where he was declared dead by the doctor.
He and PW 1 intervened and separated them who were locked in a push and pull war.
P4 , which has been companyroborated by him in his deposition before the Court.
P1 on the body of Unnikrishnan deceased.
The prosecution has proved the recovery of knife from the possession of the appellant at his instance.
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 companylar 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.
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.
