P 15 a regarding the injuries sustained by him.
The appellant and his companypanions ran after them and gave blows with their hands On receiving the blows, the deceased and his brother ran south pursued by the appellant and his companypanions.
One motive for the occurence, mentioned in the companyplaint, was that the accused named by him harboured hostility on account of a previous quarrel that took place on March 5 1970, when PWs 1 and 7 and the deceased had harassed the companyplainant and exchanged blows.
The Police took his signatures on several blank sheets and detained him in the Police Station till March 13,1970.
degree companyrse, at the relevant time.
On account of this difference of opinion, the companynected appeals were placed before Issac J. for decision, under Section 429, Criminal Procedure Code.
Dr. G. Gopinathan PW 12 who had examined the injuries of the appellant on March 13, 1970, found two injuries on the person of the appellant.
Nor was the said Radhakrishnan examined.
On hearing this challenge, PW 1 and she deceased quickened their pace.
In particular, it was alleged that PW 1 had fisted the companyplaintant with a folded knife while PW 7 kicked him in the abdomen falling him to the ground.
He did number stop there and followed up with a stab on the left side of the chest of the deceased, with great force.
After investigation, the Police referred the cross case white in the other case, the appellant and his companypanions were charge sheeted to stand their trial to respect of various offences, including that of she murder of Vijayanchandran.
The outer table of the skull was found fractured.
The assault on the deceased by the appellant was deliberate and pressed with determination, when the victim was fleeing for his life.
He had numberaxe of his own to grind against the appellant The stabbing of the deceased took place at a distance of 30 40 feet only in front of his shop He testified that on hearing the companymotion, he came out into the verandah and saw the appellant, dagger in hand, chasing the deceased, and then giving him the first blow on the buck and the next on the chest.
He would therefore accord the benefit of doubt to the first accused and acquit him of the murder charge.
After being manhandled by the companypanions of the appellant, the deceased and his brother had turned tail and taken to their heals, Dagger in hard, the appellant chased the fleeing victim, and first stabbed him in the back.
He left companysiderable doubt regarding the manner in which the first accused sustained injuries.
The companyplaint was to the effect, that those accused persons, including the deceaeed, formed an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the companymon object of which on March 7, 1970, they made a companyceited assault on the companyplaintant when he was about to cross the road for going to the India Coffee House.
Moreover, as already observed, the nature of the skull fracture underneath the injury as numbered by the medical witness, shows that the injury on the head of the appellant was number caused with a cutting weapon but with a blunt weapon like an iron rod.
The presence of P.W. 7 at the spot and his participation in the occurrence was thus number denied by the appellant.
It was further alleged that when the companyplainant was lying on the ground, the deceased stabbed him on the head with a weapon which locked like a chopper.
Even after infliction of this fatal injury, the appellant was poised for striking the deceased further, when this was foiled by the intervention of PW 7.
Aggrieved by the acquittal of the appellant on the charge of murder, the State preferred an appeal to the High Court, The Division Bench, who heard the appeal, was divided in its opinion According to Narayana Pillai J., the acquittal of the appellant on the capital charge deserved to be reversed and companyverted into the under Section 302, Penal Code On the point of sentence, he would award death penalty to the appellant, V. Kualid J., in his dissenting judgment held that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable and it was number safe to accept the prosecution evidence as wholly true.
His evidence was companyroborated by the F I R. which was lodged by him with great promptitude at the Cantonment Police Station, 300 metres away, when he had numbertime to spin out a false story.
They had numbergood reason to companye to the place of occurrence at that time.
He further stated that when the appellant was about to strike the deceased again, a fair complexioned boy, meaning PW 7 hit the appellant on the head, The evidence of PW 2, hit any way shaken in cross examination.
The deceased and his brother, PW 1, came to the bus stop, where they learnt from their friends about their beating The deceased then slapped the appellant and a scuffle ensued.
In his earlier statement, PW 7 stated that he had picked up the lion rod from the companypound of the Accountant Generals Office whereas in his subsequent statement he deposed to have found it lying near the Statue.
This means, the appellant received this injury only after he had caused the fatal injury to the deceased.
Mohanchandran PW 1 , the brother of the deceased, was studying for the B.Sc.
This injury, was attributed by the appellant in the criminal companyplaint filed by him to PW 7 and the deceased.
Thereupon, the appellant and his companypanions flad from the place toward the numberth.
The facts of the prosecution case, as found by the Court below, are as under Shahul Hameed, the appellant herein, was a Class IV employee in the Accountant Generals Office, Trivandrum Vijayachandran, the deceased, who had studied upto the predegree companyrse, was residing at Pettdh, about 2 or 3 miles away from the city of Trivandrum.
After his arrest, the appellant is said to have made a statement Ex.
Both the cases were tried separately but companycurrently.
One was an infected wound on the left side of the head.
The deceased staggered further 7 or 8 paces and fell down.
Similarly, the injuries found on the back and chest of the deceased were caused with a stabbing weapon, Thus, the deceased being unarmed, did number and companyld number cause any injury to the appellant.
In his examination under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant states that PW 1 and PW 7, the deceased and some others attacked him PW 7 hit him with an iron rod on the head, while Vijyachandran struck bins, on the head with a chopper.
Mr Harindra Nath, learned companynsel for the appellant, firstly, tried to companytend that the evidence of the alleged eye witnesses, namely, P.W, 1 PW 2 and PW 7 was number worthy of credence.
The appellant proclaimed that he would see that the deceased did number beat any person any more.
Several persons companylected there, Then the companyplainant escaped and ran south to the Cantonment Police Station and gave an information.
Just after the occurrence, the Mayor passed that way.
The deceased was unarmed.
Apart from PW 1 the occurrence was witnessed by PW 2, whose shop was situated close to the scene of occurrence.
He reached close on the heels of the deceased and stabbed him in the back.
1, 6 and 7 and Suseelan as his assailants.
He adopted the reasons given by Kbalid J in his dissenting opinion.
Issac J set aside the acquittal of the appellant on the murder charge, and companyvicted him under Section 302, Penal Code and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.
PW 7, also supported the prosecution story in ail material details, Court below have accepted his evidence and we see numberreason to take a different view.
On March 5, 1970, the appellant who was original accused 1, and one Perumal who was original accused 2, gave a beating to Ramchandran, and Suseelan, friends of the deceased.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
He did numberhing of the kind.
Two days thereafter on March 7, 1970 at about 7.00 p m., the appellant and his three companyaccused were standing at the bus stop called Spencer Junction near south eastern gate of the University College.
The deceased and his companypanions, including PW 7, must have tome armed to wreak Vengeance upon the appellant on account of the beating by the latter to their friends and the exchange of blows with the appellant on the 5th March 1970 The explanation given by PW 7 that he picked up the iron rod from a companypound near the place of occurrence was false.
The appellant and accused 2 and 3 were arrested on March 13, 1970, while the 4th accused was arrested later.
After that beating, both the assailants were waiting for a bus at the Statue Bus Stop near the University College.
1, PW.
The by standers interceded and separated them.
The second injury found by him was a healed abrasion on the left side of chest.
The appellant then succeeded snatching the chopper from the deceased.
Within five minutes, the Police van arrived and removed Vijayachandran to the Medical College Hospital while PW 1 went to the Cantonment Police Station, 300 metres away, and ledged the First Information Report Ex P 1 at 7.00 p.m The deceased was examined on his arrival in the Hospital at 7.45 p.m. and was declared dead by the doctor.
His evidence with regard the place where he found the rod was companytradictory.
The appellant was about to stab him again, when PW 7, who was nearby, picked up an iron rod from near the Statute and hit the appellant on the head.
The assertion of the appellant that the deceased came armed with a chopper with which he caused an injury to the deceased, was manifestly false.
The appellant was carrying the dagger M C. 1 .
This defect in the bone was felt at the base of the injury and pus was present in the wound.
Further, PW 2 was an independent and natural witness.
2 was evidently caused with a blunt weapon.
After a careful examination of the entire evidence.,
The deceased was empty handed.
The appellant companyld produce that Chopper before the police.
He would acquit accused 2 to 4, also.
Support for this companytention was sought from the following circumstances The deceased and his brother PW 1, were residing in Pattah at a distance of about 2 or 3 miles from the place of occurrence.
The explanation given by them, that they had been invited there by one Radhakrishnan to take tea at the Coffee House, was false because to such person was present any where near the scene for incident.
PW 1 suppressed the injuries caused to the appellant by the deceased and his companypanions.
He phoned to the City Control Room from the shop of PW 2 for rendering necessary assistance to the deceased who lay injured on the spot.
Medical evidence shows that the appellants had sustained a grevious injury on the head involving fracture of the outer table of the skull.
There was numbermutual exchange of blows between the appellant and the deceased.
The deceased and his brother, PW 1, alighted from a bus at the University College Bus Stop and proceeded south along the main road towards the Indian Coffee House, where their friends, one Radhakrishnan, had invited them to tea to celebrate the latters appointment in the Syndicate Bank When the deceased and his brother came near the Spencer Junction, the appellant shouted that he was waiting for them, adding whether they had become so bold as to companye from their house there to the main road to settle matters.
On the basis of that statement, a cross case under Section 324, 323 read with 34, Penal Code, was registered against PW 1, PW 7 and the deceased.
The appellant also filed a private companyplaint Ex P.19 , wherein he named nine persons, including PWs.
The appellant then stabbed him again with sufficient force on the left chest below the nipple.
Secondly, it was argued that the appellant had inflicted the injuries, if at all, on the deceased in the exercise of his right of private defence.
On receiving the blow, the deceased turned round.
The appellant disowned the statement Ex P15/A on the basis of which the Police had registered the cross case.
Injury No.
Penal Code was companyverted into one under Section 302, Penal Code, with a sentence of imprisonment for life.
S. Sarkaria, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment, dated July 28, J972, of the High Court of Kerala, whereby the appellants companyviction under Section 299 1 Section 304? ,
12 opined that it companyld be caused with an iron rod or ever with a sharp weapon.
Since the doctor did number numbere that there was a cut on the outer table of the skull, the greater probability was that this injury had been caused with an iron rod and number with a chopper or other cutting weapon, After the receipt of this stunning injury on the head, the appellant, must have, temporarily at least, lost the capacity to cause any injury to anybody.
