Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
BHASKARAN ETC.MANOHARAN @ BABU
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/12/1997
BENCH:
M.K. MUKHERJEE, K.T. THOMAS
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997
Present:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas
B.C. Deepak and C.N. Sreekumar, Advs. for the appellants.
K.M.K. Nair, Adv. for the Respondent
J U D G M E N T
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 226 OF 1994
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J
Bhaskaran and Manoharan @ Babu, the appellants before
us, were placed on trial before an Additional Sessions Judge
of Quilon to answer a charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C.
The allegation against them was that on July 18, 1987 at or
about 9 P.M. they, in furtherance of their common intention,
committed the murder of Gopal Krishna Pillai @ Babu Pillai
of village Valakam by stabbing him with knives. The trial
ended in their acquittal but in appeal preferred by the
State of Kerala, the High Court upset their acquittal and
convicted and sentenced them under Section 302/34 I.P.C.
They have now filed these two separate appeals under Section
379 Cr.P.C. which have been heard together and this judgment
will dispose of them.
2 According to the prosecution case on the fateful
evening the appellant had a heated argument with the
deceased in front of a tea shop but owing to the
intervention of and advice given by one Bhasakaran Pillai
(P.W.6) they left the place. Sometime later the two
appellants followed the deceased and when he was proceeding
along the ridge of a field they stabbed him with knives and
fled away. A little later the deceased succumbed to his
injuries. The motive that was ascribed for the above murder
was that a week earlier the deceased had grabbed a bottle of
arrack from appellant Bhaskaran.
3 It is the further prosecution case that on the
following morning Vasudevan Pillai (P.W.1), brother of the
deceased, went to Pooyappally Police Station and lodged a
report about the incident. On that report S.I.J. Wilfred
(P.W.10) registered a case and took up investigation. He
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
went to the field where the dead body of Gopal Krishna
Pillai was lying and held inquest. He then sent the dead
body for post mortem examination by Dr. N. Bahuleyan
(P.W.8). In course of investigation P.W.10 arrested
appellant Bhasakaran and pursuant to his statement recovered
a knife, which on chemical examination was found to contain
stain of human blood. The other appellant, namely
Manoharan, surrendered before the Court later. On
completion of investigation the police submitted charge
sheet against the two appellants and in due course the case
was committed to the Court of Session.
4. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge
levelled against them and contended that they had been
falsely implicated.
5 That the deceased met with a homicidal death owing to
six stab injuries found on his person by P.W.8 was not
disputed by the appellants. In that context the only
question that fell for determination before the trial Court
was whether the evidence of Vasudevan (P.W.1), the brother
of the deceased and of Gangadharan Pillai (P.W.2) who
figured as eye witnesses, could be believed. Both of them
not only detailed the incident but also averred that
deceased named the two appellants as his assailants. The
trial Court found their evidence unworthy of credit as,
according to it, there was an inordinate delay in lodging
the First Information Report. The trial Court next observed
that if really they had seen the incident it was expected of
them to make an attempt to save the deceased from the
attack, which they did not. Another ground which weighted
with the trial Judge to disbelieve the eye witnesses was
that their version that the appellants told the deceased
that to kill would proclaim his intention. The trial Court
also found fault with the Investigating Officer for not
having seized the torch, by the light of which P.W.1 claimed
to have recognised the appellants. The High Court, however,
observed that each of the above grounds canvassed by the
trial Court, was wholly unsustainable; and on perusal of the
evidence of the two eye witnesses held that there was no
reason to disbelieve them.
6. This being a statutory appeal we have, with the
assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, gone
through the entire evidence on record, particularly, the
evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Having done so we are in
complete agreement with the High Court that the evidence of
the above two eye witnesses can be safely relied upon and
made the basis for conviction. The High Court rightly
pointed out that considering the fact that the distance of
the police station from the village in question was 15 kms.
and the uncontroverted evidence of P.W.1 that no buses were
available to reach the police station in night, it could not
be said that there was any delay in lodging the First
Information Report at 9 A.M. on the following morning. On
the contrary, in our opinion, the report was lodged at the
earliest available opportunity. Equally justified was the
High Court in observing that since different persons reacted
differently in the same circumstances the other two reasons
canvassed by the trial Court to disbelieve P.Ws. 1 and 2
were patently wrong. As regards the failure of the
Investigation Officer to seized the torch light, the trial
Court failed to consider that the remiss on his part could
not be made a ground to disbelieve P.Ws 1 and 2 if they were
otherwise trustworthy.
7. Coming now to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who gave
a detailed version of the incident, we find that except a
few minor contradictions there is nothing in their evidence
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
to the discredit them. That apart, we cannot lose sight of
the fact that P.W.2 is an independent witness and has no axe
to grind against the appellants.
8. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in these appeals
and the same are accordingly dismissed