KALLIKATT KUNHU v. STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 1162

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU, S.S.M. QUADRI

Judgment text

KALLIKATT Kl~HU v. STATE OF KERALA FEBRUARY 24, 20CD [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SYED SHAH vlOHAvlMED OLADRI. JJ. I Criminal Law : Penal Code, Ul60 : Section ! 02. EvidellC tabbing with a dagger-Dagger enclo. 1ed i11 a >heath "'ith 110 bloodstain. > 011 ii-Die place of incident was afro not probabh· Hdd : If the dagger was used tu inflict the injuries it «huuld have been jiiimd u11. 1hwthed and ought to have had some bloodstai11. 1~Hence, these nvo important factors demufi. ,he. 1 the prosecution case- tii: shoes worn by the d. :c. :as.. :d wt:re found near the dt:ad body; that the b.. :nch whne the dcct:aM:d sat had toppled down on th1: ground of chappu (shed) : tho. t a dagger (MO l) wa' found in a shea[h near the basement of the chappa and that bloodstained soil (MO 11) was tound in the clwppa. However. M04 mundu (dhoti), M05 bottlt: containing arrack w.. :n: found on the suut:lt:rn ,ide of the KAUJKATIK. l'IJHCv. STAH' IRAJlc'. 'llJRA HABL. J.

j ll67 pathway starting eastwards from the house of the deceased which was approximatdy two and a half metn:s away from the chappa. M04 and / M05 are stat<:d to bdong to the appdlant The High Court opined that the appdlant was under the influence of alcohol and while rushing towards his houst: could have lost his 111u11du and the bottle on the way and the incidt:nt could have taken place only at the n:sidence of thi; deceased. The High Court agreeing with the trial court's vit:w dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the fact of deceased having met with homicidal death considt:ring the nature of injuries on him as d1sclost:d in tht: post-mortem report. He, however, put forth two aspects of the case in tht: forefront: (i) inquest report clearly indicated that the dag.

gt:r (MOl) was found in a sht:ath and (ii) it is also in evidence that ~104 (dhoti) and M05 (bottle) were found on the southt:rn side of the pathway starting eastwards of the house of the deceased, and submitted that th. est: two circumstances arc enough to demolish the prnsi:rntion case. The karm:d counsel for the State n::lit:d on the reasoning of the trial court and the High Court as set out in their judgmcnb. If, as statt:d hy the . :ye witm:sscs, PWs I to 4, that MOl (dagger) was usi:d to lntli. ct injur'. cs upon the d.. :c. :ascd the same could not have been found cndos. :d in a sheath near the has~ment of the chappa. It should have b. :. :n found unskathed and ought to haw had sumt: bloodstains. This factor strongly pwhahliscs the version put forth hy the appellant that the incident has nut takw place in the manner narrat. :d by the prosecution witnesses. If \'1()1 (dagger) is not ust:d to inf:ict the injuries upon the deceast:d thcr. : is no other w..

:apnn of •Jffoncc produced before the trial wurt. It is also in cvid1. 0ncc that the ;,aid MO I. did not belong to the appdhmt but on th. : other hand hdonged to Pariyaram Abbas who had also been examint:d. rurther it is nut pruhable that when the appellant was trying to r:. m away towards his house he dropped his mundu and liquor butt:.. : which art: found on the southern side of the pathway starting eastwards of the house of th.. : deceased. If the appdlant was in a state of druni{e'lnt:ss and found to have been picked up by his wife leaving the dhoti and bottle on tht: pathway where it was found, it is more probabk that thi; inciden1 could not have takt:n place, as alleged, in the shed. lf as alleged the incident had taken place ! n tb. e shed it is not prubable that these two MOs could have been found in the pathway. Thus these two important 1168 SUPREME COURT RF. PORTS [2GOOJ l S. C. R. factors have been lost sight of by both the courts below.

The version given rby the eye witnesses get tilted by the weapon of offence not having been found but what was produced being sheathed could not have been used for inflicting injuries. Viewed from that angle, we have no hesitation to accept the version put forth by the defence and set aside the order made by the High Court affirming the judgment of the trial court sentencing the appellant to imprisonment for life. In the result, we are satisfied that there is no case made out against the appellant. We set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and set him at liberty forthwith unless he is required in any other case. The appeal is allowed accordingly. v. s. s. Appeal allowed.