LexKALLIKATT KUNHU versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
KALLIKATT Kl~HU
v.
STATE OF KERALA
FEBRUARY 24, 20CD
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SYED SHAH vlOHAvlMED
OLADRI. JJ.I
Criminal Law :
C
Penal Code, Ul60 : Section !02.
EvidellC<'" AppreLiation of Murde1~ {'umm1.11io11 of-Bv .>tabbing
with a dagger-Dagger enclo.1ed i11 a >heath "'ith 110 bloodstain.> 011 ii-Die
place of incident was afro not probabh· H dd : If the dagger was used tu
D 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-<..'onviction of accw·ed under S.3112 w:t aside.
The appellant-accused was convicted by the trial court for an offence
under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo im·
E prisonment for life. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
F
Hence this appeal.
According to the prosecution, the appellant went to the house of one A
and called him out. A came out of the hou'e and set on a bench in the chappa
(shed) and the appellant stood near him. A demanded repayment of money
owed by the appellant. Annoyed by that demand the appellant tool• out a
dagger and stabbed A who toppled down along with the bl!nch. The appellant
was in a state of drunkenness and was picked up by hb wife leaving the dhoti
and bottle belonging to the appellant 011 the pathway.
G
On behalf of the accused person it was contended that the dai.,'ger with
which the accused stabbed the deceased was found enclosed in a sheath and,
therefore, such a dai!:ger could not have been used by the accused to inflict
the injuries on the deceased; that since the dhoti and bottle belonging to the
accused were found on the pathway the incident could not have taken place
in the shed and that these two circumstances were enough to demolish the
H prosecution case.
1102
---
KA.L:JKO..'IT KC"-HC v. SlATE RAJE'.\'DR.\ BABL. J.j
1163
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: 1.1. lfthe dagger was used to inflict injuries upon the deceased
the same could not have been found enclosed in a sheath near the basement
of the clwppa (shed). It should have been found unsheathed and ought tu
have had some bloodstains. [1167-E]
2. If the appellant wa~ in a state of drunkenness and found tu have
been picked up by hh wife leaving his dhuti and bottle 011 the pathway where
it was fond, it is more probable that the incident could not have taken place,
as alleged, in the shed. If, as alleged, the incident had taken place in the shed
A
B
it is not probable that the dhuti and bottle could have been found in the
pathway. Thus these two important factors have been lost sight ufby both the C
courts below. (1167-G-H; 1168-A]
CRIMJ~AL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
607 of 1994.
From th<.: Judgment and Order dated n9.92 of the Kerala High D
Court in Crl.A. ;-.Ju. 3l9 of 1989.
S.L. Am:ja, (AC), Sunil Kr. Jain fpr the Appellant.
G. Praka'h and \fokcsh ( iiri for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was ddivered by
RA.JENDRA BABt:, J. The appellant bdun: us having be~.n cun-
vict1.:d und1.:r Section 302 !PC and senten1.:<.:d to undergo imprisonment for
life, "Jn,uccessfully appealed to the High Court. Hence this appeai.
E
F
Tht: prosecution alleged that on 25.9.83 at about 2.30 p.m. the
appdlant went to tht: h.uuse of Abdulla and called him out when tht: sai.d
Abdulla was 'lated to be sleeping insidt: th<: house. At that time, Hameed,
PW1, son, \.!anha, PW2, first wife of Abdulla and Bet:vi, daughter of
AbduUa wen: sitting inside the kitchen. Abdulla came out of the house and G
both, the: appellant and Abdulla went tu the shed situate in the courtyard
of the house:. Abdulla _,at on a bt.:nch and the appellant stood near him. In
the course ol their conversation, Abdulla appear-s to have demanded
repayment of the money owed by the appdlant. Annoyt.:d by that d1;mand,
tht: appellant is 1tated to have taken out a dagger proclaiming that it had
hcen given to him by Pariyaram Abbas to kill him, stabbed Abdulla H
A
B
c
D
E
F
1164
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
!2000J 1 S.C.R.
inflicting injury on his chest. Abdulla was topplt:d down along with the
bench. Harneed, PWl, Manha, PW2 and Beevi rushed to the scene. Achibi,
PW3, the second wife of Abdulla, who had come to draw water from the
well near the house, also rushed to the scene. Again the appellant is stated
to have stabbed Abdulla and inflicted another injury on his left shouldcr.
The appellaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.