KUNJUMON @ UNNI versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 1032 · Decided: 21-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SWATANTER KUMAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 1032 
KUNJUMON @ UNNI 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 21, 2012 
[SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
ss.397 and 302 - Accused while committing robbery, 
causing injuries on head of a lady of 90 years, which resulted 
in her death - Held: In view of the facts that the accused 
dragged down a frail old lady of 90 years from her cot and 
caused injuries on her head with a wall clock, it cannot be said 
0 that he did not intend the death of the victim or even did not 
know that his actions would result in her death - Courts below 
rightly convicted and sentenced the accused ulss 397 and 
302. 
s. 449 - House trespass in order to commit offence 
E punishable with death - Accused while committing robbery 
caused injuries to an old lady of 90 years, which resulted in 
her death - Held: Admittedly, accused had gone to the 
targeted house to commit robbery and not to kill any body -
He is, therefore, acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 449. 
F 
/DENT/FICA TION!TEST /DENT/FICA TION PARADE: 
Identification in court of an accused of robbery by victim 
of robbery - No TIP conducted - Held: In the instant case, the 
witness was the victim of robbery - She came face to face with 
G the threat and intimidation by accused - The entire traumatic 
sequence of events would have been clearly etched in her 
memory - The evidence of such a victim of a crime must be 
placed on a somewhat higher pedestal, in terms of the 
H 
1032 
KUNJUMON @ UNNI v. STATE OF KERALA 
1033 
credibility attached to it, than the evidence of any other witness 
A 
- "Proper administration of justice" should include not only the 
"life and liberty of an accused" but also the issues of 
victimology and the treatment of victims - Therefore, absence 
of the TIP makes no difference to the case of the prosecution 
or the identification of the accused - Criminal law. 
B 
EVIDENCE: 
Testimony of a child witness - Held: The evidence of the 
witness, who was of 11 years at the time of incident, was 
recorded after a lapse of six years, and, by then, she was no 
C 
longer a 'child witness' - That apart, her evidence is clear and 
unambiguous and nothing adverse could be elicited during 
her cross-examination. 
The appellant along with another accused 'JJ' was o 
prosecuted for committing robbery in the house of PW-1 
and causing death of an inmate of the house, a 90 years 
old lady. The prosecution case was that while 'JJ' stood 
guard near the house, the appellant entered the house 
of PW-1, caught hold of his 11 year old daughter (PW-2), 
E 
threatened to kill her and robbed her of her jewellery. The 
appellant then entered the bed room of 90 years old 
grand-mother of PW-2, and when she raised alarm, pulled 
F 
her down from the cot and beat her on the head with a 
wall clock and robbed her of her jewellery. The victim 
succumbed to her injuries in the hospital on the 9th day 
of the incident. The trial court convicted and sentenced 
the appellant u/ss 302, 397 and 449 IPC. 'JJ' was 
convicted and sentenced u/s 411 IPC. The High Court 
acquitted 'JJ', but upheld the conviction and sentence of 
the appellant. 
G 
In the instant appeal, it was contended for the 
appellant that since a TIP was not conducted, the 
evidence of PW-2 could not be relied upon; that the 
evidence of PW-2, as a child witness should be carefully 
H 
1034 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 9 S.C.R. 
A scrutinized; and that the appellant had no intention to 
murder the deceased and, therefore, his conviction for an 
offence punishable u/s 302 was improper. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 
Not holding a TIP: 
1.1 The sum and substance of the various decisions 
C is that the failure to hold a TIP is not fatal to the case of 
the prosecution, but the trial judge will need to be 
circumspect in accepting the identification of an accused 
by a witness in court if the accused is a stranger to the 
witness. If there is no substantive evidence against an 
0 accused, a TIP will not assist the prosecution. [para 20 
and 25] [1042-B; 1043-C] 
Sk. Hasib v. State of Bihar, AIR 1972 SC 283; Vaikuntam 
Chandrappa v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1960 SC 1340; 
Rameshwar Singh v. State of J & K, 1972 (1) SCR 627 = 
E (1971) 2 SCC 715; Budhsen v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 
1971 (1) SCR 564 = (1970) 2 SCC 128; Ma/khansingh v. 
State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 443 = (2003) 
5 SCC 746; Vijay@ Chinee v. State of M

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.