Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 420 (KER)

Babu @ Chakkan Babu v. State Of Kerala

2021-04-09

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, M.R.ANITHA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Vinod Chandran, J. The appeal is by the accused against the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram in Sessions Case No.574/2015. The crime is one of uxoricide. The accused and his wife were living together, when pursuant to a quarrel the accused poured petrol over his wife and torched her to death. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant Sri.Faridin A.S argued that there is delay in registration of FIR and the case set up is one falsely foisted by the police and the witnesses deposed on their coercion. The police had released him after initial questioning and later arrested him with ulterior motives. It is pointed out by everybody that the deceased was set at fire using kerosene, but the scientific evidence is that the burnt remains had traces of petrol and not kerosene. There is also said to be clear evidence that PW-3 accompanied the deceased, which is denied by her to implicate the accused. It is pointed out that actually, as stated in the 313 statement the deceased had accidentally torched herself when attempting to put to fire the waste in the house. No quarrel ensued nor was there any overt act by the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor Sri.K.B.Udayakumar argued to sustain the conviction and sentence. 3. The FIS was by PW-3, the sister of the accused itself. PW-3 deposed in consonance with the FIS. PW-3 and the accused are the only children of their parents. There is one residential building in which both herself and her brother were staying in a small plot of 3/4th of a cent. On one side are two rooms and kitchen where PW-3, her husband and her parents were staying. The adjacent room and veranda were occupied by the accused and his wife. They were both engaged in menial jobs. On 30.10.2013 by around 2.00 p.m., she heard her sister-in-law screaming for help and on stepping outside, saw the deceased engulfed in flames, standing outside the house. The accused was standing on the veranda looking at his burning wife. PW-3 called aloud for help and ran out and called Anil, a member of the Panchayat who was examined as PW-9. PW-9 called an ambulance and the deceased was taken to the hospital. PW-3 heard about the death of her sister-in-law when the police took her statement on the next day. PW-3 called aloud for help and ran out and called Anil, a member of the Panchayat who was examined as PW-9. PW-9 called an ambulance and the deceased was taken to the hospital. PW-3 heard about the death of her sister-in-law when the police took her statement on the next day. She affirmed her FIS, which was marked as Exhibit P4. PW-3 also spoke of her sister-in-law being away for a few days from the house which was not to the liking of the accused, who questioned her. She categorically spoke of there being none others in the house inhabited by the accused and his wife. She also deposed that she saw no attempt on the part of the accused to save his wife. 4. That the deceased died of burn injuries is established by the medical evidence and there is also dying declaration made to the Doctor of the Taluk Hospital, Parassala where she was examined first. PW-1 is the Doctor who examined the deceased at the Taluk Hospital at around 5.15 p.m. The patient was said to be conscious and appeared very critical for reason of the complete burn injuries. She marked and proved Exhibit P1 certificate issued by her, which shows the history and alleged cause of injuries as 'alleged assault by husband' (Chakkan Babu). The specific statement of the patient has been narrated in the certificate as 'OTHER LANGUAGE'. PW-1 specifically spoke of the allegation conveyed to her in the vernacular by the deceased. PW-3 also deposed that the victim was conscious and was in a fit state of mind when she gave the above statement. It was also deposed that the victim was referred to the Medical College and she was taken in the same Ambulance in which she was brought to the Taluk Hospital. None of the relatives of the victim was present. PW-1 examined the accused at 2.00 p.m. on the next day, i.e., 14.10.2013. According to PW-2, the deceased had smell of kerosene and was having minimal burn marks on right hand with certain abrasions on various parts of the body. The certificate of examination of the accused was produced and marked as Exhibit P2. The Doctor's opinion was also that if a person helps to save another who was engulfed in flames, then there would be more burn injuries sustained than that found on the accused. 5. The certificate of examination of the accused was produced and marked as Exhibit P2. The Doctor's opinion was also that if a person helps to save another who was engulfed in flames, then there would be more burn injuries sustained than that found on the accused. 5. PW-2 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem and proved the report Exhibit P3. The scalp hair on the top of head and eyebrows of the deceased were burnt off. Eyelashes and the remaining scalp hair showed singeing. Soot stains were seen on front teeth and all external body orifices were affected by burns. Finger nails were bluish and there was partial degloving of hands and feet. The ante-mortem injuries were noted as “Dermoepidermal. Brain was congested and oedematous”. Air passages contained soot mixed with blood stained mucus. Lungs were congested and oedematous. Stomach contained 75 ml. of brownish fluid mixed with soot and mucus flakes having no unusual smell; mucosa congested. The death was opined to be due to 97% burns affecting the body surface area. Death having been established, coupled with the dying declaration made to PW-1, it can be safely be assumed to be homicidal. 6. PW-4 was earlier the Panchayat Member of the Ward in which the accused had his residence. He was the witness in the Inquest Report Exhibit P5 and also had knowledge of the accused and the deceased living in the area for long. PW-5 owns a pan shop near the scene of occurrence. He is said to have gone to the scene of occurrence along with others on hearing the commotion. He saw the deceased consumed by flames and he also speaks of the accused having attempted to douse the flames, which statement runs counter to that of PW-3 and PW-9. The evidence of PW-1 Doctor was also that if the accused had attempted to save his wife he would have suffered more grievous burns. PW-6, a neighbour, who was a witness to the seizure mahazar of a bottle, speaks of kerosene smell inside the house. 7. It is the evidence of PW-8, Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded the FIS and registered the FIR that is relied on by the accused to allege delay. PW-6, a neighbour, who was a witness to the seizure mahazar of a bottle, speaks of kerosene smell inside the house. 7. It is the evidence of PW-8, Sub Inspector of Police, who recorded the FIS and registered the FIR that is relied on by the accused to allege delay. The Sub Inspector, in cross-examination, stated that he lodged the FIR on 16.10.2013 at 11.00 a.m. This was obviously a mistake, since in chief-examination he categorically stated that the FIR was registered on 14.10.2013 at 10.35 a.m., which is in consonance with Exhibit P8, which, on verification, is received by the JFCM-II Neyyattinkara on 14.10.2013 at 8.25 p.m. 8. PW-9 called for the Ambulance at the request of PW-3. He resides nearby and his deposition is that when he looked out, after opening the door of his house he saw the deceased engulfed in flames and the accused standing on the sit-out. This negatives the claim of the accused having attempted to save his wife. PW-9 called the Ambulance which took the victim to the hospital. 9. PW-10 is the Investigating Officer [IO], who spoke of having arrested the accused on 15.10.2013 at 11.45 hours, as per Exhibit P121 arrest memo. The allegation of the learned Counsel for the appellant of an arrest having been made, and released after questioning on 14.10.2013 is evident from the remand report. But this is of no consequence since the IO took over the case only on the next day. Exhibit P6 remand report goes on to say that after carrying out the inquest, he came to the scene of occurrence and took the statements of the relatives of the deceased and then arrested the accused. It does not indicate any coercion on the witness by the police and the initial questioning and release is of no consequence. In fact the ocular evidence is by the sister of the accused, which we do not find any reason to disbelieve. 10. The ocular evidence of PW-3, sister of the accused, is further supported by PW-9, the immediate neighbour. The explanation of the accused in Section 313 questioning falls to the ground juxtaposed with the direct evidence and the dying declaration. The dying declaration is made to the Doctor who first examined the victim. The specific statement made by the victim is also seen recorded in the wound certificate. The explanation of the accused in Section 313 questioning falls to the ground juxtaposed with the direct evidence and the dying declaration. The dying declaration is made to the Doctor who first examined the victim. The specific statement made by the victim is also seen recorded in the wound certificate. The FSL report at Exhibit P17 indicates traces of petrol in MO Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. They are respectively the burnt remnants, cotton swab, the plastic bottle and a match box seized from the scene of occurrence. The scientific evidence is that petrol was used in the crime. This does not absolve the accused merely for reason of the Doctor and one of the witness having spoken of smell of kerosene. The smell of the fuel used for torching the deceased though stated to be kerosene cannot be relied on when the scientific evidence is otherwise. This does not in any manner enure to be the benefit of the accused. We, hence, find the evidence led to be sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and dismiss the appeal upholding the conviction and sentence passed against the accused. The appeal stands dismissed.