Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1163 OF 2009

PATTARVAYAL KANAKAN                          APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KERALA                             RESPONDENT

O R D E R

1. This  criminal  appeal  is  directed  against  the  

judgment  and  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Judicature of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.  

2107 of 2004, dated 01.12.2007. By the impugned judgment  

and order, the High Court has confirmed the judgment and  

order, dated 16.11.2004, passed by the Trial Court in  

Sessions Case No. 46 of 2002, whereby the appellant is  

convicted  for  offence  punishable  under  Sections  143,  

147, 148, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian  

Penal Code, 1860 (“the IPC” for short) and sentenced to  

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

2. This  case  relates  to  the  murder  of  one  

Purushothaman  (“the  deceased”  for  short)  by  the  

appellant-accused  and  six  other  accused  persons  on  

01.11.1998.  At  9:15  p.m.,  on  the  fateful  night,  the  

deceased  was  attacked  by  a  group,  comprising  of  the

Page 2

2

accused  persons, while  he was  proceeding towards  the  

house of his neighbour (PW-3) to attend a phone call  

from  his  wife’s  house.  The  deceased’s  sister  (PW-1)  

followed him at a distance and thus was an eye-witness  

to the incident in its entirety. The deceased was first  

inflicted a blow with a pestle (MO1) on his head by the  

appellant and thereafter as he fell down, the six other  

accused persons attacked him with the iron rod, knife,  

chopper,  axe,  etc.  As  soon  as  PW-1,  the  wife  of  

deceased, his brother   (PW-2) and his uncle (CW-5),  

amongst others, reached the spot, the accused persons  

escaped leaving behind MO1. PW-1 and PW-2 rushed the  

deceased  to  the  hospital,  however,  the  deceased  

succumbed to his injuries.

3. The First Information Report (“the FIR” for short)  

was  registered  for  offence  punishable  under  Sections  

143, 147, 148 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC,  

specifically  implicating  only  the  appellant.  On  

completion of the investigation, the appellant and six  

other accused persons were charge-sheeted for offences  

under Sections 143, 147, 148 and 302 read with Section  

149 of the IPC. During the pendency of the trial, one  

accused person had died and, thus, only the appellant  

and five other accused persons were tried for the above  

mentioned offence.

Page 3

3

4. The  Trial  Court  has,  after  marshalling  the  

evidence  on  record  including  evidence  of  the  eye-

witnesses, i.e., PW-1 and PW-2, acquitted the other five  

accused persons by extending the benefit of doubt on the  

finding  that  the  identity  of  the  said  five  accused  

persons could not be established by acceptable evidence  

and,  ergo, their presence as members of the unlawful  

assembly  is  not  conclusively  proved.  However,  the  

appellant was convicted on findings, first, that it is  

only the appellant who is specifically implicated in the  

FIR  by  PW-1,  second,  that  the  evidence  of  PW-2  

corroborates PW-1’s identification of the appellant and  

third,  that  the  deadly  blow  caused  by  the  appellant  

using MO1 corroborated with the injuries in the Post  

Mortem Report.

5. The appellant, aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment  

had approached the High Court. The High Court has re-

appreciated the entire evidence on record and analyzed  

the  submissions of  the parties,  inter-alia,  that the  

ante-mortem  injuries  of  the  deceased  tally  with  the  

injuries  inflicted  by  the  appellant  and  that  the  

evidence of eye-witnesses is credit-worthy. Accordingly,  

the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence  

of the appellant.

Page 4

4

6. The appellant, aggrieved by the confirmation of  

his  conviction  and  sentence  by  the  High  Court,  has  

approached this Court in this appeal.  

7. We have heard Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel  

for the appellant and Shri Ramesh Babu, learned counsel  

for the respondent-State.     Shri Giri would assail the  

impugned judgment and order by contending,  inter alia,  

that  the  Courts  below,  ought  not  have  accepted  the  

evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 while convicting the appellant  

alone.  

8. We have carefully perused the judgment and order  

passed by the Courts below and have re-appreciated the  

evidence on record including the evidence of the eye-

witnesses and the report of the medical officer. It is  

upon such perusal that we do not find any merit in the  

aforesaid  submissions  advanced  before  us  by  learned  

counsel  for  the  appellant.  In  our  considered  view,  

neither the Trial Court nor the High Court has committed  

any  error,  whatsoever,  which  would  call  for  our  

interference.

Page 5

5

9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Ordered accordingly.

.......................J. (H.L. DATTU)

.......................J. (RANJAN GOGOI)

NEW DELHI; JANUARY 08, 2013.