JOSEPH ALIAS JOSE VS STATE OF KERALA
| Citation | 1993 CriLJ 3538, 1993 (3) Crimes 248 SC |
| Date of Judgment | 13 August, 1993 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Criminal Appeal No.138/91 and 443/91 |
| Appellant | Joseph Alias Jose |
| Respondent | State of Kerala |
| Bench | K. Jayachandra Reddy and GN. Ray, JJ. |
| Referred | Section-120B,398,302/149 IPC and 25(1)(C) Arms Act |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The four persons were tried for offences punishable under I.P.C. Sections 120-B, 398, 302/149 and also under Sections 25(1)(c) the Indian Arms Act, 1959. The trial court convicted all of them for the offence of murder and also attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon under Section 398 I.P.C. A-2, Nirappaukandathil Kurien was sentenced to death and other three accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 398, I.P.C. A-1 and A-2 were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 25(1) of the Arms Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
All the accused preferred appeals to the High Court, A-2 was heard along with the appeals. The High Court altered the sentence of A-2 to one of imprisonment for life and with this modification dismissed all the appeals. A-1 and A-3 have not preferred any appeals to this Court. A-4, Vettikuzhiyil Joseph @ Jose has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 138/91 and A-2, Nirappukandathil Kurien has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 443/91.
ARGUMENTS
The Sessions Case No. 14/86 the sessions Judge of Waynand Division, Kalpetta, Kerala. The case was presented in the court bench judge K Jayachandra Reddy and G Ray. There was four accused name was Kunnummal Razak, Nirappukandathil Kurien, Puzhamkunnumal Chandran, Vettikuzhiyil Joseph Jose. They all were friends and unemployed. PW1 and A1 went to the Pallikunnu place on 1st March 1984 to met A2, A4 and Chandran. They stayed in forest that night. A1 told the other three that K Sekharan, a rich man and he having money and gold ornaments. Therefore they should rob him on the night. Thereupon Kunnumal Razak (PW1) and A4 denied going for dacoity. But A1 threatened to both with death and were forced to follow. They went out to carrying three guns and other provisions. One gun was given to A-2 and one to P.W.1. A-1 was carrying a double-barrel gun and A-3 was carrying the provisions. They all reached at Kurichiramala On 3rd March 1984 and to reached at 2 AM near to the Sekharan’s house and take their Position. Chandran kicked the door and door was opened and they all inter the house. There was one old man with two women in this house. They came out to room. A1 accosted them and commanded “Hands up” and shot the old man but the shot missed and hit to the Chandran. At that moment, A2 shot with the gun at the old man and who felled down. A4 Run away first then others run away from that place.
Information reached the police and investigation was taken up. Sub inspector of Police recorded the statement of PW2. Then investigation proceeded further and the accused including PW1 arrested and their weapons seized by police. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was laid.
PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 were witnesses of the case. All’s examination done and present evidence in the court. Witnesses given the great details. There was not disputes to deceased Shekharan was shot at on that fateful night. PW1 is the one of accused who was approver of the case. PW2 and PW3 identified the PW1, A2 and A3. PW4 identified A2 to A4. The PW4 was the watchman in Kuruchiarmala Estate and he was present there to identify the dead body and also stated that he has been seen Chandran with four other person on that evening night in the forest.
Therefore the evidence of PW1 the approver of the case is not only correctly found to be true but the courts below also have rightly held that evidence of PW1 was amply corroborated by the evidence of PWs 2 and 4 other circumstantial evidence namely the recovery of weapons etc.
JUDGEMENT
The Session Court and High Court had been examined the all evidences. The A2 Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 443/91 to concern with the appeal 443/91 the accused shot to the deceased and the trial court sentenced him to death. But the high court altered it to the imprisonment of life. The appellant A4 Criminal Appeal No. 138/91, he has not participated nor has committed any other overt act worth mentioning. PW1 evidence was to the effect that he was simply following them. PW1 and A4 forced to follow the order by A1. Beyond this he did not do anything. A4 was not armed and under a threat he followed others but it is difficult the attribute knowledge to him that murder was likely to committed during the dacoity. A1 has suggestion to his associates was only to commit dacoity. All these circumstances would go to show that A-4 can be convicted under section 398 I.P.C only.
Therefore Consequently A4 conviction under 302 I.P.C. and sentence of life of imprisonment there under are set aside. However his conviction under section 398 I.P.C. and sentence of seven years R.I. are confirmed. A-1 and A-3 have not preferred any appeals to this Court.
REFERENCES
2 https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00100026201
3 IPC Bear Act
This Article is written by Sachin Chopade from Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University of Aurangabad, Maharashtra. Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
