K G RAVEENDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT, the first accused in S.C.69/2004 on the file of Additional Sessions Court-I, Kalpetta filed this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 201. Second accused was acquitted. The prosecution case is that on the night of 26/1/2003 at 11.30 p.m appellant in furtherance of common intention with second accused, with whom he is having illicit relationship, strangulated Susheela, his wife and thereafter set fire on her body after placing on the stock of firewood and thereby committed the offences. PW1, Subramanian, brother of the accused lodged Ext.P1 FI statement on 27/1/2003 at 8.30 a.m reporting that his sister-in-law Susheela died due to burns sustained on the midnight of 26/1/2003. Appellant, deceased Susheela and Haritha their six year old daughter were residing in that house during that period. PW2 Hani, the elder daughter was residing in the house of her uncle at that time. Pws.4 to 7 and 18, the neighbours, reached the scene of occurrence on hearing the cry of the appellant. They found the entire firewood stocked near to the house of the appellant was burning. Though Pws.4 to 7 and 18 attempted to put out the fire, appellant did not join them and he vanished from the scene. While extinguishing the fire, the burnt body of Susheela fell down. PW.21 Sub Inspector who recorded Ext.P1 statement, reached the scene of occurrence and prepared Ext.P13 inquest report and seized Mos.2 to 6 from the scene. PW21 seized Ext.P7 diary maintained by deceased Susheela, from her house at that time. PW21 sent the body of Susheela to Medical College, Kozhikode for postmortem examination. PW12, Dr.Thomas Mathew, Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine conducted the autopsy on 27/1/2003 and prepared Ext.P17 postmortem certificate certifying that she died due to the burns. PW19 Circle Inspector took over the investigation on 29/1/2003. He prepared Ext.P16 scene mahazar. He arrested the second accused on that day at 4 p.m. PW21 Sub Inspector arrested the appellant on 29/1/2003. PW13 Dr.N.Sajesh, examined the appellant and prepared Ext.P18 wound certificate, as appellant had sustained injuries in his attempt to escape at the time of arrest. PW19 the successor investigating officer got PW11 Judicial First Class Magistrate to record statements of witnesses under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure. After completing the investigation the charge was laid before the learned Magistrate, who committed the case to the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge made over the case to Additional Sessions Judge for trial.

(2.) WHEN the charge for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code was framed, appellant and the second accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses and marked 35 exhibits and identified 9 material objects. After closing the prosecution evidence, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he did not offer any explanation and only denied the version of the prosecution witnesses. As it is not a case for acquittal under Section 232 of Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Sessions Judge called the appellant to enter on his defence and adduce evidence. The accused did not adduce any evidence. Learned Sessions Judge on the evidence, acquitted the second accused of all the offences and convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated earlier. It is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) FACT that appellant married deceased Susheela, twelve years prior to the date of incident on 26/1/2003, and PW2 Honey and Haritha aged twelve years and six years respectively at that time, were the two daughters born in that wedlock. It is also not disputed that on 26/1/2003, only the deceased, appellant and Haritha were residing in that house. Evidence of Pws.4 to 7 and 18 that they are the neighbours and they reached the scene of occurrence on the mid night of 26/1/2003 and they reached there as called by the appellant or hearing his cry and he was present when they reached there and they poured water and put out the fire were not disputed and their evidence on these aspects was not challenged.