GEORGE Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(SC)-2002-4-156
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on April 03,2002

GEORGE Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BAIJU ALIAS BHAROSA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED]



Cited Judgements :-

KESHAV JANGDE @ BALLA VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2023-1-97] [REFERRED TO]
ALI JISHAN @ JISHAN CHAWHAN VS. STATE OF KERALA AND MANOJ KUMAR [LAWS(KER)-2009-11-144] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-10-435] [REFERRED TO]
ASHRAFF VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2010-1-65] [REFERRED TO]
SHAJAN MATHEW VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-2-240] [REFERRED TO]
JAYARAMAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2006-10-127] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN BANK VS. MANILAL GOVINDJI KHONA [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
MANIKANDAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-1-24] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ MAHILE VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2022-8-89] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Brijesh Kumar, J. - (1.)These appeals arise out of judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala, upholding the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC and 7 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 392, IPC as passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Sessions Case No.128 of 1996.
(2.)The case is based on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution the deceased had been working for P.W. 28 at his farm and in that connection he used to leave his house at 7.00 a.m. everyday and would return in the evening but sometimes he stayed back at the farm. He had been residing with his younger brother P.W. 3 and a younger sister, P.W. 7. On 28-6-1995, as usual, he left for his work at 7.00 a.m. At the time of leaving his house, P.W. 3 and P.W. 7 had seen him putting on two gold rings and a watch. P.W. 28 had also noticed him putting on the above said articles. Till mid-day he was at the farm of P.W. 28 and after having his lunch etc. he had left the place. At about 4.00 p.m., P.W. 12 had seen him at Kottapuram junction. At about 8.30 p.m. he went to the shop of P.W. 8 and purchased some candles and bread from there. He then sat at a bench in front of the shop of P.W. 9 who closed his shop at 9.00 p.m. whereafter deceased also left the place.
(3.)The prosecution story further is that at about 9.30 p.m. while P.Ws. 10, 12 and 13 were at their house, they heard the deceased saying "take whatever you want, leave me alone". P.W. 12 is said to have heard the voice of the appellant as well. Since the deceased did not turn up to his work in the morning next day. P.W. 28 sent one of his employees to the house of the deceased to find out the reason. This is how P.W. 3 the brother of the deceased came to know that his brother was missing and started search for him but with no results. On 30-6-1995, P.W. 1 saw a body floating in thodu. A report in that connection was registered and the photograph of the dead body was published in the newspaper which P.W. 3 saw on 1-7-1995. On that basis he went to the Government hospital and identified the body of his brother. He further noticed that the two gold rings and the watch which the deceased was putting on were missing.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.