O.M. CHERIAN @ THANKACHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(SC)-2014-11-11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KERALA)
Decided on
November 11,2014
O.M. Cherian @ Thankachan
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MOHAMMAD AKHTAR HUSSAIN ALIAS IBRAHIM AHMBD BHATTI VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS PREVENTION AHMEDABAD [REFERRED TO]RAMESH CHILWAL @ BOMBAYYA VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [REFERRED TO]
V.K. BANSAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ @ PANU VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
DURYODHAN ROUT VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
SH. LALTHAKIMA S/O SUAKTHUAMA (L) VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2018-7-157] [REFERRED TO]AJMER SINGH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-63] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH MAHARANA VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2022-6-183] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHAND VS. AJIT SINGH DAHIYA [LAWS(P&H)-2021-12-101] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHAND VS. AJIT SINGH DAHIYA [LAWS(P&H)-2021-12-101] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY RANA VS. STATE OF UT CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2016-3-66] [REFERRED TO]
TELUGU BANJIGARA THAMMAIAH VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-1-103] [REFERRED TO]
SENAUL S/O AFSAR SHAIKH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2021-5-26] [REFERRED TO]
NEERA YADAV VS. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-67] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-8-363] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMSHER ALI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2024-4-23] [REFERRED TO]
DULAL AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2015-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESHA VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-223] [REFERRED TO]
VISWANATHAN @ VISWAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-6-142] [REFERRED TO]
IMRAN JALAL VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2021-7-91] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF SIKKIM VS. RAM NATH CHOUDHARY [LAWS(SIK)-2018-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
YALLAPPA S/O IRAPPA GADDI @ RAMACHARI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-9-643] [REFERRED TO]
AZGARKHAN AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-11-228] [REFERRED TO]
KAMAL VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2021-10-71] [REFERRED TO]
SABIR ALIAS SHABBIR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-5-116] [REFERRED TO]
MAJOR SINGH VS. STATE OF U T CHANDIGARH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-203] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHURAMALINGAM AND ORS. VS. STATE [LAWS(SC)-2015-2-135] [REFERRED TO]
SOHANLAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-5-181] [REFERRED TO]
MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. VS. STATE REP. BY INSP. OF POLICE [LAWS(SC)-2016-7-42] [REFERRED TO]
MALKEET SINGH GILL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(SC)-2022-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KORI VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-303] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-99] [REFERRED TO]
BAJARNATH KORRAM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
C.S.LALITHA VS. T.V.GOVINDARAJ [LAWS(KAR)-2021-9-293] [REFERRED TO]
M.S. KRISHNA REDDY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-74] [REFERRED TO]
TONY @ THOMAS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-10-309] [REFERRED TO]
NANDAKUMAR @ NANDYA LAXMAN DESAI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-1-271] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-46] [REFERRED TO]
RABIN BURMAN VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2017-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 27.11.2013 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 910/2006 by which the High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction of the appellant/1st accused under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and also the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him.
(3.)Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused married Lillikutty and their marriage was solemnized on 11.2.1988 and they continued their stay in House bearing No. MP. VIII/84 of Karulayai Amsom along with other accused, who are the father, mother and brother of the appellant. The allegation levelled is that in the matrimonial house, the appellant/1st accused and other accused ill-treated and tortured Lillikutty, compelling her to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life by committing suicide. During the marital life, Lillikutty had a premature delivery. When she became pregnant again in 1993, it is alleged that A-1 provided her with some tablets and Lillikutty had a miscarriage.
During her marital life Lillikutty delivered a child who did not live long. On 23.2.1996 Lillikutty poured kerosene oil on herself and also drank some, which was later cleared away. On 23.2.1996, a mediation talk had been scheduled and PW-1 and the relatives of Lillikutty were also to attend the mediation talks but when the meeting was so scheduled, Lillikutty committed suicide by hanging. On the first information by PW-1, a neighbour of the accused, law was set in motion. Initially FIR was registered for unnatural death under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and on subsequent complaint, the same was altered to one for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. PW-4 conducted autopsy and submitted the post- mortem report. PW-14, investigating officer, had taken up the investigation and seized the documents and material objects and examined the witnesses and laid the charge sheet against the appellant and other accused. In the trial court, PWs 1 to 15 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P- 25 were marked and MOs 1 to 18 were identified. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied all the incriminating evidence and circumstances brought out in evidence against them.
(2.)This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 27.11.2013 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 910/2006 by which the High Court of Kerala confirmed the conviction of the appellant/1st accused under Sections 498A and 306 IPC and also the sentence of imprisonment imposed on him.
(3.)Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused married Lillikutty and their marriage was solemnized on 11.2.1988 and they continued their stay in House bearing No. MP. VIII/84 of Karulayai Amsom along with other accused, who are the father, mother and brother of the appellant. The allegation levelled is that in the matrimonial house, the appellant/1st accused and other accused ill-treated and tortured Lillikutty, compelling her to take the extreme step of putting an end to her life by committing suicide. During the marital life, Lillikutty had a premature delivery. When she became pregnant again in 1993, it is alleged that A-1 provided her with some tablets and Lillikutty had a miscarriage.
During her marital life Lillikutty delivered a child who did not live long. On 23.2.1996 Lillikutty poured kerosene oil on herself and also drank some, which was later cleared away. On 23.2.1996, a mediation talk had been scheduled and PW-1 and the relatives of Lillikutty were also to attend the mediation talks but when the meeting was so scheduled, Lillikutty committed suicide by hanging. On the first information by PW-1, a neighbour of the accused, law was set in motion. Initially FIR was registered for unnatural death under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and on subsequent complaint, the same was altered to one for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. PW-4 conducted autopsy and submitted the post- mortem report. PW-14, investigating officer, had taken up the investigation and seized the documents and material objects and examined the witnesses and laid the charge sheet against the appellant and other accused. In the trial court, PWs 1 to 15 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P- 25 were marked and MOs 1 to 18 were identified. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied all the incriminating evidence and circumstances brought out in evidence against them.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.