Pattanaik, J. - (1.) Appellant Raveendran along with two other accused persons stood charged under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge convicted Raveendran under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C. and accused Gopalan under Section 201, I.P.C. alone. The third accused was acquitted of both the charges. Raveendran and Gopalan, preferred appeal No. 87 of 1990 to the High Court of Kerala. State also preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal of the third accused. The High Court by the impugned judgment, affirmed the acquittal of Gopalan and the other accused of the charge under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Government. The High Court also affirmed the conviction of appellant Raveendran of the charge under Sections 302 and 201 as well as the conviction of Gopalan under Section 201, I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge had sentenced appellant Raveendran to imprisonment for life for his conviction under Section 302, and five years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default, to undergo R.I. for six months for his conviction under Section 201, with the further direction that the sentences would run concurrently. So far as, accused Gopalan is concerned for his conviction under Sec. 201, I.P.C. he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default, to undergo S.I. for six months. Gopalan has not preferred any appeal and it is only Raveendran, who haspreferred the appeal.
(2.) The prosecution case in nutshell is that deceased Yeshoda developed intimacy with one Gopalan (not the accused) and became pregnant. Before she could marry, Gopalan died and Yeshoda gave birth to a child. Yeshoda, thereafter, came in contact with accused Raveendran and they developed intimacy. The parents of Raveendran however did not approve the relationship between them. Raveendran married Yeshoda sometime in August, 1986 and Yeshoda after purchasing a land in a place called Kappad, constructed a small house and lived therein. After spending some good time, there was dissension between Yeshoda and Raveendran and they decided to dissolve the marriage. Yeshoda used to visit the house of Raveendran. Sometime in March, 1988, Raveendran promised Yeshoda that he would purchase a house for her at Badagara. The prosecution alleged that on 3-3-1988 Yeshoda went to meet her husband at 8 a.m. and her husband informed her that he would come with jeep and fetch her. PW 8 informed PW 6, the brother of Yeshoda that he saw Yeshoda and Raveendran in a jeep at Payam Mukku. It is alleged that PW 23, the younger brother of Yeshoda went to Iritty for marketing and met Raveendran there and Raveendran asked him about Yeshoda. When PW 23 could not say the whereabouts of Yeshoda, Raveendran told him that he can inform his sister that he had contracted a second marriage. PW 23, accordingly conveyed this to his brother PW 6 and mother PW 16. PW 16 became suspicious and made queries about Yeshoda and was surprised to hear from Raveendran that he did not know anything about Yeshoda. On not getting any information about Yeshoda, PW 16 accompanied by her son PW 6 went to Peravoor Police Station and lodged a missing report. It is thereupon, the Police Officer took them to the Revenue Divisional Officer at Tellicherry, as certain articles had been recovered from the dead body of a lady, which were lying there. Both PWs 6 and 16, on looking to those articles were convinced that the articles belonged to Yeshoda. On 30-3-1988, PW 1 saw a dead body of a lady in a ravine. The place was on the road Tellicherry to Manantavady. PW 1 then went to the police station and give a statement to the police and a case was registered, describing unnatural death. PW 35, the Circle Inspector took up the investigation. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and on getting the report of the Chemical Analyst, when the doctor confirmed that the death was a clear case of homicide, case was registered under Section 302. Accused Raveendran was then arrested on 11-7-88 and certain recoveries were made from him pursuant to a disclosure statement. Accused Gopalan was arrested on the same day and certain recoveries were also made from him. The third accused was also arrested on the same day. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and on being committed, the accused person stood their trial. There is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire case hinges upon circumstantial evidence. On the basis of evidence of PWs 1, 6 and 16, coupled with the recoveries of M.Os. 1, 2, 4 and 5, the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court came to the conclusion that the dead body recovered from the ravine was that of the deceased Yeshoda and this conclusion has not been assailed before us. So far as, the complicity of accused appellant Raveendran is concerned, the circumstances relied upon by the High Court are: (i) That Raveendran and Yeshoda developed intimacy and ultimately married but the parents of Raveendran never approved of the same; (ii) After marriage, though they lived for sometime as husband and wife happily at a place called Kappad but later on the situation became unpleasant and Raveendran wanted to divorce Yeshoda and thought of a second marriage; (iii) Yeshoda was seen in the company of the accused persons in a jeep by PWs 7 and 8 on 3-3-88 at 9.30 a.m.; (iv) The jeep bearing No. K.L.A. 1170 was found during the forenoon of 3-3-88 at Payam Mukku, Iritty and Tellicherry, which is established through evidence of PWs 4, 7, 8 and 9. (v) From the evidence of PW 10 and PW 11, it is established that a jeep stopped near the Grant Hotel, run by PW 10, at 5 p.m. and while two or three persons came in the jeep, took tea and one woman was sitting in the jeep, almost tired. (vi) Conduct of accused Raveendran, in not making any inquiry about Yeshoda after 3-3-1988; (vii) Medical evidence of the doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body as well as the post-mortem certificate issued by him, Exh. P-10, is to the effect that the exact cause of death could not be given and opinion was reserved, pending the result of chemical analysis. On getting the report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner Exh. P-11, the said doctor opined that it is not possible to say as to whether the injuries found on the dead body are ante-mortem or post-mortem but if the injuries are ante-mortem then the head injury sustained by the deceased could result in death. Notwithstanding the aforesaid positive medical evidence, the High Court however came to the conclusion that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature; (viii) Recovery of articles belonging to the deceased on the basis of statement made by the accused Raveendran, while in custody admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The two statements made by the accused are Exhibits P-30 and P-31; (ix) Extra-judicial confession of the accused as deposed by PW 15. This extra-judicial confession was not relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court as the exact words or words as nearly as possible were not reproduced by PW 15 and further according to PW 15, Raveendran in June, 1988 took him to an arrack shop and after consuming liquor, narrated the incident. Thus it cannot be said to be a voluntary one, if at all such a statement was made. It is curious to note that even though, the High Court did not accept the so called extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by accused Raveendran to PW 15, yet relied upon the evidence of PW 15 for completing all the links in the chain of circumstances.
(3.) On these circumstances, the High Court affirmed the conviction of accused Raveendran of the charge under Sections 302 and 201, I.P.C.;