RAMANATHAN @ RAJU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the conviction of the appellant based on three circumstances, viz. (i). last seen together with the deceased (ii). presence of blood of unknown origin after two years of the date of occurrence on the alleged weapon of offence and (iii) alleged act of absconding by the appellant, can be sustained under law, is the substantial question which arise for our consideration in this appeal.

(2.) It would be convenient to state the prosecution case briefly at the outset itself: - The appellant, Ramanathan @ Raju, a stone cutter by profession, was occupying a shop room in the building by name "Madhavam buildings" owned by PW4 - Rajasekhara Kurup. Deceased Baldas @ Marthandan was a Mason and he was staying along with his brothers and workers in an adjacent room in the same building. Both the accused as well as the deceased were natives of Tamil Nadu and they have been working in this area for the past several years. On 20.4.2004, 1st informant Kolappan, while on his way to work in the morning, inquired with deceased Baldas whether he was coming along for work. The deceased informed him that he would join the 1st informant later. At about 12.00 noon, the appellant rushed to the shop of PW2 ­ Manoj and informed him that Baldas was gasping for breath and was lying in his room and requested for his assistance. PW2 went with the accused and found that Baldas was lying on the floor. He was given some water to drink and he went and informed the matter to PW1. The accused was asked to fetch a vehicle and Baldas was shifted to the S.N.Hospital, situated nearby. PW1 and PW2 followed them in a scooter. On reaching S.N.Hospital, the doctor examined Baldas and he was directed to be taken to the M.G.D.M.Hospital, Kangazha. It was the accused who accompanied Baldas to the said hospital in a Jeep. Baldas was declared dead by PW7 ­ Dr.Elizabeth George, on his arrival.

(3.) Kolappan, the brother of the deceased Baldas, set the law in motion by furnishing the FI statement before PW12, the Head Constable of police, Karukachal police station, based on which Ext.P8 FIR was registered on 20.4.2004 u/s 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, under the head "unnatural death". It is relevant to note that at the time of lodging the FI statement, nobody suspected that it was a case of homicide. PW14, the Sub Inspector of police, conducted preliminary investigation and prepared Ext.P2 inquest report over the dead body of deceased Baldas. He also went to the scene of crime and prepared Ext.P10 mahazar detailing the scene and questioned some of the witnesses. The body was then sent for autopsy and it was PW8, the Associate Professor, Medical College Hospital, who conducted the postmortem and issued Ext.P4 certificate. No external injuries were found on the body and it was also found by the doctor that there was no external bleeding. However, the opinion as to the cause of death was that Baldas had died due to chest injury sustained. It appears from the records that the investigation was thereafter taken over by PW15, the Circle Inspector of police, Vakathanam police station. On 1.11.2005, PW15 questioned PW8, the doctor, who conducted autopsy, and appears to have arrived at a conclusion that an offence u/s 302 of the IPC was made out. On its basis, report dated 1.11.2005 adding S.302 of the IPC was submitted. By this time, more than 1 1/2 years had elapsed after the commission of the crime and no one had any clue as regards the identity of the perpetrator of the crime. After PW15 took over investigation, he went to the scene and prepared Ext.P9 scene mahazar. Later, investigation was taken over by PW16 on 2.3.2006, his successor in office. On 8.3.2006, he recorded the statement of PW4 ­ Rajasekhara Kurup, the owner of the building, where both the deceased and the appellant had resided. PW16 procured the services of PW9 ­ M.K.Ajith Kumar, the Scientific Assistant and they inspected the room occupied by the accused in the "Madhavam buildings". MO1, grinding stone and MO2, granite plaque found in the room occupied by the accused were examined by PW9 and it was found that MO1 and MO2 contained presence of blood which was insufficient to ascertain the origin. Ext.P5 is the report issued by PW9. Thereafter, PW 16 is said to have inquired about the whereabouts of the accused. While matters were proceeding thus, on 29.4.2010, about six years after the occurrence, PW 17, the Circle Inspector of Vakathanam police station took over investigation. On 24.5.2010, the appellant was arrested at the Changanassery railway station and he was produced before Court and was remanded. Later, investigation was completed and final report was laid down before the jurisdictional Magistrate.