RAMA SUBRAMANIAN ALIAS MANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from jail challenging the conviction and sentence. The appellant was found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 392 and 449 of the indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge, kollam in Kerala, for having caused the death of one Sabitha Beevi and her three children Jasmin, Jiyas and Navas. The learned Sessions Judge imposed the capital punishment and the death sentence was confirmed, however, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 392 IPC was set aside, and in its place the appellant was found guilty of offence punishable under section 380 IPC by the High court and his sentence was reduced to three years. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and also learned senior counsel for the State.

(2.) The prosecution case reads as follows : the deceased Sabitha Beevi, with her three children, Jasmin, Jiyas and Navas, was staying at Jiyas Manzil near Ashtamudi mukku at Kollam. Her husband Hashim died about two years prior to the incident. The appellant Ramasubramanian had been engaged by Hashim for sundry jobs at the poultry farm. The appellant was residing in a small shed constructed at the terrace of the house, and was taking food from that house. After the death of Hashim, the appellant continued to work in the poultry farm and, according to prosecution, the appellant gradually developed illicit relation with the deceased Sabitha Beevi. Later, the appellant started mis-behaving with the eldest daughter -Jasmin, who was aged about 14 years. Jasmin brought this fact to the notice of her mother and Sabitha Beevi wanted to terminate the services of the appellant. She waited for the opportunity and it so happened that due to the negligence of the appellant, some of the chicks in the poultry farm died and there was also an allegation that the appellant committed theft of a cycle from the neighbourhood. Taking advantage of this situation, the service of the appellant was terminated. The further case of the prosecution is that the appellant was enraged by the conduct of sabitha Beevi in terminating his service and he came to the place of the incident and gained entry into the house of Sabitha beevi in the night of 8.8.1999. PW -1, the father-in-law of Sabitha Beevi had been in the house till about 11 o'clock in the night of 8.8.1999 and he left the premises thereafter. PW 1 was staying in the house about 19 mtrs. away from the house of Sabitha beevi. On the next day morning at 7.30 he came to the house of Sabitha Beevi in order to read the daily newspaper. He found the house closed. He searched for his daughter-in-law but there was no response. He switched on the calling bell but there was no answer and went around the house and searched in the nearby poultry farm. He went to the terrace and searched the room occupied by the appellant and the room was found open. Ultimately he pushed open the door of the house and went inside the house and found the bedroom locked. He saw the key of the bedroom under the floormat and opened the bedroom and found the deceased Sabitha beevi and her children Jasmin, Jiyas and navas with multiple injuries. The deceased sabitha Beevi and Jasmin died by that time and Jiyas and Navas were in a serious condition. He sent another person to inform the police and the police came within a short time.

(3.) At about 8.30 a. m. PW 1 gave the f. I. Statement and PW 53 took over the investigation. The injured Jiyas and Navas were sent to the hospital and the dead-bodies of Sabitha Beevi and jasmin were sent for post-mortem. During the course of investigation, the chance finger prints found on the almirah kept in the bedroom were taken and other incriminating articles were seized by him. The investigating officer recovered a 'lungi' and shirt from the nearby well. Later, PW 55 took over the investigation and the appellant herein was arrested on 30th March, 2000. Pursuant to the information given by the appellant, series of articles were seized. They are mostly gold ornaments allegedly worn by the deceased sabitha Beevi and Jasmin. Samples of hair were taken from the appellant and sent for forensic examination for comparison with the hair recovered from the scene of offence. MO 22, the weapon of offence, was also recovered at the instance of the appellant from the roof of the poultry shed.