RAJENDRA PANICKER Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are interlinked being directed against the Judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Kottayam in SC 32 of 1996. While appellant in Crl. A. 49 of 3999 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused Rajan') has been convicted for offences punishable under S.302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'I.P.C.'), appellant in Crl. A. 1062 of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused Biju') has been convicted for offence punishable under S.201 I.P.C. read with S.34 I.P.C. Former has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence punishable under S.302 I.P.C. and a further sentence of five years for the other offence; while latter was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two-and-half years.

(2.) Accusation which led to trial and conviction of accused persons are essentially as follows: Sarala (herein-after referred to as 'deceased') was living with first accused (Rajan) in his house at Kararnala. She was the sister of Radhakrishnan Nair (PW 1). Second accused (Biju) is a close friend of Rajan. Both accused Rajan and deceased had previous marriages. Deceased had a son, Abhilash, from the first marriage. After Abhilash's father deserted deceased, Rajan married her in the late 80s and since then they were living as husband and wife. PW 1 and his parents were also residing at Karamala, at a short distance from the house of accused Rajan. On the evening of 3rd December 1995, Narayanan Assari (PW 2), the immediate neighbour of Rajan, heard cries of deceased from the eastern rubber plantation. At that time he was in the house of one Thankappan watching television along with his family members. All of them heard the cry. PW 2 and others rushed to the spot and found accused Rajan beating his wife, the deceased. They saw Rajan dragging deceased to the courtyard of the house. There he again beat her in their presence. When they intervened, accused Rajan got wild and took out a radio from the house and threw it into the courtyard and broke it. They came back to the house of Thankappan at about 6 p. m. While he was returning to his house, PW 2 found accused Rajan sitting on the steps of his house and deceased was standing on the courtyard and was crying. While he was sitting on the verandah of his house, at about 8 p.m., he found accused Biju going to the house of accused Rajan through the lane in front of his house. He heard noices from the house of accused Rajan till he went to sleep at about 9.30 p. m. Next day morning at about 5 a. m. he woke up and went for rubber tapping work. At that time he heard no sound from the house of accused Rajan. At about 4.30 a. m. on that day, accused Rajan went to the house of deceased's parents and stood. PW 1 and his brothers were getting ready to go for tapping work. Accused Rajan called them and disclosed that he had done away with his wife and thrown the dead body into an old unused well in the rubber plantation and told them that if they wanted, they could take the body out. When PW 1 and his brother disclosed this to their parents, they advised them to go and see what really had happened. They went to the house of accused Rajan and found the broken radio in the courtyard. There was nobody in the house. Therefore, they went and searched for the deceased and in an old unused well in the rubber plantation of Sathyavan Pillai situated towards east of the house of accused Rajan, they could find the dead body in the well. They informed the matter at Karukachal Police Station. Information was recorded. Investigation was undertaken and charge sheet was placed. During trial, accused persons pleaded innocence. 10 witnesses were examined to further prosecution version. Learned trial Judge found both the accused persons guilty, convicted and sentenced them as indicated above.

(3.) According to learned counsel for appellants, conviction is essentially based on the extra judicial confession claimed to have been made and the fact that accused Rajan and deceased were last seen together. This being a case of circumstantial evidence, it was pleaded that chain of circumstance is not complete. Learned, counsel for State, on the other hand, submitted that the circumstances unerringly point at the accused to be the authors of the crime. It is submitted that deceased was accused Rajan's wife and they were last seen together alive. Prior to that he was found assaulting the deceased. Extrajudicial confession was made before persons on. whom he could repose confidence. That being the position, conviction was proper.