THANKAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the conviction for murder passed by the Sessions Judge of Trivandrum in Sessions Case No. 13/59. The charge against the appellant was that he committed the murder of a 7 months old male child by name Baby by drowning the child into the water in Killiyar river in Trivandrum. P.W. 6, Ponnu Pankajakshi is the mother of the child. Her husband Narayanan died 8 months before the birth of the deceased child. Narayanan was ill and bedridden for about 3 years before his death. P.W. 8 aged 14 is her eldest child. Some time before the birth of the deceased, the accused started having illicit intimacy with P.W. 6 and as a result of which the deceased child was born. The accused is an Ezhava and P.W. 6 is a Nadar lady. Accused wanted to marry a girl in his own caste and expressed his desire to P.W. 6. P.W. 6 was not amenable. She protested and threatened that she would take the child to his house and leave it there. A few days before the incident, two of her children were ill and were inpatients in Ramakrishna Mission Hospital at Sasthamangalam. On 22 -1 -59 at about 8 p.m., P.W. 6 was proceeding to the hospital with her child Baby accompanied by her eldest child P.W. 8. When they reached near the first pipe at; Sasthamangalam Maruthankuzhi road, the accused came on a cycle, suddenly got down from the cycle and snatched away the child from P.W. 6 and rode away with the child. P.W. 6 demanded the return of the child and followed him.

(2.) WHILE proceeding towards the house of the accused, they met P.W. 9 and another person on the way. She told them about the accused snatching away her child and requested them for their help in getting back the child. They all went to the house of the accused. When questioned, the accused told them that he had sent the child to Trichur and would be made available to P.W. 6 only after 5 years. They were not satisfied with the reply. P.W. 6 started raising a hue and cry. The mother of the accused then came out of the house crying out that she would commit suicide and ran away from the house. In the meanwhile, the accused escaped from the house. P.Ws. 6 and 8 continued to stay in the house. Early next morning P.W. 6 went and informed her mother who was staying at Vellayambalam. After that P.W. 6 again returned to the accused's house and started crying and demanding for the return of the child. The accused was missing from the house. The whole day P.W. 6 remained in the house but the accused did not turn up.

(3.) AT 8 a.m., on 25 -1 -59, she went to the police station and gave a statement Ext. P. 4 to the Sub -Inspector of police P.W. 16. A case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Ext. P. 9 is the F.I.R. P.W. 17 the Circle Inspector of police was given information and both P.Ws. 16 and 17 proceeded to the scene. The Circle Inspector conducted the inquest and Ext. P. 6 is the inquest report. The dead body was identified by P.W. 6. After inquest, P.W. 4 the doctor conducted the autopsy and Ext. P. 1 is the postmortem certificate. The dead body was in a highly decomposed condition. The doctor says death must have taken place 2 or 3 days prior to the time of postmortem. This would fix the date of death to some time during the night of 22 -1 -59. He detected mud and sand particles in the posterior part of the mouth, larynx and trachea. He is definitely of opinion that death was due to asphyxia due to drowning. The medical evidence therefore tends to show that the child met with its death on account of drowning.