SHAJAHAN ALIAS SHAJI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal filed under Sec.374(2) Cr.P.C. the appellant, who was the sole accused in S.C.No.03/2006 on the file of the Addl. District and Sessions Court Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Kottayam for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution can be summarised as follows: THE accused namely Shajahan @ Shaji aged 40 years (in the year 2004) was residing in a rented room in the railway puramboke colony at Muttambalam village. 4= year old Shahana and 3 year old Shafana, who were minor daughters of the accused were also residing with him. Shahida, the wife of the accused was employed as a housemaid in Muscat since July 2004. THE rented room in which the accused and his daughters were residing belongs to PW7(Kannan) who was insisting on the accused to vacate the said room. Mariam Beevi (PW6) the mother of the accused was residing in the ancestral house by name "Thadathilparambil" at Kosamattom Colony in Vijayapuram Village. On account of the frustration and enmity due to the unwillingness on the part of Mariam Beevi to look after both his daughters in the ancestral house and the non-availability of his wife Shahida due to her employment abroad, the accused had picked up quarrel with his mother. He had openly declared that if, by 15.09.2004, the welfare of the children was not taken over by his mother and his wife did not return from Gulf, he along with the children, would commit suicide. Accordingly with a view to do away with his daughters and translate his threats into reality and with the full knowledge that his daughters would thereby die, on 15.9.2001 at 7 pm the accused reached the Mathoth ghat in Perumbaikadu village along with his daughters and dipped both the girls in Meenachil river and intentionally caused their death by drowning. THE accused has thereby committed the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.

(3.) SINCE this was not a case of no evidence within the meaning of Section 232 Cr.P.C, the learned Sessions Judge did not record an order of acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The accused was therefore called upon to enter on his defence and to adduce any evidence which he might have in support thereof. Except getting marked Ext.D1 which is the relevant portion of case diary contradiction of PW.2(Salma), the accused did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned trial Judge got marked two hospital intimations pertaining to the 2 deceased girls as Exts.C1 and C2 which were available in the Case Diary files. The case was then taken up for arguments.