SHAMSUDHEEN @ BAPPUTTY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Murder most foul, turned into a sensation with the arrest of a political front man of the area; the Personal Assistant of a Minister and the Secretary of the Office of the Local Committee of the then ruling party. The Police went full hog with the investigation commenced by a Circle Inspector [CI], continued by a Deputy Superintendent of Police [Dy.SP] and then an Assistant Commissioner of Police [ACP]; who were examined as PWs.103, 105 and 108; under the supervision of an Additional Director General of Police [ADGP]. The political overtones led the investigation astray and the trial went haywire with tutored witnesses, concocted confessions and manufactured evidence asserts the appellants, who are the two convicted of the charges levelled against them.

(2.) The prosecution went to trial parading a whooping 108 witnesses and marking more than 264 exhibits and MO-1 to MO65. The defence examined one witness and marked four portions of 161 statements as also a remand report dated 11.02.2014. The Sessions Judge, who conducted the trial, listed out 140 circumstances and found the accused to have had a common intention of committing murder, in pursuance of which the deceased was wrongfully confined, raped and killed; after which the evidence was destroyed and the ornaments of the deceased misappropriated. The Sessions Judge acquitted both the accused under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(k), 376A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Both the accused were sentenced for various terms, to run concurrently, under Sections 302, 376(1), 201, 404 and 342 read with Section 34 IPC and fine, with default sentences on failure of payment of fine.

(3.) Sri.P.K.Varghese, learned Counsel appearing for the 1st accused, submitted that the version of the prosecution is unbelievable and the witnesses paraded before Court are artificial, making the evidence led highly suspicious. There is no last seen theory as attempted to be projected. The commission of the crime and removal of the corpse as discernible from the evidence led is highly improbable. The witnesses were questioned after a long delay. No blood stains or any other incriminating material was recovered from the alleged scene of occurrence. The recoveries made were challenged one-by-one on various aspects and specifically on the ground of many of them being articles of common use. A1 was implicated only because of his presence at Unnikkulam, an area where A1 was present for a house warming on the said day. The motive projected and the earlier attempts are just a figment of imagination. A1 was throughout available in the locality and accompanied the brother of the deceased after the deceased was found missing. The accused were arrested on 10.02.2014 after which literally, all hell broke loose, according to the defence, in the print and electronic media. The prosecution's attempt to nail him is purely by reason of political vendetta; to which the Police willingly succumbed.