PRADEEP SONAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Far from their homes and family, the plight of migrant workers is an endless narrative, often meaningless in form and sad in content. The prosecution alleges the murder of a mother and child by the former's live-in partner; all of them migrated from the east of India to its southern tip for eking out a mere subsistence. The prosecution alleges that sometime in the night of 04.05.2011 the accused murdered his live-in partner and her child, presumably for the money stashed away by the murdered woman. The accused fled to his home-State, from where the police arrested him.

(2.) Sri. Renjith B. Marar appears for the appellant and Smt.S.Ambika Devi for the State.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant points out that there is no chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime. There is no motive established and the accused had a valid explanation for being away from his workplace. Reliance is placed on S.K. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal [(2011) 11 SCC 754] to argue that the mere fact of the accused having absconded does not lead to a necessary conclusion of a guilty mind and also challenge the last seen theory propounded. Subramanian v. State of Kerala [2004 KHC 814] is also relied on for the very same purpose. The fact that the grandmother of the accused was ill and he had taken a loan from PW1, coupled with the enquiry to PW8 about the time it takes to reach Thrissur and Shornur, explains his absence, which is sufficient under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Reading Ext.P2 inquest report and PW1's deposition juxtaposed with Ext.P9 sketch, it is pointed out that the shed adjacent to the unit of PW1 was open and accessible to anybody. PW1 was not present on the fateful day and there is sufficient indication in the evidence of PW8 that the accused was planning to leave his workplace. The mother and child, in all probability, would have been attacked by unknown assailants, who were aware of the absence of both PW1 and the accused on the crucial day.