PANDI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unsuspecting driver took a trip for his taxi, little knowing that it would be his last one. His body was found on the next day, beaten, strangulated and incinerated. The murder was alleged to be part of a conspiracy to rob the taxi car; a crime for gain, hatched by A1 to A4. A5 has been roped in, for his role in transforming the car with a fake number plate, thus destroying evidence.

(2.) These appeals are filed by accused 1 and 5, the appeal of 2nd accused (Crl.A.No.203 of 2018) having abated for reason of his death. We heard learned Counsel Sri.Renjith B. Marar for A1 and learned Counsel Sri.Alexander George for A5. We also heard learned Senior Public Prosecutor Sri.Alex M.Thombra for the State.

(3.) The charge which the accused were called upon to defend was under Section 302, 392 read with 34, 120B and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. A5 was charged only under Section 201 of IPC. The charge against A1 to A4 reads of A1 having hired the car and while travelling towards Pooppara, A2 to A4 with a prior concert joined him. On the return journey, reaching Thaikarachira, Kottapuram in the early morning, the passengers wanted to alight and pay off the taxi driver. The driver alighted from the car and opened the right door of the back seat when A3 inflicted a wound on the backside of the head of the deceased and A2 hit with a lever on his face. A1 then caught hold of the hands of the victim when A4 strangulated the deceased with a clutch cable. Laying the supine body on the road margin, it was covered with a towel, petrol poured over it and set ablaze with a cigarette lighter. The case was set up on solely circumstantial evidence with no ocular evidence. We fail to understand how such a charge was made out with narration of the role of each of the accused. Well, one could imagine the accused speaking to the investigator when in custody. But if the prosecution is shaped on that and the evidence collected only on that; then of course the result would be disastrous as in this case. When a confession made by the accused cannot be relied upon by courts of law; the investigators should tread carefully in shaping the case and collecting evidence. This is a classic case in which the clumsy investigation and inept prosecution conspired together to derail the case against the accused. The impugned judgment is the product also of an overzealous Court who went on to convict, even in the absence of any evidence.