SULAIMAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS were convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 454, 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that appellants are brothers of one Shamsuddin who was employed in the house of PW5 Samuel, husband of deceased Mariyamma. PW1 Peter @ Benny is their son and PW2 Mohi is the son of the sister of PW1. PW3 Bastin is the son of PW1. On the morning of 21/11/2004 all the inmates of the house of PW5, except deceased Mariyamma had gone to the prayer hall. By about 11.30 a.m, PW3 sought permission of PW1 to go to their house, which is near to the prayer hall, to answer the call of nature. When PW3 reached the house and opened the front door, he found the body of deceased Mariyamma lying on the floor with a thorthu tied on her neck. PW3 rushed back to the prayer hall and informed it to PW1. PW2 Mohi, was also there along with PW1 at that time. Hearing the news PW2 accompanied by PW3 rushed to the house followed by Pws.1, 5 and others. It is alleged that when Pws.2 and 3 opened the door they found the appellants running out of the house. Though PW2 chased them he could not restrain them. PW1 along with PW5 removed the thorthu from the neck of Mariyamma and took her in a car to Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur. On examination the doctor found Mariyamma dead. PW1 reached Mannuthy police station and furnished Ext.P1 FI statement. It was recorded by PW11 the Assistant Sub Inspector who prepared Ext.P1(a) FIR and registered the crime. PW11 informed PW16, the then Circle Inspector of Police who took over the investigation immediately. PW16 conducted the inquest at 2.30 p.m and prepared Ext.P2 inquest report. He submitted necessary requisition for conducting postmortem examination. PW9 Dr.Rajaram, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Medical College Hospital, Thrissur conducted the autopsy and prepared Ext.P8 postmortem certificate finding that Mariyamma died due to combined effects of compression over the chest, strangulation and smothering. PW16 reached the scene of occurrence and prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar at 5.15 p.m. At the time of preparing the scene mahazar PW16 assured the presence of PW14 finger print expert and collected chance finger prints and palm prints from the house, as the almirah and shelf were found searched by the assailants, PW14 got the photographs of the finger prints prepared by PW15 Victor David, the photographic Assistant of Police Photographic Bureau. On 26/11/2004 PW16 arrested both the accused. On the information furnished by the first accused PW16 recovered MO.1 wrist watch belonging to PW5 and found missing after the incident, under Ext.P4 recovery mahazar. Under Ext.P6 recovery mahazar PW16 seized the dresses worn by the first accused. After the arrest of the accused, the finger prints of the accused were collected and sent to the finger print Bureau. PW14 examined the chance finger prints collected from the scene of occurrence with the finger prints of the accused collected and forwarded to the finger print Bureau and submitted Ext.P16 report finding that the chance finger and palm prints with that of the accused. After completing investigation final report was laid before Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thrissur, who committed the case to Sessions Court, Thrissur. Learned Sessions Judge made over the case for trial to Additional Sessions Court. Accused were defended by a counsel of their choice.

(2.) WHEN learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges for the offences under Sections 454, 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 30 exhibits and identified MO.1 wrist watch. After closing the prosecution evidence, accused were questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Though the accused denied the incriminating evidence put to them, they did not offer their version on the incident apart from claiming that they are innocent. Learned Additional Sessions Judge finding that the accused cannot be acquitted under Section 232 of Code of Criminal Procedure, called them to enter on their defence and adduce evidence. Accused did not adduce any evidence.

(3.) LEARNED Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.