TOMY JOSEPH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in this case was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of the IPC. He was found guilty on all counts. Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under S.302 and in default, to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, for the offence punishable under S.307, in default of which he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 309 IPC. Sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that on 4.12.2006 at about 8 am, when PW1, who is the younger brother of the accused was returning home from the church, he came to know that Alphonsa, the wife of the accused and his son Vineeth are no more and that PW2, who is the daughter of the accused has been injured and they have been taken to the hospital. He claims to have gone to the house of the accused. He says that a lot of people had gathered at the place. He did not enter the house. He straight away went and laid Ext.P1 F.I. Statement before the Erattupetta Police Station. Ext.P1 F.I.statement was recorded by PW11 who, as per Ext.P1(a) F.I.R., registered a crime for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of IPC. PW12 Sub Inspector of Police conducted inquest over the body of Vineeth and seized MOs 1 to 4. Ext.P3 is the said inquest report. PW13 conducted inquest over the body of Alphonsa and seized MOs 5 to 18. Ext.P2 is the said inquest report. The bodies were thereafter sent for autopsy. PW8 conducted autopsy on the body of Vineeth and he furnished Ext.P4 postmortem report. The postmortem certificate in respect of Alphonsa is Ext.P5. PW2 was attended to by PW9, who prepared Ext.P6 wound certificate. PW13, who was in charge of the station, completed the investigation and laid charges before court.

(3.) AFTER close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. He chose to adduce no evidence except to produce Exts.D1 to D2(a).