PHILIP Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is sent from prison challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, the sole accused in S.C.No.1162 of 2007 by the Court of Sessions, Thiruvananthapuram, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of his wife Jaspin. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The case of the prosecution is as follows:-

(2.) TO prove the charge against the appellant herein prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9, got marked Exts.P1 to P18 and identified material objects 1 to 21. After closing the prosecution evidence the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating circumstances were put to him and the appellant denied all such incriminating circumstances. Additionally he stated to the effect that he had not committed the offence and that on the date of occurrence he was in the house. Further, he stated that his son John Bosco who married from Kambikkakam, Valia Veli often insisted him to vacate the house and at times, assaulted him and even attempted to kill him in order to make him yield to that request. He had also stated that on the date of incident when he was coming from the western side of the house John Bosco came there and picked up quarrel with him re-iterating the demand to vacate the house. Further, it was stated thus:- John Bosco strangulated him with a thorthu with a view to kill him and he became unconscious and fell down in front of the house. When he regained his consciousness he was lying on a cot inside the house and then he got up and went outside and saw police personnel coming to his house. They asked to get into the jeep and on account of fear he got into the jeep and they took him to police station and falsely implicated him in the case. On finding that it is not a fit case for acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C. the appellant was asked to enter on his defence. However, he has not adduced any evidence on his side except marking Exts.D1 to D6, the portions of statements of PWs 3 and 4 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., at the time of their examination. Relying on the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and also the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PWs2 to 4 the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a complete chain of circumstances leading to the irresistible conclusion of guilt of the accused/appellant and accordingly convicted him for committing the murder of his wife Jaspin under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.This appeal is filed against the said conviction and the sentence.

(3.) THERE was no eye witness in this case. extra-judicial confession by the appellant was also relied on in this case based on circumstantial evidence. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the evidence relied on by the prosecution was not conclusive enough to convict the appellant under Section 302 IPC. It is contended that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 were not credible or trustworthy as their evidence suffer from material contradictions. That apart, the extra-judicial confessions of the appellant claimed to have been made to PWs 2 to 4 also suffer from inherent improbabilities and were wholly inadmissible. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, contended that the material witnesses viz., PWs 1 to 4 were able to withstand the vigour of cross examination and though they were cross examined at length the defence could not elicit anything to make their oral testimonies unreliable and untrustworthy and therefore, their oral testimonies were rightly relied on by the learned Sessions Judge. It is also contended that the extra- judicial confession made by the appellant to PWs 2 to 4 gain support from a chain of cogent circumstances. It is further contended that the chain of circumstances against the accused is so complete and conclusive to unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. In short, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the appellant was rightly found guilty and convicted under Section 302 IPC by the learned Sessions Judge and the conviction and the sentence call for no appellate interference.