CHELLAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in this case, who was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 511 of Section 376, 394, 397 and 302 Indian Penal Code, was found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 394, 397 and 302 I.P.C. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of two months for the offence under Section 394 IPC read with Section 397 IPC. Minimol, the victim, was little aware of what the fate had in store for her when she set out for work as usual on 6.9.2002. She was working as a Nurse at Santhi Hospital Pazhayannur. Minimol, her brother P.W. 1, their mother and P.W. 2, wife of P.W. 1 with their children were residing together at a place called Adakkode in Pulakkode Village. Accused was their neighbour. Minimol, in order to reach her place of employment used to start from her house at 6.30 a.m. In order to catch the bus to reach her place of employment, she had to pass through a pathway in the forest area. Of course there was an alternate way available to her, but that was a circuitous one and she had to pay a huge amount as bus fare by taking that route which she could ill-afford. The accused, who was employed in a rubber nursery run by P.W. 10, had also to take the same route as the victim. They were familiar to each other. On 6.9.2002 also, it is alleged by the prosecution, the accused took the same way soon after Minimol had left her house. The further allegation is that the accused with ill-motive followed the victim. He dragged her from the pathway into the forest and attempted to ravish her. Strong resistance from the victim made his attempt unsuccessful. Prosecution would allege that in order to conceal his misdeeds, the accused did away with the victim using M.O. 1 weapon and robbed her ornaments.

(2.) P.W. 6 with her sister and daughters used to go to the forest to collect forest wood. As usual, on 6.9.2003, they went to the forest. No sooner than they had entered the forest, one of the daughters of P.W. 6 said (something is lying there) to P.W. 6. P.W. 6 informed the local people and they gathered at the place to find Minimol lying dead. Soon thereafter a person by name Kannan informed P.W. 1 about the mishap. P.W. 1 reached the site of the incident and found his sister lying dead. He went to Chelakkara Police Station and at 11 a.m. laid Ext. P1 First Information Statement which was recorded by P.W. 23, who registered crime as per Ext. P1(a) FIR. P.W. 26 took over investigation and he conducted inquest over the body and prepared Ext. P2 inquest report. He procured the assistance of the Scientific Assistant and had blood samples collected and also the samples of soil and blood collected from the spot. Scientific Assistant collected M.O. 17 partial denture from the site and P.W. 26 recovered M.Os. 1, 4, 10, 25 to 44 from the site. He had M.Os. 17 to 24 handed over to him by P.W. 21 seized as per Ext. P20 mahazar. As per the instructions from P.W. 26, P.W. 28 prepared Ext. P3 scene mahazar. After inquest, the body was sent for autopsy. P.W. 20 conducted necropsy over the body of late Minimol and furnished Ext. P14 report. The articles and the samples collected by P.W. 20 during postmortem were handed over to P.W. 26. P.W. 26 seized M.Os. 5, 6, 7, 8, 45, 64 and 67 recovered as per Ext. P21 mahazar. He filed Ext. P22 report incorporating Section 302 I.P.C. Investigation was thereafter taken over by P.W. 27. He had the statements of witnesses recorded. As per the order of this Court, the investigation was entrusted to C.B.C.I.D., P.W. 29 Detective Inspector of C.B.C.I.D. took over investigation on 18.7.2005. P.W. 29 had M.O. 17 taken to P.W. 16 and examined whether it would suit P.W. 1 or the accused. After examination, P.W. 16 issued Exts. P8 and P9 certificates indicating that the partial denture, M.O. 17, did not suit either to P.W. 1 or to the accused. P.W. 29 then approached P.W. 24 on 8.6.2006 for expert opinion regarding M.O. 17 partial denture. P.W. 24 along with C.W. 1 (examined before this court as court witness) conducted the necessary examination and followed the routine procedures in such cases and furnished Ext. P15 report. Ext. P15 revealed that M.O. 17 partial denture could have been used by the accused. P.W. 29 continued his investigation and recorded the statements of witnesses. Meanwhile on the basis of Ext. P15 report, P.W. 29 arrested the accused on 10.6.2006 at 10 a.m. as per Ext. P24 arrest memo. On the basis of Ext. P4(a) confession statement said to have been furnished by the accused M.O. 16 ingot was recovered from P.W. 8 as per Ext. P4 mahazar. He had the materials collected during investigation sent for chemical examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory and obtained Ext. P29 report. He filed Ext. P27 report adding Section 511 of Section 376 and Section 397 I.P.C. His successor P.W. 30 completed the investigation and laid charge before court.

(3.) JFCM, Wadakkanchery, before whom the final charge was laid, took cognizance of the offence. The said court finding that the offence is one exclusively triable by a court of Sessions, committed the case to Sessions Court, Thrissur. Sessions Court, Thrissur framed charges for the offences under Section 511 of Section 376, 394, 397 and 302 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Prosecution therefore had P.Ws. 1 to 32 examined and Exts. P1 to P29 marked. They had also identified M.Os. 1 to 48 and got them marked. During the cross-examination of the witnesses of the prosecution, the defence had Exts. D1 to D5 marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr. P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence against him and maintained that he has been falsely implicated and he is innocent. In his statement, it was pointed out that he is an agriculturist and he stays with his wife and three children and the family is dependent on his income. Except that he knew that Minimol was a resident of the locality, he had no connection with the said lady. He says that he used to go to his place of work by the bus at 6 a.m. He would also say that during investigation police had questioned him on several occasions after the incident and after some days of the incident he was examined by a doctor named Rajendran. He pointed out that one of his teeth was extracted 20 years back and he had never used any artificial denture. He had nothing to do with the incident which caused the death of Minimol and also maintained that he had neither sold any gold ornaments nor had shown the shop where the ornaments were sold to the police as alleged by the prosecution. He was taken to the doctor at Kozhikode by the police and his teeth was changed. He had maintained that he is totally innocent in the case. Finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 Cr. P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence. The accused had D.W. 1 examined. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case, the court below came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing the case against the accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as already mentioned. The said conviction and sentence are assailed in this appeal.