SHAHIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for the offence under section 396 IPC by Sessions Judge, Thrissur in S.C.68/2007. Prosecution case is that deceased Rajan the husband of PW5, Chandrika left his wife and daughter in 1996 due to the failure in his business and thereafter they were living separately. He was doing business at Kattilappilly in two rooms obtained on rent from PW2 Hassan Koya. Rajan was residing alone in one of the rooms. On the morning of 4.7.2005, the deadbody of Rajan was found by PW4, Jameel on the backside of the rooms, with both hands and legs tied. PW4 informed it to Pws 1 to 3. PW1 Muhammed Rafi, a close neighbour furnished Ext.P1 First Information Statement which was recorded by PW18, the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered Crime 400/2005 of Chavakkad Police Station for the offences under sections 394 and 302 of Indian Penal Code, after preparing Ext.P1(a) FIR. PW19 Circle Inspector took over the investigation. He prepared Ext.P11 Inquest report in the presence of PW16 Raphy and thereafter prepared Ext.P12 scene mahazar in the presence of PW17 Unnikrishnan. PW19 seized M08 chappal, M09 purse containing M010 series of cash of Rs.1605/- from the room where the deceased was living at the time of preparing Ext.P12 scene mahazar. From the western paramba of the shop building, PW19 seized M09 chappal, M014 banian and M02 drawer found abandoned there. PW19 forwarded the body for autopsy. PW12 Dr.N.Rajaram conducted the autopsy and prepared Ext.P6 postmortem certificate finding that the deceased died due to smothering and the blunt injury sustained on his head. PW21 the successor Circle Inspector, who took over the investigation from PW19, continued the investigation. The assailants involved could not be traced. PW21 therefore enquired about the whereabouts of persons involved in such offences and found out that the accused were missing from the area. On 28.8.2006, PW21 arrested appellants 1, 4 and 5. First accused was arrested while he was engaged as worker in the vegetable market at Ernakulam and appellants 4 and 5 from their native place. Second appellant was undergoing sentence in Central Jail. His formal arrest was recorded on 5.7.2006 after obtaining permission from the court. PW21 arrested the third accused on 7.7.2007 from Olavakkode Railway Statiion. On the information furnished by the fifth appellant, under Ext.P5 recovery mahazar, M04 gold ring allegedly worn by the deceased and was found missing on the morning of 4.7.2005 when his dead body was found, was recovered from the house of the fifth appellant in the presence of PW11 the Police Constable on 7.7.2006 at 4 p.m. PW21 seized Ext.P7 and P8 register and bill book of Anugraha Tourist Home, Kozhikode where all the appellants allegedly stayed on 4.7.2005. After completing the investigation charge was laid before Judicial First Class Magistrate, who committed the case to Sessions Court, Thrissur.

(2.) LEARNED Sessions Judge framed the charge for the offence under section 396 of Indian Penal Code read over and explained to the appellants. All the appellants pleaded not guilty. Appellants are defended by a counsel appointed by them. Prosecution examined 21 witnesses and marked 23 exhibits and identified 18 Material Objects. After closing the prosecution evidence appellants were questioned under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. When the incriminating evidence was put to the accused they denied the same and contended that they were not involved in the incident at all. The fifth appellant contended that he did not furnish any information and based on his information M04 was not recovered. Learned Sessions Judge finding that this is not a case for acquittal under section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, called upon the appellants to enter on the defence and adduce evidence if any, in support thereof. Appellants did not adduce any defence evidence.

(3.) LEARNED senior counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.1274/2008 and the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Cr.A.2549/2008 and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.