RANGASWAMY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The murder alleged, has ramifications from across the border and the allegation is that the deceased is an eye-witness to a murder in Tamil Nadu and the instant crime was to silence him. The charge was that A1 to A10 murdered the Municipal Councilor, Tiruchengode on the night of 7/12/2004 and in pursuance of the common object to murder and so silence him, the deceased herein was abducted in a Tata Sumo, brought to Chottanikkara, then, on his trying to escape, shifted to Pollachi, on which day itself he was brought back to Chalakkudy chopped on the neck, strangulated and dumped into the Chalakkudy river with his hands and legs tied.

(2.) Accused No.10 absconded and his case was split up. A1 to A9 stood trial, in which, prosecution examined eighteen witnesses and marked documents, many in series, from Exts.P1 to P47. The prosecution also produced seven material objects [MOs]. The defence examined one witness and marked four exhibits. Accused Nos.1 to 9 were convicted under S.302 read with S.49 and Ss.364, 201, 143, 147 and 148. For the offence under S.302 read with S.149 life imprisonment was imposed with a fine of Rs.25,000.00 each and suitable sentences, with fine and default sentences were imposed under the other provisions of the IPC also. The appellants are the accused numbers 1 to 9.

(3.) Learned Counsel Sri.Vivek Venugopal, appearing for the accused, pointed out that the entire case is built on circumstantial evidence, the foundation of which, is the testimonies of PWs.3,5 and 8 as also Ext.P3 document. The omissions in the testimony of the first two witnesses and the complete denial of the last of them, puts to peril the prosecution case, which is further aggravated by the so-called dying declaration Ext.P3(a) not being proved unequivocally. The testimonies of PWs.3 and 5, the father and relative of the deceased, suffer from serious inconsistencies. The accused alleged that the entire case set up against them, was by reason only of their alleged involvement in the case registered under S.302 at Tiruchengode in Tamilnadu.