SAJU @ UNNI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Appeal No.1171/12 is filed by the accused in SC No.360/2010 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, through jail authorities, while D.S.R.No.4/2010 is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, for confirmation of the death sentence awarded for the accused in that case under Section 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code. Since both the appeal and death reference are in respect of the very same judgment, the same are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE accused in this case was charge sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kuruppampady Police Station, under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.1039/2009 of Kuruppampady Police Station. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, was that on 1.11.2009 at about 6.30 pm, at the courtyard of the house of the accused, the accused, with an intention to commit murder of PW1, his mother-in-law, inflicted injuries on her neck with a chopper and also inflicted injuries on PW2, his father-in-law, with the same intention. When the wife of the accused, deceased Usha tried to intervene, he inflicted cut injuries on her head indiscriminately with the chopper, with an intention to cause her death and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted final report against the accused for the above said offence before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam, under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (In short, Cr.P.C.), as per order in CP No.7/2010. After committal, the Sessions Judge took cognizance of the case as SC No.360/2010 under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) SINCE the learned Sessions Judge thought that it was not a case to be acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C, he called upon the accused to adduce defence evidence, but no defence evidence was adduced, except marking Exts.D1 and D2 contradictions in the evidence of PW2 in his 161 statement.