STATE OF KERALA Vs. SUDARSANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the order of acquittal in S.C. No. 717 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track (Adhoc) No. II, Thiruvananthapuram. The accused in the said case were charged with the offence punishable under S. 302, read with S. 34, of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the father of PW1, Krishnapillai has been spreading a scandal that PW2, the wife of the accused No. 1, is maintaining illicit relationships with accused Nos. 2 to 4 and that on 9.6.1998, at about 7.35 p.m., when Krishnapillai came to the house of PW2 to pay the cost of the cow dung purchased by him from her, the accused, on a misunderstanding that he came there to lure PW2 for sexual intercourse, assaulted and strangulated him on the veranda of the house of PW2 and when he fell unconscious, the accused in furtherance of their common intention to cause his death, removed him from the veranda and put him in the well, within the property of PW2 and thereby caused his death.

(2.) On the same day itself, based on the information furnished by PW1, the son of the deceased, a case was registered. The body of the deceased was later removed from the well and the inquest and post mortem examination were conducted. In the meanwhile, PW24 took over the investigation of the case. In the course of the investigation, PW24 recovered the material objects found in the premises of the house of PW2. He had also caused the forensic experts to collect the material objects required for forensic examination. He had also arrested the accused. After the arrest, based on a disclosure statement given by accused No. 1, PW24 recovered a few clothes worn by the accused at the time of the alleged occurrence. Later, on completion of the investigation, PW24 submitted the final report.

(3.) The learned Magistrate before whom the final report was submitted, after completing the procedural formalities, committed the accused to trial. Thereupon, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused. When the charge was read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution, therefore, examined Pws. 1 to 24, marked Exts. P1 to P24 documents and identified Mos. 1 to 28, to establish the guilt of the accused.