THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in S.C.No.78/09 of the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc-1), Ernakulam, challenging the judgment dated 12.5.2009, by which the court below convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under sections 302, 397 and 201 of IPC, has come up in appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case is that, the deceased Mary, while residing along with her husband and their children at their house, adjacent to the house of the accused, at about 10.30 a.m. on 1.1.2008, went to the house of the accused, bearing house No.IX/367 (II/344) of Kalloorkad Panchayat, for collecting buttermilk and the accused, who was badly in need of money, was awaiting to commit murder of the said Mary for taking her gold ornaments and with a view to cause disappearance of evidence, had already prepared a pit for burying the body of the deceased. When the said Mary reached his house at about 11.10 a.m. on 1.1.2008, she was tactfully called to the kitchen of the house of the accused, from where, the accused took her to the middle room situated in the western side of the house of the accused and thereafter, by using an iron pipe, inflicted blow on the head of the said Mary and when she cried, her head was hit against the wall and using the same iron pipe, he inflicted injuries repeatedly on the front and right side of her neck and on both sides of the head, as a result of which, she succumbed to death and thereby the accused committed murder of the said deceased Mary. Thereafter, the gold ornaments worn by the deceased in her neck and hands were taken away and the studs worn in her ears were also removed after cutting the ears and thereafter the body of the deceased was buried in a pit, which he had already prepared within a distance of 12-20 mtrs away from the south-western corner of the house, having the width of 85 cm and length of 154 cm and having 70 cm depth and thereby caused disappearance of evidence and thus according to the prosecution, the accused has committed the offences punishable under sections 302, 397 and 201 of IPC.

(3.) It is the further case of the prosecution that on 1.1.2008, the deceased Mary was available in their house in the morning and when the daughter of the deceased Mary, namely Bindu Joseph, left for school, she had seen Mary - her mother in the house and when she returned from School at about 4o' clock, her mother was not found in the house ; then she opened the door and waited for her mother and as her mother did not reach, she enquired in the nearby houses and the neighbours replied that they did not see the deceased Mary. After sunset, the husband of the said Mary arrived after his agricultural work and though he conducted enquiry, he could not trace out his wife. So, according to the prosecution, the husband of the deceased Mary went to the Police Station at about 9 a.m. on 2.1.2008 and launched a complaint about the missing of his wife-Mary, who is aged 42 years, from 4 p.m. onwards on 1.1.2008, on the basis of which, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kalloorkad, registered a crime as FIR No.1/08 under the caption "woman missing".