JOY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, filed by the sole accused in S.C. No. 159 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Kottayam, is directed against the judgment, conviction and sentence passed against him by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) -I, Kottayam. He challenges the judgment dated 30.11.2006 as per which he has been convicted and sentenced u/s. 449, 302, 397 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) A conspectus of the prosecution case is as under: - -

(3.) IN order to prove the case of the prosecution, PW1 to 27 were examined and Ext. P1 to P22 were marked. MO. 1 to 24 were produced and identified. After closure of the prosecution evidence, incriminating materials arising out of the prosecution evidence, were put to the accused u/s. 313of the Cr.P.C. Apart from denying the incriminating circumstances the accused gave his version of the case. His defense was that after the funeral ceremonies of Ammini was over, the appellant visited the house of PW1. Only then did he come to know about the death of Ammini. His sister who is the wife of PW1 was alone in the house. A gold chain was handed over to him by his sister stating that she had obtained the ornament from a crevice in the mud wall from the precincts of house of the deceased. He was not aware of how much the gold chain weighed. He was told by his sister that it would be hazardous to retain the chain by her and he was asked to keep the same in safe custody. He went back to his house at Vandiperiyar with the chain. After some days, he called PW6 - Shobha on her phone and his sister told him that the situation was not right and told him not to come there. He was asked to keep the ornament with him. Later, on the 10th day of particular month which he did not remember, he was arrested by the police from the road side at Valapatanam at Kannur. The gold chain was sold by him at Kottayam, but he did not remember the name of the shop. He obtained Rs. 3500/ - as sale proceeds. When the learned Sessions Judge asked him in the course of the statement as to whether MO. 1 and the ornament sold by him was one and the same, he answered in the affirmative. He asserted that he was innocent.