MURUKAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision Petition has been filed by the accused challenging the judgment in Crl.A No.30/2015 of Sessions Court, Alappuzha by which it confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them by the trial court in S.C No.121/2009 for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).

(2.) In brief the prosecution case is that Sasidharan, who is the father of A2 and father-in-law of A1, committed suicide by hanging in his tharavad house between 5.30 pm of 16/7/2008 and 11.30 am of 17/7/2008 due to the mental and physical harassment and humiliation of the accused. According to the prosecution, accused abetted the commission of suicide by Sasidharan and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec. 306 r/w 34 IPC.

(3.) Initially, pursuant to Ext.P1 first information statement given by PW1, Ext.P5 FIR was registered by PW8 under the caption 'unnatural death' and FIR was sent to the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate. Subsequently, PW8 filed Ext.P6 report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Haripad incorporating Sec. 306 r/w Sec. 34 IPC and arraigned the revision petitioners herein as accused and the crime was investigated. After completing the investigation, PW9 filed final report against the accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Haripad for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 r/w 34 IPC. The case was subsequently committed to Court of Sessions, Alappuzha, which in turn made over it to the Assistant Sessions Court, Alappuzha for trial. The trial court framed charge under Sec. 306 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused. Charge was read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and faced trial. In substantiation of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9, marked Exts.P1 to P9 and identified MOs 1 to 7. After the close of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Sec. 313(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (Cr.P.C for short). Accused denied all the incriminating evidence against them and maintained that they are innocent and they were falsely implicated.