G RAMESAN Vs. STATE OF KERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the 1st accused in S.C. 25/1982 of the Sessions Court, Quilon. Appellant along with A2 and A3 were charged under S.302, 201, 120B and 34 of the I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge found Al guilty under S.302 and 201 of the I.P.C. and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under S.302 of the I.P.C. No separate sentence was awarded under S.201 of the I.P.C. A2 and A3 were found not guilty and they were acquitted.

(2.) A3's husband Budhan (deceased) was found missing. The prosecution case is that Al developed illicit intimacy with A3 (wife of deceased) and as they wanted to continue their illicit relationship unhindered by the deceased they along with A2 conspired to murder deceased and carried out their nefarious intention successfully and concealed the corpse by burying him. P.W.1, elder brother of Budhan was informed by A3's father Kunjupillai (P.W.4) about the disappearance of Budhan 10 days prior to 19-8-1980. It was on 19-8-1980 that P.W.4 gave the above information to P.W.1., P.W.1 made enquiries about his brother. On getting information that Budhan was killed and buried by the accused, he went to Pooyapally police station on 13-2-1981 at 8.45 A.M. and lodged Ext. P1 first information statement. P.W. 15 Sub Inspector recorded the first information statement and registered crime 17/81. Ext. P17 is the first information report. P.W.20 conducted investigation of the case. At 11 P.M. on 13-2-1982 appellant was arrested and on the basis of the information given by him and as pointed out by him a corpse was exhumed in the presence of P.W.11, Executive II Class Magistrate, Kottarakkara. P.W.20 prepared scene mahazar Ext. P20 which has been attested by P.W.11. Ext. P8 is the inquest report. As the corpse was in an unidentifiable condition, investigating officer took steps for photographic super imposition. P.W. 12, Professor, Forensic Medicine and Police Surgeon, Medical College Hospital, Alleppey conducted autopsy and issued Ext. P8 post mortem certificate. With the skull and mandible collected by P.W. 12 and with Ext. P10 photograph, super imposition technique was done. Prosecution relies on the result of super imposition to establish that the dead body exhumed is that of deceased Budhan.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution case is entirely dependent upon circumstantial evidence and as the circumstances relied on by the prosecution are found wanting to establish every link in the chain of evidence it is indeed difficult to come to a finding against the appellant. Prosecution relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 (brothers of the deceased) regarding the identification of the body. Another circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.7 with regard to the motive and the threat administered by the accused in doing away with Budhan. The trump card of the prosecution case is the discovery of the dead body as pointed out by the appellant. Prosecution also relies on the photographic super imposition method adopted by P.W. 12 and his certificate that the skull could have been that of the figure in Ext. P10 photo.