BABURAJ KADAVIL KOTTUKAL VELAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Baburaj, the appellant herein, was tried under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for intentionally causing the death of his wife. The trial culminated in his conviction under Section 302 I.P.C., for which he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, vide order dated 1st March, 2004 passed by the Sessions Court, Thrissur. The prosecution secured conviction of the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence. As to whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution were such that may complete the chain incriminating the appellant is the question to be decided in this appeal. Surely, the answer to this question would lie in the facts leading to the death of Geetha and the circumstances as sought to be proved by the prosecution.

(2.) The occurrence leading to the death of Geetha, the wife of the appellant, took place on the intervening night of 31st January and 1st February of 2002 at 1.30 A.M. The F.I.R. with regard to the incident came to be lodged by the brother of the deceased, Babu.O.R. (P.W.1) on 1.2.2002 at 5.00 A.M., which was recorded by M.G.Sivaraman, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.8). While reporting the death of Geetha, the wife of the appellant, the first informant got mentioned in the F.I.R. that his sister, aged 32 years, was killed by his brother-in-law Baburaj. He had a Cable T.V. network at Vatanappilly. His sister had been married to the appellant and was residing to the east of Aayiramkkanni Temple, Engandiyoor since the last nine years. In his brother-in-law's house, in addition to him (brother-in-law) his sister and their two children were living. Their elder son, Brown, is 7 years old and the daughter, Anizha, is 3= years old. His brother-in-law was conducting the business of selling groceries in front of his house. On the eventful day, in the early morning at 2.30 hours, he received information over telephone from Manoj, who is the son of his uncle, that there was some problem between his brother-in-law and sister. He along with Dileep, the son of his father's elder brother, reached his brother-in-law's house at Engandiyoor by 3.00 O'Clock in the morning. He saw people gathered there. On enquiry made by him with Vinayan, the elder brother of his brother-in-law, he told him that there was a quarrel between his sister and brother-in-law at night and the appellant killed Geetha by strangulating her. When he looked in to the room of the house, he saw his sister Geetha lying dead on the cot. He knew that there used to be quarrels occasionally between his sister and brother-in-law. The incident took place by 1.30 A.M. on 1.2.2002. The scene of occurrence was 5 Kms. away from the Police Station.

(3.) The prosecution endeavoured to bring home the offence charged against the accused by examining Dr.Cyriac Job, P.W.7, who stated that he was working as Assistant Professor and Deputy Police Surgeon, Medical College, Thrissur on 1.2.2002 and had conducted post-mortem examination on the body of Geetha, aged 32 years on the said date. It was a body of a moderately built and nourished female. Eyes of the dead body were closed, subconjunctive haemorrhage was present on the right eye, Cornea was hazy and finger nails were blue. He noticed multiple small black live ants on the hairs and neck area. The face was excessively bluish. He noticed multiple ant bite marks over an area of 6x2 cm. left side of neck and behind 1.5 x 1 cm. left side of chest on the body. Rigor mortis was established and retained all over. Post-mortem staining was present at the back fixed. The doctor found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of Geetha: