MANHERI RAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry in SC No. 75/82 for offences punishable under Ss. 302, 392 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under S.302, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. For the other two offences rigorous imprisonment for one year each are sentences given. It is provided in the judgment "But the sentence for the offence under Ss.392 and 201 merge in the sentence for the offence punishable under S.302 IPC as it is life imprisonment". We understand that what the Sessions Judge meant was that the sentences should be undergone concurrently.

(2.) The charge was that in between 9 and 10 p.m. on 13-11-1981 at his shop in Puvathur Desom, the appellant murdered Sathi daughter of Raman by strangulating her. The further case is that he robbed her of her gold chain and wrist watch and caused the evidence to disappear by packing and throwing the dead body into a well in order to screen him from the offence.

(3.) Deceased Sathi was aged 35 and unmarried. Appellant was aged 26. They reside at a distance of 1 kms. In Koodali bazar near the mosque there is a shop building having four rooms. The appellant is occupying two of the rooms for conducting his stationery shop, cycle shop and his business in hiring furniture. Sathi was a tailor doing her tailoring work at home. She was residing with her relations. It so happened that she fell in love with the appellant who is much younger to her and belonging to a different community. They were having free sex. Deceased Sathi used to visit the appellant every day more than once. She made no secret of the love affair. She even divulged the free sexual connection as well as the assurance given by the appellant to marry her. On the 11th and 12th of Nov, 1981 the appellant was away from station, having gone to Coimbatore for business purposes. Deceased Sathi was making frantic enquiries about him on those days. On 13-11-1981 the appellant returned. After 9 p.m. on that day the deceased and the appellant met near his shop. The prosecution case is that the incident happened thereafter before 10 p.m.