VENUGOPALAN VENU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the accused in S. C. No. 52 of 1992 before Sessions Court, North Paravur. He was convicted under S.302 I. P. C. for having committed the murder of his sister's child Renuka aged 7 years and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence are challenged by the appellant in this appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case as spoken to by P. W. 2 is as follows: P.W. 2 Radha and her husband P.W. 11 are residing in House No. XI/4505, Valiya Veedu, Vazhakkala Kara in Vazhakkala Village. They had two children, namely Renuka aged 7 years who was studying in the Second Stand and another child to which P.W. 2 gave birth just prior to the incident. Accused, brother of P. W. 2 was residing alone in their family house at Perumbavoor. The accused, P. W. 2, D. W. 1 and Shylaja, another younger sister arc the children of one Krishnan Achari who was a Tahsildar. P. W. 2 is a Clerk in the Agricultural Department since 1982. Her husband is employed in Cochin Shipyard. Krishnan Achari died while in service and P. W. 2 got employment under the dying in harness scheme. D. W. 1 Kamala is employed as Junior Telecom Officer in the Telecommunication Department. She was also married in 1985. The other sister Shylaja is yet to be married. On 17th August 1991 the accused went to the house of P. W. 2 at 9 a.m. P. W. 2 was taking bath at that time. Her house is a two-storeyed building. There are two rooms in the upstairs. When the accused came P. W. 2 asked her servant Aysha (P.W. 3) to attend to the visitor and P. W. 3 told her that it was none other than her brother. When she came after bath the accused was sitting in the drawing room. They talked about various family matters. Accused expressed resentment that he continues to be unemployed because P. W. 2 got the job in Government service. He asked for his share in the family house and P. W. 2 told him that the matter can be considered only after Shylaja is married. He was talking to her angrily. Her husband had left for office at 8 a.m. Accused took Renuka and went out. He came back with the child after purchasing some lozenges for the child. She gave one to her mother and another to the servant. P. W. 2 then went to the bed room with her younger child and the accused and Renuka went upstairs. It was about 12 p. m. then. After some time the accused came down and took a thorthu from the room downstairs just opposite to the kitchen. P. W. 2 thought that he was taking it for playing with the child. At about 1 o' clock accused and Renuka came down, took lunch and after 15 minutes went upstairs again. P. W. 3 then asked the child whether she should not study for the examination. The child replied that she wants to go and sleep with her uncle and went with him. After lunch P.W. 2 also went and slept in her room and P. W. 3 was cleaning the vessels. At that time the accused came down and went upstairs with a ribbon used by Renuka which was red and light blue in colour. P. W. 3 was employed there only for about three months to attend to her child. P. W. 2 had asked her to find out a permanent servant and for that purpose P.W. 3 went out at about 2.30 p.m. Before that P.W. 3 remarked that the behaviour of the accused was suspicious and asked P. W. 2 to be cautious.

(3.) About 15 minutes after P. W. 3 left, P. W. 2 found the accused coming down and going out. She thought he was going to buy cigarette and will come soon. But he did not return. As the child was lying alone in the upstairs, P.W. 2 went there and saw the child lying in the cot in the northern bed-room. At first she thought that the child was asleep and called her. There was no response. Then she went near the child and touched her to wake her up. She noticed that a cloth was tied around her neck. She cried and removed the cloth and noticed that the ribbon taken by the accused was tied around her" neck. She went to the balcony and cried for help and P.W. 1, a neighbour who was going along the road came there and saw the child lying in the cot. He asked P.W. 2 as to what happened to the child and P.W. 2 told him that it was done by the accused. P.W. 2 removed the ribbon from her neck and the child was motionless. She took the child and came out. At that time C.W. 4 Nabeesa and P.W. 4 Vilasini came there and took the child from P.W. 2. P.W. 1 brought a taxi and they went to Sevanam Clinic where the child was examined by P.W. 8, Dr. Johnson who advised them to take the child to the Medical Centre, Palarivattom where Dr. Ramesan (P.W. 6) examined the child at about 3.15 p.m. and told that the child was dead. Thereafter, police was intimated and P.W. 1 went and gave F.I. Statement.