DODDA HANUMA @ HANUMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the 1st accused in SC No.511/2012 by which he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence for the offence u/s 201 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence of RI for 1 year for the offence u/s 449 I.P.C., RI for7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence for RI for 1 year in respect of offence u/s 392 I.P.C. and RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence for 2 years RI for the offence u/s 396 IPC.

(2.) Prosecution case is that accused 1 to 9 with the common object to cause death and robbery trespassed into the house of Smt.Beepathumma and her maid servant Selvy on 23/2/1998. In the process to commit robbery, 1st accused strangulated Beepathumma and Selvy by using a plastic cord. 25½ sovereigns of gold ornaments were stolen from the body of deceased Beepathumma. In order to conceal the evidence, the door of the building was locked from outside and the key was taken away. None knew about the said incident. But when PW2, the eldest daughter of the deceased was informed by a neighbour that foul smell was emanating from the house of Beepathumma, she collected one of the key from a neighbouring resident, opened the building and found her mother and servant lying dead. The body was acutely decomposed. Based on the said information, her husband PW1 proved First Information Statement to the police based on which crime was registered and investigation was conducted. The accused could not be apprehended immediately. However, the accused were apprehended in connection with some other crime at Karnataka and when questioned, the police got information regarding the involvement of the accused in the present crime. Accordingly, further investigation was conducted and final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court No.1 Kasaragod. Case was committed to the Sessions Court. Charge was framed and the accused denied having committed any of the offences.

(3.) To prove the prosecution case, they examined PW1 to PW21 and relied upon Exts.P1 to P31. Exts.C1 to C3 were marked as court exhibits. MO1 to MO5 were the material objects marked in the case. Exts.D1 and D2 were the portions of 162 statement of PW2 and PW3 respectively. The Sessions Court found accused 1 to 5 guilty of the offences alleged and accused 6 to 9 were acquitted. The present appeal had been filed by 1st accused alone. None of the other accused had preferred any other appeal.