MARUDEVI AVVA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two appellants in this Criminal Appeal. Marudevi Avva, appellant 1, was accused 1 and Appukuttan appellant 2, accused 4 in Sessions Case No. 66 of 1956 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode. There were in all four accused persons in that case. While there was a common charge against all the four of kidnapping, or in the alternative of abducting, a woman to compel her marriage an offence punishable under Section 366, Penal Code accused 1 and accused 4 were called upon to answer a further charge, the former under Section 115, (Penal Code) and the latter under Section 307 (Penal Code). Accused 4 was alleged to have attended to murder one Padmayya Goundan (P. W. 1) by driving a jeep over him and accused 1 was alleged to have abetted the said act of accused 4 driving the jeep over P. W. 1. Hence the charges under Section 307 and Section 115 respectively against accused 4 and accused 1. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted all the four persons of the common charge under Section 366, but found accused 1 and accused 4 guilty of the specific charges against them. Accused 1 was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months under Section 115 and accused 4 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years under Section 307. In this appeal they challenge these convictions and sentences.

(2.) Accused 1 is the wife of one Padmaprabha Goundan. P. W. 12 is the younger sister of accused 1. Their mother died some 4 or 5 years before 1-9-1956, the date of the occurrence complained of. Their father (P. W. 13) thereafter left P. W. 12 in the charge of accused 1 who was his eldest daughter. Since her marriage with Padmaprabha Goundan accused 1 lived with her husband at Puliyarmala, some miles away from the residence of Pw. 13. It would appear that while Pw. 12 was residing with accused 1, the latter's husband developed a desire to make Pw. 12 his second wife. Coming to know of this, Pw. 13 took Pw. 12 away to his house. She lived with him for 2 or 3 months and then Pw. 13 made arrangements with Pw. 1 to keep her with him and his family at his Kootamunda Estate in Kottappadi Amsom (Vyanad Taluk). Pw. 1 is a nephew of Pw. 13. Pw. 13 is said to have made this arrangement as there were no females in his house and he apprehended that while he is absent from there Padmaprabha Goundan might forcibly remove Pw. 12 to his place. Pw. 12 lived with Pw. 1 and his family for 4 or 5 months. During that period Padmaprabha Goundan was putting pressure on his wife to bring back Pw. 12 to his place and see that she became his second wife. Reports would seem to have reached Padmaprabha Goundan that Pw. 13 was contemplating to give Pw. 12 in marriage to somebody else. One Sundaram's name was in the air as the prospective husband of Pw. 12. This Sundaram was the brother-in-law of Jinachandra Goundan, an younger brother of Padmaprabha Goundan, Padmayya Goundan was their eldest brother's son. It would appear that Padmaprabha Goundan was not on good terms with his younger brother (Jinachandra Goundan) or with his nephew (Padmayya Goundan). Differences, both domestic and those connected with Legislative Council elections would appear to have existed between the brothers. The nephew was on the side of the younger brother. The prosecution case is that rumours about the marriage of Pw. 12 to Sundaram, caused great discomfiture to Padmaprabha Goundan and that in the forenoon of 19- 1956 he sent his wife, accused 1 and the three remaining accused persons in a jeep to Kootamunda Estate to take Pw. 12 away to his place at Puliyarmala. Accused 2 is Padmaprabha's Kariasthan (agent), accused 3, his cook and accused 4, the driver of the jeep. The jeep belonged to Padmaprabha Goundan.

(3.) According to the prosecution Pw 12 was born on 29-8-1940. On 1-9-1956 she was therefore below 18 years of age, being just over 16. The jeep driven by accused 4 earned accused 1, 2, and 3 as also a daughter of accused 1 to Kottamunda Estates & they reached there before noon. After the exchange of usual courtesies with Pw. 1, his wife (Pw. 2). Pw. 12 and others, accused 1 mooted the idea of taking Pw, 12 also with her to Puliyarmala. The prosecution would have it that Pw. 12 was not willing to go and told her sister that she could not accompany her unless P. W. 1 agreed. P. W. 1 stated that he could not agree unless Pw, 13 gave his consent. When accused 1 tried to induce Pw. 12 to accompany her Pw. 1 asked her to go upstairs (in his house) and remain there. While Pw. 12 tried to go upstairs, accused 1 prevented her from doing that and caught hold of her and made her get into the jeep. At the Instance of accused 1 accused 3 also joined her in helping Pw. 12 into the jeep. When that was done all those who had come in the jeep to Kottamunda Estate, except accused 2 got into it, the driver taking his seat at the wheel. Pw. 1 then tried to prevent the jeep moving by standing in front of it, but at the bidding of accused 1 accused 4 drove the jeep over him with the result he fell down. It is alleged that he got underneath the jeep, that the jeep dragged him for a distance of about 20 feet and that the jeep was then driven away leaving accused 2 behind. As a result of the fall and the subsequent dragging P. W. 1 sustained not less than 15 injuries.