LAWS(KER)-2018-3-215

SAJAN @ SREEJITH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On March 14, 2018
Sajan @ Sreejith Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second accused in S.C.No.64 of 2011 has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment dated 9.12.2013 by which he along with the 1st accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10, 000/- each and in default of which to undergo imprisonment for one year, alleging offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is submitted that the first accused has preferred an appeal, but he is no more.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the accused persons with a common intention of committing murder of one Bhanumathi suffocated her leading to her death. Thereafter they suspended her body in the rafter in the cow shed. According to the prosecution, the victim was residing in her house with her unmarried daughter (PW9) . The first accused was introduced to them by PW25 who was the husband of another daughter of the victim. The first accused came along with PW25 in the residence of victim styling himself as a CBI Officer to investigate the murder of victim's son who died by drowning. He used to have constant visits to her house. Later he expressed his desire to marry PW9. The victim did not approve the said relationship. On 25.1.2009 at about 10.30 pm, the 1st accused accompanied by second accused have come to the house of the victim and committed the murder. To prove the prosecution case they examined PW1 to PW28 and marked Exts.P1 to P24. MOs1 to 11 were produced and proved. The court below found that there is sufficient evidence to prove the involvement of the accused persons with the crime and accordingly convicted them.

(3.) Advocate Smt. Sainu B., appearing on behalf of the appellant/2nd accused contended that there is no direct evidence in the case to implicate the appellant to the crime. There is no eye witness to the incident and the only evidence is that of PW9, who deposed that he had come along with the first accused to their house on the fateful date and thereafter when PW9 came in search of the victim he ran away from the place. It is submitted that other than the aforesaid statement of PW9 there is absolutely no other evidence to connect the second accused with the crime.