JOBY @ THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.642 of 2013. That was a case on the file of the sessions court, Thodupuzha. The case was disposed of by the Ist additional sessions judge. The appellant was charged under sections 201, 302 and 324 of IPC. He was acquitted of the offence under section 201 of IPC and was convicted under sections 302 and 324 of IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case is as follows: The appellant is the son of Mariamma who was the victim of the offence. They used to quarrel each other. The appellant was a habitual drunkard. There were instances where he attacked and caused hurt to his mother. She had filed a complaint against him before the police. Therefore he had grudge against her. The incident was on 4.4.2013. It happened in the night. The appellant caught hold on the neck of his mother and hit her head against the wall and caused her hurt. He thereafter forcefully administered poison to his mother. The dead body was found in the toilet of the house of the victim and the appellant.

(3.) Pw1 gave FI statement. PW8 registered the FIR. PW9 filed report under section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. The judicial magistrate- II, Ist class, Peermade committed the case to the court of session. The case was made over to the Ist additional sessions judge for disposal. The learned additional sessions judge framed charges against the appellant and his co-accused under sections 201, 302 and 324 of IPC read with IPC 34. They pleaded not guilty. Thereupon the prosecution entered on evidence. PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exts P1 to P25 and MOs 1 to 9 were marked on the side of the prosecution. A contradiction in the FI statement was marked as Ext D1 on defence side. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied every evidence against him. He submitted his version during his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter both sides were heard by the learned additional sessions judge. The learned judge found that there was no ground for acquittal under section 232 of Cr.P.C. Hence the appellant was called upon to enter on defence and adduce evidence. He did not choose to adduce any evidence.