OMANAKUTTAN @ KEERIKKADAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in this case was prosecuted for the offences punishable under S.392 and 302 Indian Penal Code. He was found guilty on both counts. Accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence punishable under S.302 IPC with a default clause. He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under S.392 IPC, that too with a default clause. It is also directed that if the fine amount is realised, a sum of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid as compensation to the mother of the deceased or to the legal heirs as the case may be. Set off as per law was allowed.

(2.) THE incident which gave rise to this case is alleged to have taken place in the intervening night of 09/11/1998 and 10/11/1998. The body of the deceased, namely, Shine was found in the lean to the marriage hall of Puthiyakavu Devi Temple. Shine was working as a sales representative. On 09/11/1998 Shine was on his way to his house. The next day when PW 1 had gone to the temple, he came to know the death of his nephew, namely, Shine and found his body in the lean to the marriage hall. He laid Ext. P1 First Information Statement before Hill Palace Police Station, Thripunithura. That was recorded by PW 19, the Station House Officer of the Hill Palace Police Station. On the basis of Ext. P1 First Information Statement, Crime No. 249 of 1998 was registered as per Ext. P1(a) First Information Report. PW 20 took over investigation on 10/11/1998. He went to the scene of occurrence and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased person and Ext. P2 report was prepared by him. He then sent the body for autopsy. PW 18, Forensic Surgeon conducted autopsy and prepared Ext. P11 certificate. PW 20 seized MOs. 1 to 9, which were found on the body of the deceased. He secured the assistance of a Scientific Expert and had samples collected from the place. He also recovered materials, which were found at the scene of occurrence as per Ext. P4 mahazar. During his investigation, it was revealed that it was a case of murder and hence he filed a report before the Court incorporating S.302 IPC. Ext. P13 is the relevant report. It was revealed during investigation that the accused and the deceased were seen together on 09/11/1998 late in the night. Since the investigating officer was convinced that the accused had a role in the incident, the accused was arrested. Based on Exts. P5(a) and P6(a) confession statements said to have been given by the accused, MO 11 bath towel and the cloths worn by the accused at the relevant time were seized. PW 20 had the accused examined by Doctor and had also collected his blood sample and hair sample. He had the materials seized by him sent for chemical examination. In the meanwhile, he had the Village Officer prepare the site plan. Later he had S.392 IPC also incorporated. He took the statements of witnesses and on receipt of Exts. P9 and P10 chemical examination reports, he completed investigation and laid charge before Court.

(3.) THE said Court, on receipt of records issued summons to the accused and he entered appearance. It was found that the accused was unable to engage a counsel to defend him and therefore the Court appointed Adv. Sreelal Warriar to defend the accused. On 14/10/2004 after hearing both sides charge was framed for the offences punishable under S.302 and 392 IPC. It was read over to him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is seen from the records that thereafter the accused filed a petition stating that he had no confidence in his counsel and that he wishes to conduct the case on his own. It is also seen that the Court cautioned him about the risk involved and also offered him appointment of another counsel to defend him. The accused refused to avail the service of a counsel and insisted that he conducts the case on his own.