PROMOD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the two appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.9.2013, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 341, 324, 326 read with S.34 IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.467 of 2011 of Additional Sessions Court,Irinjalakuda.

(2.) The victim involved is one Devadas. The allegation is that he succumbed to the injuries sustained from the hands of accused Nos.1 to 3. The alleged incident happened on 26.11.2010 while the victim was returning from his work place in a bus. The fifth accused in furtherance of their common intention boarded in the same bus with the intention to follow him and intimations were given to accused No.1 when the victim alighted in a nearby bus stop so as to reach his house. He has to pass through a rubber estate as usual to reach his house from the bus stand. Accused Nos.1 to 3 waited in the rubber estate. Fourth accused also joined them. They waited in a Qualis car bearing Reg.No.KL8/AA 2777 between 7.30 and 7.45 p.m. near to the pathway passing through the rubber estate. When the victim came there, the accused wrongfully restrained him and accused No.1 inflicted serious cut injuries with a billhook knife on his forehead, thereby he fell down. The accused No.1 again inflicted cut injuries on his legs and hands. Accused No.2 also joined in the attack against the victim with a sword and third accused with an iron pipe and inflicted several injuries on the victim. On receiving the injuries the victim intimated the attack to his brother Dharman through his mobile phone. Immediately his brother Dharman rushed to the place of occurrence along with his wife and mother and found the victim Devadas lying in a pool of blood with injuries. The victim thereon told them that it was accused No.1 and two others who inflicted injuries on him. He was removed to Aswini Hospital, Thrissur, but at about 10.30 p.m. he succumbed to the injuries.

(3.) The motive behind the crime is stated to be the enmity as the victim had maintained an illicit relationship with the wife of accused No.1 Neethu. She used to borrow money and gold ornaments from the victim on a specific undertaking that it will be returned to him on arrival of her husband, accused No.1 Pramod, who was employed abroad. The gold ornaments were not returned on the arrival of her husband, accused No.1. The transaction between the wife of accused No.1 and the victim had created suspicion in the mind of accused No.1 and he had arranged accused Nos.2 and 3 and conspired together for accomplishing their common object to do away the victim.