BABU Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the appellant Babu, who is the sole accused, challenges the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam in S.C. No. 276 of 2012. By virtue of the said verdict, he was found guilty for offences under Sections 452 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and was directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a default stipulation of rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) in default of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 452 of I.P.C. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. Fine amount, if realized, was directed to be paid to PW2, PW3 and DW1 equally under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.').

(2.) Case of the prosecution against the appellant is as under:

(3.) To prove the case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW27 as witnesses, marked Exts.P1 to P27 documents and identified MO1 to MO10 as material objects. After closure of prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to offer explanation regarding the incriminating evidence against him, which the appellant denied. He filed a written statement, wherein he stated that he had married Minimol Jose as per rites and customs of Hindu community and two daughters were born out of the wedlock. They lived together happily for 10 years. One day, a quarrel took place regarding a telephone call and on the next day, she left the house taking her children along with her. She managed to arrange a rented house with the help of her lover. Appellant herein filed a complaint regarding missing of his wife and children. After 10 days, he was called to office of Dy.S.P where he met his wife and children. The Sub Inspector asked him to seek remedy through Family Court. After a few days, a relative of his wife Mr.Ranjan who was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police called him over phone and told him to come to his house. He went there and saw his wife and children in Ranjan's house. Ranjan asked the appellant to forgive the wrongs of appellant's wife and take her and her children back with him. After one month, the appellant took them back. But his wife again started to call others in secret. Finally, the appellant came to know that his wife is an agent of a sex racket. He filed complaint to Magistrate Court alleging threat from unknown people. Then, he published the matter in Kerala Kaumudi daily and Surya television channel. His wife and her lover engaged quotation team to kill him. In an attempt for the same during Onam celebration at Kunnelpeedika, one Vijesh got killed. But the appellant was apprehended for killing him. He was released on bail after 52 days and began to lead a peaceful life by doing work. The henchman of his wife again threatened the parents of the appellant for which his father filed a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam. The condition of bail of the appellant was that he had to appear before police on every Sunday. On 18/03/2012, he came to the police station and then to the toddy shop at 12th Mile for having lunch. Thereafter he went to his sister's house at 14th Mile. From there, he had gone to Nenmara, Palakkad in search of a job with the help of his friend. He came to know about the death of Geevarghese on 22/03/2012 from his sister. On 23/03/2012, he returned to Changanacherry. On 24/03/2012, when he came to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court to inform about the incident, he was caught by the police. According to him, he has not committed the offence. DW1 to DW9 were examined as witnesses and Exts.D1 to D2 were marked as contradiction from the side of the defence. The defence was conducted by the appellant himself though he was offered and in fact availed the service of three Advocates by the Court below.