SHANMUGHAVADIVEL ALIAS KANNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused appeals.

(2.) The appellant, who, in this judgment, will be referred to as 'the accused', was tried before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagercoil. The allegation against him is that on 25.4.96, he kidnapped Christy Kala, aged about 20 years and committed her murder by administering furidon, a pesticide, after mixing it in a cool drink. The further allegation against the accused is that after committing the murder of Christy Kala, he removed ear studs, M.O.10, silver anklets, M.O.11, valued at Rs.2,250/- and in order to screen the offence of murder, threw the body of Christy Kala into a well belonging to P.W.1, after a stone was tied to the body. The learned trial Judge, finding the accused guilty under Section 364 I.P.C., sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also directed him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a default sentence of six months S.I. and for the offence of murder, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- with a default sentence of one year S.I. The accused, on being convicted for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C., was sentenced to one year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of two months S.I. and on being convicted under Section 201 I.P.C., he was sentenced to three years R.I. and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a further direction that in default of payment of fine, he will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The appeal challenges the above convictions and sentences.

(3.) The case of the prosecution can be briefly summarised as follows:- P.W.12 is the father of the deceased and P.W.17 is the mother of the deceased. The deceased, during the relevant period, was taking training in a colour lab and the accused was a photographer by profession. The accused and the deceased were moving with each other in friendly terms, which was not to the liking of the parents. P.W.12 advised the accused and the deceased not to move closely with each other. While the matter stood thus, on 25.4.96, the deceased left the house, after informing her father P.W.12 and mother, P.W.17, that she is going to the lab. Thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive by them. The deceased was seen at the bus stand along with the accused by P.W.15 and they were seen talking with each other. The deceased was not seen alive by anyone thereafter. P.W.12, finding the deceased not returning home on the evening of 25.4.96, searched for her at various places. On 27.4.96, he developed some suspicion about the accused and therefore, went to his house; but he did not find the accused in his house. He contacted P.W.13, the friend of the accused, who could not give him any useful detail. In the meantime, on 5.5.96 at about 5.00 p.m., P.W.1, an agriculturist by profession, wanted to irrigate his lands and was pumping out water from the well. While he was pumping out, he found the water to be muddy and also felt some foul smell emanating from the said well. He saw a dead body of a woman inside the well. Therefore, he went to the police station at Colachel and gave a complaint to P.W.22. The said complaint of P.W.1 is Ex.P.1. On the basis of the complaint, Ex.P.1, P.W.22 registered a case in Crime No.195 of 1996 under Section 302 I.P.C. against unknown accused. Ex.P.20 is a copy of the printed first information report. The police party arrived at the scene of occurrence and the body was taken out of the well on 6.5.96, but could not be identified by any of the persons, who were present. The investigation was taken up by P.W.26.