SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Ker) 49

Judges : P.K.SHAMSUDDIN,S.PADMANABHAN
Sivaraman Divakaran And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1986
Decided On : 02/06/1989
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant: S. Venkitasubramanya Ayyar and V. Giri, Advocates. For the Respondent: M. M. Mathew, Public Prosecutor.

Proper framing of charges and the essential elements of the offences under S. 34 and S. 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Headnote:

S. 34 - Murder - S. 201 of the I.P.C. - [S. 34, Murder, S. 201, I.P.C.] - The court discussed the application of S. 34 and S. 201 of the Indian Penal Code in the context of the murder case. The judgment highlighted the elements of common intention and the essential ingredients of the offence under S. 201, emphasizing the need for proper framing of charges.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the trial and conviction of three accused for murder with the aid of S. 34 and an offence punishable under S. 201 of the I.P.C. The deceased, a relative of the accused, was murdered, and the accused were also charged with removing the dead body and giving false information.

Finding of the Court:

The court confirmed the conviction of accused 1 and 2 for murder with the aid of S. 34 and the sentence of imprisonment for life. However, the court set aside the conviction of all three accused for the offence under S. 201 of the Penal Code with the aid of S. 34 and acquitted them of that charge.

Issues: The issues included the application of S. 34 and S. 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the framing of charges, and the elements of common intention and knowledge in the context of the offences.

Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the importance of proper framing of charges and discussed the essential ingredients of the offence under S. 201, highlighting the elements of causing disappearance of evidence and giving false information.

Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, confirming the conviction and sentence for murder with the aid of S. 34 while setting aside the conviction and acquitting all three accused of the offence under S. 201 of the Penal Code with the aid of S. 34.

Judgment :-

PADMANABHAN, J.

All the three accused before the Sessions Judge are the appellants before us. Accused 1 and 2 were tried and convicted for murder with the aid of S. 34 and sentenced to imprisonment for life. All the three were also tried and convicted for an offence punishable under S. 201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years each. The terms of imprisonment were made concurrent for accused 1 and 2.

2. Deceased is one Avarachan alias Abraham, brother of the second accused and brother-in-law of the first accused. Third accused is the first cousin of the second accused and the deceased, being the son of their father's brother. PW 1 is the sister and PW 2 is the wife of the second accused. Accused 1 and 2, their mother, deceased Abraham and PWs 1 and 2 were residing together. As usual, at about 6 p.m. on 20-10-1983. Abraham came home fully drunk. His friend PW 6 was also with him. Mother served food to both at his request. Inability of the mother to supply cooked tapioca desired by Abraham due to non-availability added fury to his intoxication. He became violent. When mother left for hospital with food for her daughter (wife of the first accused), who was hospitalised, violence and misbehaviour were directed against PWs 1 and 2. When first accused came and prevented, he was slapped and there was scuffle. He gave a few blows to the deceased with MO 3 (concrete piece) readily available in the kitchen causing six injuries to the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 with a little child took shelter in a neighbouring house of PW 3 and narrated the incident.

3. On getting information, third accused and his father came. Seeing Abraham struggling in pain with injuries in the kitchen, third accused was directed by his father to bring a taxi to take him to the hospital. But taxi was not available. Meanwhile, PW 3 saw second accused and his friend PW 4 coming. He gave information to the second accused and requested him to take back PWs 1 and 2. He promised to take them after going home and making enquiries. Second accused went to his house with PW 4. Then PW 3 saw accused 1 and 2 along with PW 4 lifting and carrying the deceased. He was lain in an adjacent unoccupied property called 'Kumpalamannil'. PW 4 left the place. A tussle ensured between accused 1 and 2 on one side and the deceased on the other. That was by about 8.15 p.m. Accused 1 and 2 tightened the neck of the deceased with MO 2 towel and strangulated him to death ignoring his cries to save him. They left the body there and came back to the house of PW 3. PWs 1 and 2 and the child were taken home. Early morning at 5.30, accused 1 to 3 took the dead-body home and placed it in a cot after washing it. The body was covered with MO 1 lunki worn by the deceased and MO 2 was placed behind the head. Then third accused went to the police station and gave Ext. P-11 first information statement as if the dead-body was found only early morning. It was also alleged that the deceased is a drunkard and criminal and he might have died under suspicious circumstances, having gone out the previous evening fully drunk with a knife after making an announcement that he will kill somebody and kill himself. This is the gist of the prosecution case. The defence of the accused is what is stated in Ext. P-11.

4. The case was registered under the caption 'suspicious death'. The same day after preliminary investigation, Sections 302 and 201 were substituted and these three persons were arrayed as accused.

5. There is no dispute regarding the place where Abraham died. It is also admitted that accused 1 to 3 took the body home early morning and laid it on the cot after cleaning it, though washing is denied. PWs 1 and 2 have spoken to these facts. Defences seem to be that Abraham Courted death from some unknown source on account of his violent habits and the dead-body was seen only early morning when third accused went to answer the calls of nature.

6. It is not in dispute that Abraham had













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top