The court emphasized the need for imposing maximum penalties on hired goondas and discussed the legal framework for awarding capital punishment.

Bhavadasan, J.

Five persons were arrayed as accused in Crime No.110/2005 of Ettumanoor Police Station, for the offences punishable under Ss.302, 201 and 417 read with S.34 IPC. Initially, A1 and A2 alone were available for trial and the other three accused, including the appellants herein, were absconding. Later on, the appellants surrendered before Court and they stood trial. The appellants were found guilty of the offences alleged against them and were sentenced to the punishment mentioned earlier. Death Sentence Reference is filed as per S.366 Cr.P.C.

2. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

Praveen, a young man, aged about 20 years, at the time of the incident and the elder son of PW1, was employed with the first accused in the case, namely, Shaji, who was then functioning as the Deputy superintendent of Police in the Kerala Police Department. He was serving at Malappuram, at the relevant time. Praveen was engaged as a Conductor of the bus, owned by the wife of the first accused Shaji and he was also the driver of the personal car belonging to Shaji. The deceased Praveen was allowed to stay in a room of the lodge, belonging to Shaji, who was residing nearby, with his family. Praveen was related to the first accused and so, he had absolute freedom in the house of the first accused Shaji, who, as already stated, was working as a Dy.S.P. in the Kerala Police Department. It seems that Praveen misused the freedom given to him, as he developed an unholy relationship with the wife of the first accused. On coming to know about the said relationship, the first accused became furious and Praveen was thrown out of his job. Praveen was fortunate enough, to get employment as a Driver in a shop, distributing mattresses. However, the first accused was in no mood to spare him. The allegation of the prosecution is that the first accused conspired with the other four accused persons, had Praveen brought to him by the second accused and thereafter, murdered him. The further allegation is that the first accused dismembered the body of Praveen and threw the various parts of his body at various places. The appellants herein and the other accused are alleged to have aided the first accused in his commissions.

3. Praveen, who had gone for his job, as usual on 15.02.2005 also, did not return home. Initially, the members of his family thought that he would have gone to attend the festival in the temple at Ettumanoor. The next day also, he did not return. That aroused the suspicion of the members of his family and they informed PW1, the father of Praveen, who was working at Thiruvananthapuram, about the same. Though PW1 tried to locate his son, he was unsuccessful. He, therefore, laid a complaint before the Police on 18.02.2005. In the meanwhile, it so happened that the various parts of the body of Praveen, which were disposed of by the accused, surfaced in the backwaters, at various places. The body parts were identified as that of Praveen, by PW1 when he was taken to various places and parts of the body were shown to him. Ultimately, the various crimes registered in various Police Stations, on sighting the legs, hands and torso at different places, were consolidated and Crime No.110/2005 of Ettumanoor Police Station was treated as the leading case.

4. The Prosecution case is that with the active participation of the first accused and as per his instructions, the second accused managed to bring the deceased Praveen with him from Ettumanoor to Kottayam on 15.02.2005 in the evening. Late in the night, while the second accused was returning in his motor bike along with Praveen, as part of the conspiracy between the accused persons, A1 caught hold of Praveen at a particular place at Kottayam and then murdered him. The case was investigated by PW67 Circle Inspector of Police. There is a further allegation that before causing the death of Praveen, he was forced to write Ext.P1 letter to his father, by the first accused in the c