Point of Law: It is settled that if a disclosure is made in a language not known to police officer to whom it is made, statement is to be recorded in same language in which it was made and its translation also shall be recorded otherwise it cannot be ensured that discovery is based on disclosure made by accused.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

Accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.12 of 2013 on the files of the Additional District and Sessions Court-III, Palakkad are the appellants in this appeal. The appellants stand convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 397 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. On 16.06.2012, at about 9 a.m., body of a male was found lying on the banks of Bharathapuzha at Pattambi by one Riyasudheen. A crime was registered by Thrithala Police on the basis of the information furnished by Riyasudheen under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code). In the autopsy of the body conducted thereafter, it was revealed that the body is that of the victim of a homicide. Consequently, a report was filed by the police to the jurisdictional Magistrate to convert the case as one under Section 302 IPC. In the investigation conducted thereupon, it was revealed that the body is that of one Vikram Naik, a native of Orissa, and that the accused who are also natives of Orissa and working in a crusher unit namely Shalimar Granites near Shornur, caused the death Vikram Naik and robbed him in furtherance of a conspiracy. A final report was accordingly filed on that basis against the accused in the case. It was alleged in the final report that the accused induced Vikram Naik to come to Kerala by giving a false promise that they will make arrangements for him to go abroad; that Vikram Naik accordingly arrived at Shornur on 13.06.2012 with a sum of Rs.38,000/-; that the accused received Vikram Naik, took him to various places and then to a desolated place on the banks of Bharathapuzha and caused his death by stabbing with knives and attacking with broken pieces of a beverage bottle and robbed the money carried by him at about 9:30 p.m. on the same day. It was also alleged in the final report that the accused threw away the belongings of the deceased thereafter to the nearby bush and thereby caused disappearance of the evidence of the crime.

3. On committal, the accused denied the charges framed against them by the Court of Session and faced the trial. The evidence let in by the prosecution thereupon consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 29 and Exts.P1 to P31 documents. MOs 1 to 25 are the material objects in the case. Ext.D1 is a document proved by the second accused during the cross-examination of PW18 and Ext.C1 is a document taken on record by the court. On culmination of the evidence of the prosecution, the incriminating circumstances brought out were put to the accused. The accused denied the same and maintained that they are innocent. In addition, the first accused also filed a statement stating, among others, that the deceased was a person who was brought to Kerala by PW24 for work and that there was some dispute between PW24 and the deceased in connection with the wages payable to the deceased. It is also stated by the first accused in the statement that the photographs claimed to have been discovered by the police based on the information furnished by the accused are photographs brought by the relatives of Vikram Naik. A similar statement has been filed by the second accused, stating that a sum of Rs.19,000/-has been sent by his relatives to the account of a police officer as directed by PW18 who arrested him. As the Court of Session did not find the case to be one fit for acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the accused were called upon to enter on their defence. The accused did not adduce any evidence.

4. On an appraisal of the materials on record, the Court of Session found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 397 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years an