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

2023 Supreme(Ker) 695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
Santhosh, S/o.Madhavan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.Appeal Nos.507, 600, 607 & 958 of 2020 and 263 & 752 of 2021
Decided on : 20-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL), SAM ISAAC POTHIYIL, SMT.TINU JOHNSON, SHRI.VISHNU DAS, SRI. SRUTHI DAS, SHRI.JOMON P MOHAN, SHRI.PHILIP ARUN M.N., P.K.VARGHESE, M.T.SAMEER, DHANESH V.MADHAVAN, JERRY MATHEW, DEEPA K.RADHAKRISHNAN, ARJUN KUMAR K.S., SOJAN K. VARGHESE, REGHU SREEDHARAN, RAMEEZ M. AZEEZ, NAMITHA K.S., SUDARSANAN U., ANU ASHOKAN, ATHUL.P, NIREESH MATHEW, SREELAKSHMI SABU, SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For the Respondent: SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA, Sr.Public Prosecutor

Point of Law: Rule 12(3)(b) postulates that only in absence of either of three certificates, a medical opinion can be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which would declare age of child.

Headnote:

Code of Criminal of Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2), 313(1)(b) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 201, 302, 397, 34, 118 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 7A, 2(12) - Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 - Rule 12, (3), (3)(b) - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 10, 65B, 30 – Criminal conspiracy – Murder offence – Appeal against conviction - Sri.Raghu @ Kannan was a taxi driver - His dead body was found in a River – Evidence of PW59 regarding confession made to him by 5th accused can therefore be acted upon, subject to its reliability. (Para 51)

Finding of the Court :

Evidence tendered by him before court cannot be termed as a confession of a co-accused attracting limitations under Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act - Evidence of PW59 regarding confession made to him by 5th accused can therefore be acted upon, subject to its reliability - Other evidence corroborates version of PW59 relating to revelation of 5th accused about conspiracy - He was with accused Nos.1 to 3 and PW59 on same day prior to hiring car of deceased and fateful act of his murder - Conversion between accused Nos.1 and 5 proved beyond doubt that 5th accused was also a party to conspiracy hatched by them to rob a car and do away with driver - That certainly gets confirmation from confession by 5th accused to PW59 while they were in jail - Conviction of accused Nos.2 and 3 and 5 is liable to be confirmed – Court is of view that sentence imposed on them is commensurate to offence they have committed.

Result: Crl.Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

P.G.Ajithkumar, J.

These appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal of Procedure, 1973. The Sessions Court, Palakkad tried accused Nos.1 to 9 in S.C.No.382 of 2014. Pending trial, accused Nos.4 turned an approver. On the conclusion of the trial, accused Nos.1 to 3 were convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 302 and 397 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Accused Nos.5 and 8 were convicted and sentenced under Sections 118 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accused Nos.6 and 7 were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 118 of the IPC. The 9th accused was acquitted. The 1st accused did not prefer any appeal.

2. On 27.05.2020 accused Nos. 1 to 8 were found guilty and convicted. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 were sentenced on the same day. Since accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 absconded, their sentencing was postponed and the case against them was refiled as Sessions Case No.351 of 2020. On procuring their presence, accused Nos.6, 3 and 5 were sentenced, respectively, on 06.08.2020, 11.08.2020 and 24.08.2020.

3. Following are the details of the appeals filed by each of the accused:

Case No.

Filed by whom

Sessions Case number

Crl.A.No.507 of 2020

Santhosh Accused No.7

S.C.No.382 of 2014

Crl.A.No.600 of 2020

Rajendran Accused No.8

S.C.No.382 of 2014

Crl.A.No.607 of 2020

Rajeesh @ Unnimon Accused No.6

S.C.No.351 of 2020

Crl.A.No.958 of 2020

Abu Thahir Accused No.3

S.C.No.351 of 2020

Crl.A.No.263 of 2021

Muhammedali @ Mulla Accused No.2

S.C.No.382 of 2014

Crl.A.No.752 of 2021

Krishnadas Accused No.5

S.C.No.351 of 2020

4. Sri.Raghu @ Kannan was a taxi driver at Chelakkara. His dead body was found in a mutilated state in Thirunellayi River, Palakkad on the morning of 06.12.2012. A crime was registered from Palakkad Town South Police Station based on that information which was passed on by PW1. In the ensued investigation, PW61 who was the Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station unraveled the conspiracy and consequent murder of Sri.Raghu resulting in submission of a final report before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Palakkad.

5. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is: Accused Nos.1 to 8 hatched a conspiracy to rob a luxury car and using the same stanch off smuggled gold from the persons transporting it unauthorisedly. Accused Nos.1 to 3 came to Chelakkara in an Alto Car bearing Reg.No.KL-49-B-8523 on 06.12.2012 and accused Nos.4 and 5 joined them there. On the initiative of the 2nd accused, the Tavera Car bearing Reg.No.KL-48-D-9429 owned and driven by Sri.Raghu was hired. Accused Nos.1 to 4 boarded that car on the pretext of going on a trip to Ooty. Enroute, at about 11.50 p.m., after having stopped the car at Kongottupadom, the 1st accused attempted to inject cyanide, obtained from the 8th accused, using a syringe, which failed. Immediately, he with the help of accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 prevailed over Sri.Raghu and the 1st accused using a knife stabbed at his neck causing a fatal injury. The 2nd accused using that knife slashed his neck. Accused Nos.3 and 4 hit him using a stone. Thereby, they ensured death of Sri.Raghu and they thereafter left the body in Thiruvennayi River. They also tore off the abdomen of the dead body with an intention to avoid the body being floated on the water. Accused Nos.5 to 8, having known about the plot to commit such a criminal act, facilitated the act by concealing the same. The 9th accused harboured the 1st accused despite knowing about the offence he has committed.

6. On committal by the learned Magistrate, the Sessions Court took cognizance of the offences. The charges framed against the accused were duly denied by them. At the trial, PWs.1 to 61 were examined and Exts.P1 to P94 were marked on the

      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