IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that circumstantial evidence must firmly establish the guilt of the accused, and in the absence of such firm establishment, the benefit of reasonable doubt must be given to the accused.

JUDGMENT :

Johnson John, J.

The appellants, who are accused Nos. 2, 1 and 3 respectively in S.C. No. 560 of 2012 of the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Ernakulam, have filed the above appeals challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them for the offences under Sections 302 and 394 r/w Section 34 of IPC as per the impugned judgment dated 21.06.2016.

2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Sasidharan alias Sasi was the driver of a tourist taxi car bearing registration No.KL-17/A-7750 owned by PW1 and on the morning of 22.09.2008, he left his home with the taxi car as usual to the taxi stand near KSRTC bus stand, Muvattupuzha and has not returned to his house on that night and on the next day, when the owner of the vehicle attempted to contact him through phone, the reply was that ‘the phone is switched off’ and when the deceased failed to return even on 24.09.2008, PW1, the owner of the vehicle, has given Exhibit P1, First Information Statement, in Muvattupuzha Police Station and accordingly, PW48, Sub Inspector of Muvattupuzha Police Station, registered Crime No. 1223 of 2008 of Muvattupuzha Police Station for ‘man missing’ and thereafter, PW53, the then Circle Inspector of Muvattupuzha, took charge of the investigation and he got information that the dead body of Sasidharan was recovered from Kaliyar river and Crime No. 267 of 2008 under Section 174 Cr. P.C was registered in that connection in Pothanikkad Police Station and accordingly, PW53 proceeded to Pothanikkad Police Station and inspected the dead body of the deceased.

3. PW53 also got information that the vehicle driven by the deceased was found abandoned at Anamala in Tamil Nadu and accordingly, he proceeded to that place along with police party and inspected the vehicle with the assistance of the Finger Print Expert and photographer and during the course of investigation, it came to the notice of the Investigating Officer that a similar case was registered in Aluva Police Station as Crime No. 2131 of 2008 under Section 394 IPC and on verification of the case diary and questioning the de facto complainant in the said case, it is revealed that the assailants robbed a mobile phone from his possession and therefore, PW53 came to the conclusion that in all probability the assailants in both the cases are the same and therefore, he has taken steps for identifying the person who is now using the said mobile phone and has given requisition to various companies and subsequently got information that PW12, Jinson George, is using the said mobile phone and on questioning PW12, it is revealed that it was the first accused herein who entrusted the said mobile phone to PW8 who subsequently sold the same in a mobile shop at Kothamangalam, from where PW11 purchased MO8 mobile phone for the use of his friend PW12. The first accused was taken to custody on 15.10.2008 and on questioning the first accused, the involvement of the second and third accused were also revealed and on the same day at about 9.30 a.m., the second and third accused were arrested from a place near the Revenue Tower, Kothamangalam.

4. As per the final report, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention to rob the taxi car of the deceased, after murdering him, hired the said car while it was parked in the taxi stand near KSRTC bus stand Muvattupuzha. The second accused got into the front left seat and accused Nos. 1 and 3 got into the back seat. The accused persons hired the vehicle to take them to Pothanikkad and on the way, when the vehicle reached near Mary Land Public School, the second accused asked the deceased to stop the car for passing urine and when the deceased stopped the car, the first accused strangulated the deceased with a bath towel and the second accused tied the hands and legs of the deceased with plastic tape and accused Nos. 1 and 2 shifted the deceased to the back seat of the car by force and thereafter, the second accused drove the car towards Pyngottoor side and when