IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ.
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
ANILKUMAR @ JACKY S/O SIVATHANU PILLAI – Respondent
D.S.R. No. 2 of 2017, Crl. Appeal Nos. 497, 552, 645, 676, 693, 796, 1307 of 2016
Decided On : 06-08-2024
JUDGMENT :
A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
1. These Criminal Appeals and DSR arise from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge -I, Thiruvananthapuram in Sessions Case No. 1121 of 2008. The trial court found A3 and A12 not guilty of the charges alleged against them, but found A1, A2, A5, A7, A8, A9 and A10 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 449, 323, 302, 294(b), 201, 364 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as to 'IPC']. In connection with the offences punishable under Section 120B read with 302 IPC, A1 and A7 were sentenced to death, whereas A2, A5, A8, A9 and A10 were sentenced to life imprisonment. Separate sentences of imprisonment and fine were also imposed on all the above accused for the other offences they were convicted for. A4 turned approver, A6 died during the investigation of the case and A11 absconded.
The Prosecution Case:
2. Angered by the news that Santhosh Kumar @ Jet Santhosh was having an adulterous relationship with his wife A3 Usha, A5 Suresh Kumar @ Sura along with A3 Usha and A1 Anilkumar @ Jacky, who was also on inimical terms with Santhosh Kumar, entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder him. In implementation of the said conspiracy, A5 Suresh Kumar and his brother A6 Anil Kumar @ Motta Ani invited the deceased to their house on 22.11.2004, using the help of A3 Usha, and he reached there by around 4 pm. After a brief conversation, A5 Suresh Kumar took the deceased in his autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KL 01 T 7795 to the Prince Hair Dressing Salon belonging to PW2 Sudhakaran for a haircut. Thereafter, A5 Suresh Kumar and A6 Anil Kumar went to Thaliyal and waited near the statue of Smt. Indira Gandhi for the other conspirators whom A6 Anil Kumar had informed of their arrival there.
3. On getting the said information, A1 Anilkumar, A2 Binukumar, A7 Ajithkumar @ Soju, A8 Shaji @ Kochi Shaji, A9 Biju @ Bijukuttan, A10 C.L.Kishore, A11 Shaju and A12 Boby reached Thaliyal in a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 01 AD 6143, arranged by A11 Shaju and A12 Boby and driven by A4 Nazarudeen. They then formed an unlawful assembly armed with weapons and proceeded towards the Prince Hair Dressing Salon and on reaching there, A7 Ajithkumar entered the salon and on seeing the deceased there, he confirmed the latter’s presence to the others in the vehicle. Immediately thereafter, all of the accused except A4 Nazarudeen committed rioting and stormed into the Salon where the deceased was getting his haircut. After assaulting PW2 Sudhakaran the owner of the Salon, they manhandled and forcefully took the deceased into the vehicle by threatening onlookers with a chopper. They then kidnapped the deceased and drove away from the place after pulling away A4 Nazarudeen from the driver seat of the vehicle and getting A10 Kishore to drive the vehicle as per the directions of A6 Anil Kumar. A12 Boby rode a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KL 01 AC 4921 in front of the Tata Sumo vehicle and they sped away to Alantharakkonam Harijan Colony where A8 Shaji and A9 Biju were staying. On the way to the Colony, the victim was tortured by those in the vehicle except A4 Nazarudeen and A10 Kishore. He was then pushed out of the vehicle near the house of A8 Shaji and was again tortured in the compound. A2 Binukumar also inflicted a severe wound on the victim's head. When A8 Shaji's mother intervened, the accused pushed the victim into the car and drove away towards Valiyottukonam cemetery where they again pushed the victim out of the car and laid him on the ground. All the accused except A4 Nazarudeen continued to torture the victim there. Thereafter, A1 Anilkumar obtained a chopper from A7 Ajithkumar, through A9 Biju, and on A6 Anil Kumar holding the left leg of the deceased, and A7 Ajithkumar holding his left hand, A1 Anilkumar hacked the right leg of the deceased above the knee and his right hand above the elbow joint and gave the severed portions
Jnanendra Nath Ghose v. State of West Bengal
Balwant Kaur v. Union Territory of Chandigarh
K. Hashim v. State of Tamil Nadu
M.O. Shamsudhin v. Sate of Kerala
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
R. v. Baskerville, (1916) 2 KB 658; Bhuboni Sahu v. The King
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan
Rameswar v. State of Rajasthan
Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab
Sheshanna Bhumanna Yadav v. State of Maharashtra
Somasundaram @ Somu v. State Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
The testimony of an approver must be corroborated by reliable evidence to sustain a conviction; uncorroborated evidence is insufficient for a guilty verdict.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of corroborative evidence in relation to the material particulars of the testimony of an approver and the principle that the accuse....
Circumstantial evidence must be cogent and complete to establish guilt; the evidence of an approver requires careful scrutiny and corroboration.
(1) Accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and this presumption gets doubled with acquittal by Trial Court.(2) Before testimony of Approver may be used as evidence to record conviction....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when relying on an accomplice's testimony, which requires corroboration.
Point of Law : Approver is a competent witness but position in law is fairly well settled that on uncorroborated testimony of approver, it would be risky to base conviction, particularly, in respect ....
special category sentence can only be imposed by the High Courts or the Supreme Court and not by the Sessions Court.
Point of law: Even the prosecution has failed to discover the poisonous liquid allegedly used by the appellants in commission of crime for throttling the deceased. It is true that the tower location ....
Circumstantial evidence can support convictions for conspiracy and murder, even if witnesses turn hostile, provided the overall evidence points consistently to the guilt of the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.