Circumstantial evidence, including motive and opportunity, confirmed the guilt of the accused for premeditated murder, substantiating conviction under Section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

1. These appeals are preferred impugning the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kozhikode dated 26.11.2019 in S.C. No.1056 of 2018. Criminal Appeal No.94 of 2020 is preferred by the accused, and Criminal Appeal (V) No. 10 of 2020 is preferred by the victim, daughter of the deceased. The appellant/accused stood for trial for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. By the judgment under challenge, the appellant/accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- with a default clause. It was further directed that if the fine amount is realised, Rs.20,000/- shall be paid to the daughter of the deceased.

Prosecution case

3. In this case, the prosecution portrays the story of the heinous murder of one Sivadasan by his close friend, Manoj, purportedly motivated by the latter’s intent to continue his illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased. At the time of the commission of the alleged crime, Sivadasan was aged 36 years, and the accused was aged 26 years. The deceased had a daughter aged 9 years.

4. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the accused was a close friend of the deceased and was a frequent visitor to the deceased’s house. Over time, as their friendship developed, the deceased borrowed money from the accused, as a result of which, the accused became a familiar and welcome presence in the household, even in the absence of the deceased. Taking advantage of this access, the accused developed an illicit relationship (love affair) with PW13, the wife of the deceased. The accused and PW13 allegedly expressed their mutual affection through letters exchanged between them. Upon coming to know that the accused was visiting his house during his absence, the deceased instructed PW13 not to permit the accused to enter their house. The prosecution further alleges that the deceased thereby became an obstacle for the continuation of the illicit relationship between the accused and PW13. On 03.10.2002, at about 6:30 a.m., the accused visited the house of the deceased, took him away, and thereafter hacked and committed his murder.

5. Since the deceased did not return by 05.10.2002, PW13 (Reena), the wife of the deceased, informed PW1 and other relatives that the deceased was missing. PW1 (Balakrishnan Nair), along with PW4 (Pradeep), conducted a search, but they could not find him. On 06.10.2002, PW4 and one Gopi Nair found the dead body of the deceased from a vacant house, owned by one Gopalan Nair, which was about 500 meters away from the house of the accused. In the meantime, they informed the matter to PW1. PW1 came to the scene of the occurrence and identified the body of the deceased.

The Registration of FIR and the Investigation

6. On the basis of Ext.P1 FIS lodged by PW1, Balakrishnan Nair, PW17 (Muhammed Hussain K.V.), the Sub Inspector of Kunnamangalam Police Station registered Ext.P1(a) FIR. On 06.10.2002, PW24 (C.V. Chandran), the Circle Inspector of Police, took up the investigation. Thereafter, on 07.10.2002, he visited the place of occurrence and conducted the inquest of the body of the deceased and prepared Ext. P2 inquest report. He seized the dresses worn by the deceased. Thereafter, he seized MO4 (shirt), MO5 (lungi) and MO11 series (chappal) of the deceased. He also seized MO14 plastic sack, MO15 jute sack and MO16, three sheets of Mathrubhumi newspaper, which were found on the body.

7. As per Ext.P9 seizure mahazar, he seized MO8 chopper, Ext.P7 series three diaries and Ext.P8 hard cover of