JUDGMENT

Dated this the 09th day of August, 2024 Syamkumar V.M., J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant who was the accused in S.C.No.293 of 2014 of the Sessions Court, Kalpetta, Wayanad (arising out of Crime No.430 of 2014 of Pulpally Police Station) challenging his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), Regulation 12 & 19(3) of Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulation 2010 and Section 135(a)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

The Prosecution case:

2. The prosecution case is that, on 07.08.2014, at 2:30 A.M.

at Pakkam in Pulpally amsom, the appellant murdered his seven month pregnant lover, Ambika by electrocuting her. The appellant, it is alleged, had applied high voltage electric current from an LT 3phase 4 wire line, after twisting an aluminium wire around the leg of the deceased. He had thereafter buried her body in the adjacent Narivayal forest. Prosecution case was that the appellant had thus committed the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC, Regulation 12 & 19(3) of Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulation 2010 and Section 135(a)(e)

of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Proceedings before the trial court :

3. On appearance of the appellant, after hearing both sides under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”), charges were framed against him. When the charges were read over and explained to him, appellant pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW51 and marked Exts.P1 to P109. MO1 to MO28 were identified. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence against him and submitted a separate statement denying the prosecution case. He stated that he and the deceased were in a romantic relationship and that on August 4, 2014, they visited the Parassinikadavu temple in Kannur and stayed overnight. The next day, August 5, 2014, they returned and the victim went back to her home. He never saw her again, alive or dead. On August 6, 2014, he never travelled by KSRTC bus from Mananthavady to Pakkam. He had gone to Kannur for work and was taken into custody from there. He was made accused solely because of his relationship with the deceased. Thereafter, the case was heard under Section 232 Cr.P.C. and the Court held that the case is not fit for discharge under Section 232 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the case was posted for evidence on the side of the appellant. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D6 were marked on the defence side.

4. At the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months ; rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months; rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence under Regulation 12, 19(3) of Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulation 2010 and Section 135(a)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003.

Appeal before us :

5. We have heard, Sri.Ranjit Marar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri.Alex Thombra, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State.

6. Contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant can be summarised as follows:

● Prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the appellant to murder the deceased. Purported motive put forth, viz., that the appellant wanted to do away with the deceased since he came to know belatedly, about her advanced pregnancy through him