Page 1

JUDGMENT

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1774 of 2010

R. Shaji

…Appellant

Versus

State of Kerala

…Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

1.

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order

dated 10.12.2009 delivered by the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in

Criminal Appeal No. 86 of 2006, by way of which it has affirmed the

judgment and order of the Sessions Court, Kottayam dated 3.1.2006,

passed in Sessions Case No. 145 of 2005.

2.

Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:

A.

As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant at the relevant

time had been working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police at

Page 2

JUDGMENT

Malappuram, and his wife was living at Palluruthy, and was using a

vehicle which was driven by Praveen (deceased). He was also related

to the appellant. Praveen developed an illicit relationship with the

appellant’s wife, and the appellant was informed of this development

by his Manager, Aji. The appellant reached Palluruthy, and made

enquiries about the situation from Praveen and others, and his

relatives tried to resolve the aforesaid matter. In the presence of other

relatives, the matter was then amicably settled. Praveen (deceased),

was asked not to come to appellant’s house thereafter, and thus

Praveen left and began working in a shop at Ettumanoor, as a driver.

B.

During this period, on 25/26.11.2004, Vijayamma, relative of

Praveen (deceased), and N. Sahadevan PW.2’s father, informed

Pavithran (PW.1), father of Praveen, that Praveen was in danger as

Vijayamma had found out about the illicit relationship that Praveen

had developed with the appellant’s wife.

C.

N. Sahadevan, PW.2’s father informed Pavithran (PW.1),

Praveen’s father who resided at Trivendrum, via the telephone of this

danger to Praveen’s life. Pavithran (PW.1) immediately informed his

brother and requested him to help Praveen, as he may not be spared by

the appellant. N. Sahadevan, PW.2’s father, went and brought Praveen

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

to his own house, whilst informing everybody, that his mother was

seriously ill. The appellant asked N. Sahadevan, PW.2’s father, in

conversation over the telephone about Praveen, and directed him to

bring Praveen back. PW.2’s father then took Praveen back. When the

meeting took place in the presence of various relatives, the appellant

(A-1), attempted to assault Praveen, but they were separated by other

persons. Praveen pleaded his innocence, and told the appellant that Aji

had played this dirty game for some personal gain. However, when

Aji was called to participate in the said meeting, he stood by his

version of events and stated that he had seen Praveen and the

appellant’s wife in a compromising position. The appellant told

Praveen to leave the said place and to not enter the city.

D.

Praveen was brought by Jilesh M.S. (PW.2), and taken to

Trivendrum for treatment. Praveen told his father after a period of 2/3

days that it was not safe for him to stay in hospital as 2/3 gundas had

been roaming around in the hospital. Thus, he went back to the city

and sought employment.

E.

On 15.2.2005, Divakaran (PW.7), neighbour of Vinu (A-2),

while coming out of a bus stop, saw Vinu (A-2) coming on a motor

bike while Praveen was standing in the market. Vinu (A-2), stopped

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

the bike and took Praveen towards Kottayam. They then went to a bar,

had drinks as were served to them by Saiju (PW.9), and came out of

the bar at 8.30 p.m., after which they ate at a ‘thattukada’ (a small

petty shop), where they were served by Jose (PW.8), an employee of

the ‘thattukada’. Mohammed Sherif @ Monai (PW.13), who was the

owner of the ‘thattukada’, saw the appellant (A-1), coming in a Maruti

car. In the said car, there were also some ot