R. Shaji vs State of Kerala

P. Bhavadasan, J,

The case from which these appeals arise reveals a gruesome and horrendous murder by the guardian of law along with four others, three of whom are mercenaries. Initially only accused Nos. 1 and 2 were available for trial. Their trial ended in conviction and both of them were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. They were also sentenced for some other offences also. Later accused Nos. 3 and 4 surrendered and they were also tried. The details of that case are not relevant for the present purpose.

Crl. Appeal No. 86 of 2006 is by the first accused and Crl. Appeal 193 of 2006 is by the second accused against their conviction and sentences. The State has come up in appeal in Crl. Appeal No. 1796 of 2007 seeking enhancement of sentence. The State canvasses for capital punishment.

The incident which gave rise to this case seems to have occurred in the evening of 15.2.2005. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the deceased were all related to P.W.1. Praveen, the victim, was earlier employed in a bus operated by the wife of the first accused, who was then working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Some time in November, 2004, he left the employment under first accused for certain reasons and took up employment with a mattress shop functioning at Ettumanoor. Praveen was working as driver for the shop. On 15.2.2005, as usual, Praveen went for work. But he did not return home. Praveen''s father, namely, P.W.1, was employed at Trivandrum. He was informed about the absence of Praveen. He made frantic enquiries and search for his son, but did not succeed. Therefore, on 18.2.2005 he went to Ettumanoor Police Station and lodged Ext.P2 First Information Statement. P.W.69, the A.S.I. attached to the police station recorded the same and registered Crime No. 110 of 2005 under the caption ''man missing'' under Ext.P2(a) FIR. In the meanwhile, two human legs were found floating in the back waters beneath Cheepumkal bridge. Police was informed about the same. The first information statement regarding that incident was given as Ext.P86 and was recorded by P.W.68, who was the Sub Inspector of Kottayam West Police Station. He registered Crime No. 103 of 2005 under Ext.P6(a) FIR. The legs were retrieved with the assistance of P.W.17 and Ext.P8 is the relevant report. After the inquest report, the limbs were sent for postmortem examination. Ext.P87 is the inquest report. Meanwhile, P.W.73, the Scientific Assistant attached to District Mobile Laboratory collected samples of hairs from the legs. P.W.1 was informed about the said fact and he went to the Medical College and identified the legs as those of his son, namely, Praveen. P.W.71 conducted postmortem examination of the lower limbs and Ext.P92 is his report. Three incised wounds were noticed by the Forensic Surgeon. The opinion given was that they did not appear to be antemortem injuries. On 19.2.2005 information was received in the Vaikom Police Station that a torso in a plastic sack was found floating on the eastern side of the Vembanadu lake, which is north to the Thanneermukkom bund. P.W.17, the Circle Inspector of Police, Vaikom was informed and Crime No. 99 of 2005 was registered as per Ext.89 FIR. P.W.1 identified the torso as that of his son. P.W.17 conducted inquest and Ext.P90 is the relevant report. It so happened that P.W.17 happened to see two upper limbs floating in the water nearby and he had them retrieved. P.W.1 identified those limbs as that of Praveen. M.Os. 1 to 3 were recovered from the torso retrieved from the lake. The Scientific Assistant, who was assisting the Circle Inspector took various samples. As per the directions issued by the Superintendent of Police, Kottayam, by order No. 7893/05 dated 19.2.2005, the three crimes were consolidated and investigation was entrusted to P.W.77, the Dy.S.P., Kottayam. His investigation revealed the involvement of accused Nos. 1 and 2. On 24.2.2005 he had arrested them. During investigation, P.W.77 was informed that a human head enclosed in a sack was floating in the back waters of Cochin. P.W.77 rushed to the place and had the skull retrieved from the water. P.W.1 identified the same. Inquest was conducted and Ext.P15 is the report. The accused were produced before court and their custody was obtained by the police. Based on the confession statements said to have been given by the first accused, several articles were recovered. P.W.77 recorded statements of witnesses and prepared the necessary documents. After completing the investigation, he laid charge before court.

JFCM, Ettumanoor took cognizance of the offence. At the time of taking cognizance accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 had made themselves scarce. The court on appearance of accused Nos. 1 ad 2 completed the legal formalities. The said court found that the offences are triable exclusively by a court of Sessions and therefore committed the case against those accused persons to District Court, Kottayam. The said court on receipt of records issued summons to the first and second accused. They entered appearance. After hearing both sides, charge was framed for offences punishable under Sections 506(2), 466, 471, 302, 201 and 364 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code as against the first accused and for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 364 read with Section 120B as against the second accused. Both accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. Prosecution therefore examined P.Ws. 1 to 77 and had Exts.P1 to P140 marked. M.Os. 1 to 76(d) were identified and marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence the accused were questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

They denied all the incriminating circumstances brought out against them and maintained that they were innocent. The first accused had stated that Praveen was employed in the bus run by his wife. Since he committed dereliction of duty and also misbehaved with his wife, Praveen was sacked. The issue regarding the misconduct with his wife was settled between the two families. On 18.2.2005 at about 10.30 p.m. P.W.77, Dy. S.P. Muraleedharan, P.W.74 C.I. Anto and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mattancherry Mr. Lailaram had come to his house at Palluruthy and taken him into custody by force. He was produced before the court on the next day. They did not allow him to talk to anybody. He denied that he had given any statement to the police. He also claimed that nothing had been recovered in pursuance to the statements alleged to have been given by him. He denied that he had taken P.W.77 to any place or shown him any substance. He claims to be innocent and that he had not committed an act which should constitute an offence.

The second accused maintained that he had no land phone in his house. M.O.19 mobile phone, while he was at home was being used by others also. On 15.2.2005 about evening his brother Aneesh had used the mobile phone several times. On 19.2.2005, according to him, he was picked up from his house by the police and produced before the court only on 25.2.2005, till then he was kept in illegal custody. He denied of having given any statement to the police and also taking them to any place to show them any article. He claims to be innocent. He too maintained that he had not committed any act, which should constitute an offence.

Finding that the accused could not be acquitted u/s 232 Cr.P.C., after hearing both sides the District Court asked the accused to enter on their defence. The defence examined D.W. 1 and had Exts.D1 to D35 marked. After hearing both sides, the court below on an evaluation of the materials before it came to the conclusion that the accused are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 364 read with Section 120B IPC. The first accused was acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 506, 466 and 471 IPC. For the offences for which the accused were found guilty, the first accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 120B IPC. The second accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 120B IPC. Both the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable u/s 201 read with Section 120B IPC. For the offence punishable u/s 364 read with Section 120B IPC, both of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default of payment of which to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one year each. The substantive sentence was directed to run concurrently. It is also directed that if the fine amounts are realised, Rs. 1,00,000/- will be given to P.W.1 as compensation u/s 357(1) of Cr.P.C. It is also directed that if appropriate Government seeks to exercise powers under Sections 432 and 433 Cr.P.C. as the case may be, the accused would be entitled to set off as per law. First and the second accused challenged the above conviction and sentence.

The prosecution case is that Praveen, the deceased, was initially employed with the first accused. Since he betrayed the confidence and faith reposed in him by the first accused, in that Praveen developed an illicit relationship with the wife of first accused, he had to leave the services of first accused. First accused nursed a grudge against him and finally it resulted in the murder of Praveen by the first accused with the aid of accused Nos. 2 to 5. The facts are that on 15.2.2005, the second accused in furtherance of the conspiracy by the accused persons managed to take deceased Praveen along with him from Ettumanoor to Kottayam. Thereafter they had food in the hotel and then went for a movie. While on the way back from Kottayam to Ettumanoor at the place called Arpookkara, in furtherance of the conspiracy accused Nos. 3 to 5 took into their custody Praveen, who was brought on his motor bike by accused No. 2. Praveen was transported into a Maruti car alleged to have been driven by the first accused. The further case is that Praveen was strangulated to death and thereafter his body was mutilated. The first accused is then said to have disposed off various parts of the body of Praveen in different places.

The challenges to the trial court judgment made by the accused are mainly three fold. They are:

(i) There is nothing to show that the parts of the body retrieved are that of Praveen,;

(ii) The evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13, on which the court below has placed considerable reliance, were not reliable and acceptable; and

(iii) the various recoveries alleged to have been made based on the confession statement said to have been given by the first accused suffers from both legal and factual infirmities and is not acceptable in law. Therefore, those items of evidence will have to be eschewed.

Before going into the issues agitated before this Court, it needs to be noticed that the case is built on circumstantial evidence.

It is well settled that while appreciating circumstantial evidence, it is stated that the courts must adopt a very cautious approach and should record the conviction only if all the links in the chain are complete, pointing to the guilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence is capable of being negatived on evidence. Great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. The circumstances relied on must have been fully established and must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. But it is not to say that the prosecution must meet each and every hypothesis put forward by the defence, however far fetched or fanciful it may be. The prosecution evidence must not be rejected on the slightest doubt because law permits rejection, if the doubt is reasonable and not otherwise.

These aspects had been considered in a number of decisions. It is unnecessary to refer to all of them. In the decision reported in Chattar Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2009 SC 378, the Apex Court held as follows:

It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, ; Eradu and Others Vs. State of Hyderabad, ; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka : AIR 1983 SC 446; State of U.P. Vs. Sukhbasi and Others, ; Balwinder Singh alias Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, ; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee Vs. State of M.P., . The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Punjab, , it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable doubt.

We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, , wherein it has been observed thus:

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....

In Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, , it was laid down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.

In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava 1992 Cri. L.J 1104, it was pointed out that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills'' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and in capable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis that that of his guile, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted."

In the decision reported in Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 272, it was held as follows:

We have considered their arguments very carefully. In Mahmood v. State of U.P., it has been observed that in a case dependent wholly on circumstantial evidence, the court must be satisfied-

(a) that the circumstances from which the inference of guilt is to be drawn, have been fully established by unimpeachable evidence beyond a shadow of doubt;

(b) that the circumstances are of a determinative tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and

(c) that the circumstances, taken collectively, are incapable of explanation of any reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt sought to be proved against him." In this case this Court held that the omission of the prosecution, inter alia, to have the fingerprints found on the alleged murder weapon was fatal to the prosecution story.

In sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, this Court discussed the ratio of the judgments in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., Tufail v. State of U.P., Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra and observed thus:

A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established." It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ''must or should'' and not ''may be proved'' and must be or should be proved'' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made:

...Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

Mr. Goburdhun has also cited Mahmood v. State of U.P., Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharastra, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, Omwati v. Mahendra Singh, Sudama Pandey v. State of Bihar and Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. In support of his plea relating to the evaluation of circumstantial evidence. These judgments have broadly followed the principles laid down in the judgments referred to above and need not therefore be dealt with by us in extenso. It must nonetheless be emphasised that whether a chain is complete or not would depend on the facts of each case emanating from the evidence and no universal yardstick should ever be attempted. It is in this background that we must examine the circumstances in the present case.

In the decision reported in Vinay D. Nagar Vs. State of Rajasthan, it was held as follows:

The principle of law is well established that where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and the facts, so established, should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude hypothesis than the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants referred to the following decisions in this regard:

(i) Bodh Raj @ Bodha and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, .

(ii) Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy v. State of A.P. (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 512.

(iii) Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2009) 8 SCC 456.

(iv) Mousam Singha Roy and Others Vs. State of West Bengal, .

(v) State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 162.

None of the decisions has taken a different view from the decisions referred to earlier.

The first of the issues agitated by the appellants is regarding the identity of the parts of the body said to have been retrieved by the investigating agency from various places. The prosecution evidence is to the effect that Praveen was found missing from 15.2.2005 onwards. Inspite of the best efforts on the part of P.W.1 and his relatives, Praveen could not be located. A complaint was, therefore, laid before the Ettumanoor Police Station on 18.2.2005. On 16.2.2005 police were informed about two human legs floating in the back waters below the Cheepumkal bridge. One must notice here that the complaint by P.W.1 was laid only on 18.2.2005. When the two lower limbs were retrieved by the police, since they could not be identified, they kept it in the Medical College Mortuary. After the complaint was received, it appears that P.W.1 was taken to the Medical College Hospital Mortuary and shown the legs. He identified those legs as that of his son Praveen. P.W.71, the Forensic Surgeon had conducted autopsy of the severed limbs and has furnished Ext.P92 report. It discloses three incised wounds. However, P.W71 was of the view that they were not antemortem injuries. On 19.2.2005 police were informed about the torso in a plastic sack floating on the eastern side of Vembanadu lake. P.W.17, the Circle Inspector of Police of Vaikom Police Station retrieved the same from the lake. He conducted inquest and Ext.P90 is the report. He also happened to see two severed hands floating in the lake. They were also retrieved and conduced inquest over those limbs also. P.W.1, who was called upon to have a look at the torso and upper limbs identified them as those of his son Praveen. P.W.71 conducted postmortem examination of the two upper limbs retrieved by P.W.17 and Ext.P94 is the report. P.W.71 co-related injury Nos. 2 and 3 in Ext.P94 report as complementary to injury Nos. 1 and 2 in Ext.P93 certificate. Such was the case of injury Nos. 4 and 5 in Ext.P94 report with injury Nos. 1 and 3 in Ext.P92. He also deposed before court that the torso must be of a person aged about 20 years and the upper and lower limbs are of the same person. He has also stated that M.O.4 could be the weapon that could have been used to severe the limbs. While P.W.77 had taken over investigation, he was informed that the human head in a plastic cover was seen near the ship dockyard of Cochin Naval Base. The head was retrieved from the back waters and P.W.77 conducted inquest. Ext.P15 is the report. On 25.2.2005 P.W.71 conducted postmortem examination on the severed head and issued Ext.P95 certificate. From Ext.P95 certificate it can be seen that the horn of hyoid bone got fractured by application of pressure on both sides of neck. The details of the finding by P.W.71 are contained in Ext.P95 certificate. It is unnecessary to reproduce them here. The opinion given by the doctor, who conducted autopsy, was that the death must have been caused by the blunt force injury sustained to the neck and that the neck could have been severed by using a sharp cutting weapon. He placed the parts of the body at the appropriate places and came to the conclusion that various parts of the body belong to one and the same person and death was caused by the blunt injury inflicted on the neck. Assuming that the body belonged to Praveen, it is evident that death was a homicidal one.

Though the parts of the body were prima facie established as that of Praveen, prosecution went on to conduct DNA test to prove and establish the identity. The evidence shows that P.W.1 and his wife Ammini were taken to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Chennai. P.W.76 conducted DNA analysis and Ext.P4 is the report. Exts.P4(a) to P4(h) were blood samples of the parents of Praveen. DNA was also extracted from the portions of the limbs of late Praveen and they were examined. In Ext.P4 report, conclusions are shown. It is seen that items 1 to 6 and 8 as shown in Ext.P4 belong to one and the same individual and those items belonged to the Biological offspring of Pavithran and Ammini. The couple had only two sons, namely, Jith and Praveen. Jith is still alive. Obviously the mutilted body must be that of their other son Praveen.

Strong objection was taken to the DNA report and the manner in which it was conducted. It was pointed out that initially the body parts were taken to Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology and from there that it was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Chennai. There is no guarantee, according to learned Counsel for the appellants, that the parts of the body forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Chennai were the ones which were retrieved by the police from various places as claimed by them. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, no sanctity can be attached to the report.

Though the argument may look attractive, it is without any substance whatsoever. There is nothing to indicate that the articles forwarded to Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology were not properly sealed or packed. Nor is there any evidence to show that they were indifferently handled. It was kept in proper custody. Initially the articles were sent for examination to Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology from JFCM, Ettumanoor to conduct DNA test based on the request made by the Dy.S.P. Eight items were forwarded to the Institute. Ext.P36 shows that all the items were received by the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology. Thereafter the Dy.S.P. made a request to JFCM, Ettumanoor that the articles may be recalled and forwarded to Chennai Forensic Science Laboratory. The reason given was that Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology was not a fully Government owned concern and therefore to avoid any controversy, he would like to have the DNA test conducted in the Chennai Forensic Science Laboratory. After getting the articles back from the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology, they were forwarded to the Chennai Forensic Science Laboratory. There is nothing to indicate that the articles sent were not the ones forwarded to Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology and also that the articles forwarded to the Chennai Forensic Science Laboratory were different or were not in proper condition. The material objects were properly packed and sealed. The relevant document did not indicate that there had been any tampering at any point of time by any person. Except for a bald allegation that it could have been manipulated, there is not even an iota of evidence to justify such a claim. The evidence of P.W.76 guarantees that no tampering had been done.

In order to establish that the parts of the body retrieved are that of Praveen, superimposition test was also conducted. As already noticed, on retrieving the head from the backwaters, P.W.71 had conducted autopsy and furnished Ext.P95 report. From Ext.P95 it could be seen that the skull and mandibles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Trivandrum for superimposition test. Photographs of Praveen were also forwarded. M.O.75(a) is the skull and M.O.76 series are the photographs. The Assistant Director( Biology) attached to FSL furnished Ext.P54 report. The report says that for the reasons mentioned in the report, the skull sent to the Laboratory is that of Praveen. True, some infirmities had been pointed out by the defence regarding the report. But, Ext.P54 report gives all the details. No serious defect or infirmity could be pointed out by the defence regarding the superimposition technique adopted for identifying the skull. The report is admissible u/s 293 Cr.P.C. without the oral evidence of the expert. If as a matter of fact the defence had any objection or had any disagreement with the same, it was for them to have the witness concerned examined. No such request seems to have been made by the accused. It is too late to contend that superimposition technique is defective.

Even assuming that the superimposition test is not fully acceptable, a more clinching evidence is the DNA test conducted. The report shows that it is almost fool proof.

There is abundant evidence in this case to show that the limbs, torso and the skull retrieved by the police officers from various places as already mentioned are that of late Praveen. The court below was right in holding so. It also follows that the death of Praveen was due to the inflicted injuries and it is a clear case of homicide.

What next comes up for consideration is the evidence of P.Ws. 7, 8, 9, 10 12 and 13, who identified the accused persons and speak about the incident.

The incident can be divided into two parts. The first part at Ettumanoor and the second part at Kottayam. Festival was going on in the temple at Ettumanoor. According to the prosecution, the second accused picked up the victim, namely, Praveen from Ettumanoor and went to Kottayam. He was later on handed over to first accused, who did the objectionable acts. Praveen was previously employed with the first accused. He was thrown out from the job due to reasons which will be referred to later, and thereafter Praveen joined a mattress company at Ettumanoor as a driver in that concern. He worked for first accused till 24.11.2004. P.W.3 is his former colleague.

Before dealing with the happenings at Ettumannoor, it will be useful to refer to certain relevant facts which reveal the probable motive for the act committed by the first accused. We will come back to the evidence of P.W.1, who is none other than the father of the victim. P.W.2 is a close relative of the victim and in fact P.W.1 is his father''s brother. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are residing nearby to each other. They say that Praveen was employed as a conductor of the bus owned by the first accused and the driver of the car belonging to the first accused. Praveen was staying in a lodge. First accused was residing with his family there. Their evidence would show that accused Nos. 1 and 2 are related to them. P.W.1 was employed at Trivandrum. Two months prior to the incident, P.W.1 says that he received a call from the father of P.W.2. He was informed that Praveen was in deep trouble and he be brought home immediately from Palluruthy, where he was employed with the first accused. The first accused was then working in Malappuram. The information passed on was that the first accused had come to know about some very objectionable act committed by Praveen and before he reaches Palluruthy, Praveen should be removed from there. Since P.W.1 was unable to come down immediately, he requested the father of P.W.2 to take such steps as are necessary. P.W.2 and two others went to Palluruthy and brought back Praveen, that is on 25.11.2004. On the same day itself, P.W.2 says that they received a call from the aunt of Praveen, namely, Vijayamma, about the threat to Praveen and she asked them to remove him to a safe place. It was due to these reasons they had gone and brought back Praveen. In fact C.W.7 and C.W.4, the brother of P.W.2 and the brother of the victim had gone to Palluruthy to bring back Praveen. Praveen was told that his mother was very sick. As soon as they reached their home, P.W.2 says that they received a call from the first accused. He wanted Praveen to be taken to him immediately. He mentioned about the unholy relationship Praveen had with his wife. He had threatened that if gets Praveen, he will chop him. The threat was followed by a tirade of abuses. P.W.2 sought the advice of P.W.1 regarding the taking of Praveen to the first accused. P.W.1 thought it fit and proper to send Praveen to first accused. He advised P.W.2 to do so. P.W.2 says that he along with his father C.W.5, Ammini C.W.3 and C.W.8, brother of C.W.5 took Praveen in a car to Palluruthy, where first accused resided. Initially P.W.2 and Praveen stood outside the door and others went in. After about ten minutes when P.W.2 and Praveen entered the house, first accused rushed at Praveen and thrashed him. P.W.2 and others somehow managed to save Praveen. First accused had stated that he will not let Praveen live. P.W.2 and others then asked Praveen whether the allegations were true. He initially denied and said that it was a scandal spread by Aji, the Manager of the first accused for personal gains. Then Aji was called and asked about the same. He said that on a particular day when he had come to the office in the early morning he found