Ruban vs State of Kerala

M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.—Appellant in Crl.A. No. 1734 of 2009 is the second accused in S.C. No. 407 of 2007 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. Third respondent in Crl. R.P. No. 3413 of 2008 is the first accused therein. Learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the first accused and convicted and sentenced the second accused to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 15,000/and in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence u/s 302 and rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default, rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence u/s 394 of Indian Penal Code. Crl. Appeal No. 1734 of 2009 is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. PW3, the eldest son of deceased Brijitha was residing 3 km away from the family house. Deceased Brijitha and the second accused were residing in the family house. Second accused was her employee. Prosecution case is that in furtherance of their common intention, of both the first and second accused, they committed the murder of Brijitha, a 63 year old widow, on the midnight of 6.2.2006 and robbed her gold ornaments and cash and thereby they committed the offences u/s 302 and 394 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

PW1 Cheriyan @ Shabin is the son of the brother in law of deceased Brijitha. Brijitha had four daughters and two sons. PW3, Ronald Cherian, the eldest son of Brijitha, was residing 3 kms away from the house of Brijitha. The other son had left India eight months prior to the date of the incident. PW1 is residing 50 metres away from the house, where Brijitha was residing. Natarajan, the father of the first accused used to stay in the same house where Brijitha was staying. He was a permanent employee of Brijitha. PW3, for some reasons, directed Natarajan not to stay in the house and therefore Natarajan discontinued his employment. First accused then started residing with Brijitha. On the mid-night of 6.2.2006, the mother of PW1 heard a cry from the house of Brijitha. She woke up PW1, who was then sleeping. PW1 proceeded to the house of Brijitha. He heard the cry of the first accused, coming from the kitchen side. PW1 reached near the kitchen and asked the first accused to open the kitchen door. First accused replied to PW1 that his hands and legs were tied and he cannot therefore open the door. He asked PW1 to get into the house through the front door, declaring that it was not closed. PW1, through the front door, entered the room and he found the body of Brijitha lying on the floor motionless. He went to the kitchen and saw the first accused. His hands and legs were found tied. The first accused revealed to PW1 that five persons had entered the house and tied him and Brijitha and robbed the articles from the house, including her gold ornaments and cash. PW1 returned to his house and informed PW3 over telephone. PW3 reached there along with others and took Brijitha to the Hospital. PW1 did not accompany them as there was nobody else in his house other than his mother. By the time Brijitha reached St. Johns Hospital, Kattappana, she had breathed her last. PW1, on getting that information, furnished Ext. P1 F.I. Statement at 4 am recorded by PW22 the Sub Inspector, based on which Ext. P1(a) FIR was prepared and the crime was registered. PW17, C.I of Police, Kattapana took over the investigation. He reached the hospital at 9.30 am on 7.2.2006 and prepared Ext. P12 inquest report in the presence of PW18, the Panchayat President. At the time of inquest, he took possession of Mos. 7 to 14 from the body of the deceased. Her ornaments were missing. PW17 thereafter proceeded to the scene of occurence and prepared Ext. P5 scene mahazar in the presence of PW10. Mos. 15 to 38 were seized from the scene of occurence. As PW17 suspected the role of the first accused, he arrested the first accused at about 6.20 pm on the same day. On questioning, first accused confessed that the act was committed along with second accused and second accused removed the cash and gold ornaments to his house and he will point out the house of the second accused. PW17, along with first accused, proceeded towards the house of second accused and on the way, found the second accused walking along the road. He was apprehended and arrested. Along with accused 1, 2 and PW11, the goldsmith, PW17 reached the house of the second accused as led by him and from the house, Mo6 shawl used for suffocating Brijitha and Mos.1 to 3 her gold ornaments and Mo5 series of cash were recovered under Ext. P13 mahazar in the presence of PW19, one of the witnesses who was present at the scene of recovery. PW12, Dr. Rajeev, the Senior Lecturer and Assistant Police Surgeon, Medical College Hospital, Kottayam conducted the autopsy and prepared Ext. P7 recording that the death of Brijitha was due to smothering. Ext. P3 photographs of the body of the deceased was got taken by PW8 photographer. PW17 had taken PW13, Mrs. Shylaja, the finger print expert as well as PW7, the police photographer to the scene of occurence while preparing Ext. P5 scene mahazar. PW13 collected chance finger prints from the scene of occurence. The finger prints of the accused were compared with the chance finger prints obtained. Ext. P8 report was submitted recording that the finger prints of both the accused were included in the chance finger prints collected from the scene of occurence. After completing the investigation, charge was laid before JFCM, Kattapana who committed the case to Sessions Court. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge for the offences u/s 302 and 394 of Indian Penal Code. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 22 witnesses, marked 26 exhibits and identified 38 material objects.

After closing the prosecution evidence, when the accused were questioned, they denied the incriminating evidence put to them. The case of the first accused was that he did not commit the offences and on that fateful night, while he and the deceased were in the house, five persons trespassed into the house. They tied the hands and legs of the first accused and covered the face of deceased Brijitha, removed the gold ornaments and suffocated her and also took the cash from the house. It was alleged that when the first accused cried, PW1 who is the neighbour, reached there, untied the first accused. Thereafter PW1 returned to his house and informed PW3, the son of Brijitha over phone, who reached there. They took Brijitha to the Hospital and from the Hospital, it was revealed that Brijitha is no more. Police took the first accused back to the house and asked him to show everything. Thereafter took him to the police station and kept him in custody and he was manhandled. It was asserted by the first accused that five persons entered the house and committed the act and he is not involved in the incident at all. The second accused stated that he was not involved in the case and the Dy. SP, Special Squad came to his house at about 6 am in the morning of 7.6.2006 and took him to the police station and manhandled him and he was forced to keep several articles in his hands and he was also shown as the accused in T.V. channels and to the correspondents of newspapers and photographs were also taken and he was taken to Sub Jail on 8.2.2006.

As it was not a case for acquittal u/s 232 of Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the accused to enter on their defence and adduce evidence. First accused did not adduce any evidence. Second accused filed a witness list showing names of DW1 and four others including news editors of Asianet Communications and Kairali Communications. Learned Additional Sessions Judge permitted the second accused to examine the first two witnesses. The second accused examined only DW1.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the evidence, acquitted the first accused finding that though the evidence of PW13, with Ext. P8 report establish the finger prints of first accused also among the chance finger prints collected from the scene of occurence, as the first accused was admittedly residing in the house along with deceased Brijitha, based on the finger prints, complicity of the first accused cannot be assured and there is no other incriminating circumstances to point out the guilt of the first accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on the circumstantial evidence to convict the second accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on (1) The finger print of the second accused collected by PW13 from the house, as evidenced by Ext. P8 report, (2) The recovery of Mo6 shawl, which contained grey hairs which are proved to be that of the deceased based on Ext. P25 report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, which was recovered on the information furnished by the second accused from his house,(3)recovery of Mos. 1 to 3 gold ornaments identified by Pws 1 and 3 as that of the deceased from the house of second accused under Ext. P13 recovery mahazar proved by the evidence of PW17, Investigating Officer and PW19, the attesting witness and PW11, the goldsmith, who weighed the ornaments and (4) the evidence of PW4, who proved the sale of chilly powder to the second accused, explaining the presence of the packet of chilly powder seen at the scene of occurence recovered by PW17 under Ext. P5 mahazar. The second accused is challenging the conviction and sentence contending that the circumstances relied on by learned Additional Sessions Judge are insufficient to prove the guilt and as the case is based on circumstantial evidence, when the circumstances relied on by the prosecution are not fully established and the circumstances do not unerringly point out the guilt of the second accused, his conviction is unsustainable.

PW3 filed Crl. R.P No. 3413 of 2008 challenging the acquittal of the first accused contending that the acquittal is not legal and the evidence conclusively establish that first accused also participated in the acts and therefore he should also be convicted for both the offences.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the first accused, were heard.

At the outset, it is to be noted that though it is the specific prosecution case that both the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the offences, learned Additional Sessions Judge omitted to frame a charge, with the aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Instead, the charge framed was independently for the offences u/s 302 and 394 of Indian Penal Code. At the same time, learned Additional Sessions Judge formulated the second question, as if charge is for the offences with the aid of Section 34. Point No. 2 reads :

Whether the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention and common object of committing robbery did commit robbery and did murder Brijitha as alleged by the prosecution ?

The final report submitted by the Investigating Officer, is also specifically to the effect that both the accused, in furtherance of their common intention, caused the murder of Brijitha by smothering and also robbed the gold ornaments of Brijitha. In such circumstances, learned Additional Sessions Judge committed an illegality in not framing the charge with the aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It has materially affected the trial and findings. Even if the first accused did not cause the death of Brijitha by smothering her, if it was done by the second accused, in furtherance of his common intention, with the first accused, first accused is also equally liable. As the proper charge was not framed, we find that in the interest of justice, the case is to be sent back to the Additional Sessions Court to frame a proper charge and to dispose the case afresh.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of PW13 and Ext. P8 report, to accept the case of the prosecution that the second accused was there in the house on the night of 6.2.2006, when Brijitha was murdered by smothering and considered the fact that second accused could not explain his presence in the house. Hence the presence of the finger print was taken as one of the strong links in the chain of circumstances, to find his guilt. We find that Ext. P8 report was not prepared by PW13. PW13 had only collected the chance finger prints along with another expert, from the scene of occurrence when PW17 prepared Ext. P5 scene mahazar. Ext. P8 shows that it was prepared by Sri Rajendran (?), Tester Inspector, Single Digit Finger Print Bureau, Idukki. He was not examined. Ext. P8 which was relied on, does not show the reasons for arriving at the conclusion. Instead, Ext. P8 shows that "a detailed expert opinion shall be furnished shortly". But no such detailed expert opinion is seen marked. Without reasons, Ext. P8 report as such could not be accepted. Even though the evidence of PW13 and Ext. P8 show that chance finger prints were collected from the scene of occurence and they were compared with the finger prints of the accused, PW17 or any of the other Investigating Officers did not depose that finger prints of the accused were collected. This was omitted to be taken note of. Learned Additional Sessions Judge should summon the Tester Inspector, who prepared Ext. P8, with a direction to produce the detailed expert opinion shown in Ext. P8, and shall also grant opportunity to the accused to cross examine him. Learned Additional Sessions Judge should also consider whether without the aid of first accused, the second accused alone could have committed the offence, especially when PW1 saw him tied, when he reached the house on hearing the cry of the first accused and he informed PW1 that the front door is not closed. Fact that first accused did not sustain any injury is also a relevant fact to decide the complicity, with the aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution is permitted to recall any of the witnesses who were already examined and the defence is also permitted to recall and cross examine any of the witnesses who are already examined, once proper charge is framed. If necessary, the defence shall also be permitted to adduce further evidence. In the result, Crl.A. No. 1734 of 2009 and Crl.R.P. No. 3413 of 2008 are allowed. The conviction of the second accused and acquittal of first accused in S.C. No. 407 of 2007 on the file of Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha are set aside. S.C. No. 407 of 2007 is remitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for fresh disposal. Learned Additional Sessions Judge shall frame proper charge, with the aid of Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and thereafter permit the prosecution to recall any of the witnesses already examined or to examine any other witness shown in the charge sheet. Learned Additional Sessions Judge shall summon the Tester Inspector, who submitted Ext. P8 report with a direction to produce the detailed expert opinion as shown in Ext. P8, if it is not among the court records, and permit the Public Prosecutor to examine him, with liberty to the defence to cross examine him. Learned Additional Sessions Judge shall also permit the defence to adduce further evidence, if they so choose. Learned Additional Sessions Judge shall dispose the case expeditiously in the light of the earlier findings. The first accused shall appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 21.8.2012 at 11 am. The second accused shall be produced by the Superintendent of Prison before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on that day itself. Learned counsel appearing for appellant submitted that if any application for bail is filed by the second accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, direction may be issued to dispose it. If any application for bail is filed, learned Additional Sessions Judge to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.