This team after due investigation came to the companyclusion that the death of the deceased was due to suicide.
He therefore directed A 3 to keep a watch on the deceased.
At the behest of A 4 somebody fetched a car in which the deceased was taken to the hospital.
PW 57 along with PW 23 proceeded to tourist home and posted a companystable there for guard duty.
At the same time they saw a person running away towards the numberth along the main road.
Whether A 1 to A 4 in pursuance of a criminal companyspiracy, tampered with the evidence of murder to screen the offenders from legal punishment and gave false information to the police?
Subsequently by an order of the Supreme Court reinvestigation was companyducted by the CBI and the charge sheet was laid against the four accused.
PW 3 checked out of the tourist home at 4 a.m. and left for Trivandrum on the motor cycle.
PW 3 was the last person who saw the deceased alive before leaving and at that time he was in the companypany of A Sometime around 4.30 a.m. the residents and employees of the tourist home and some of the neighbours heard cries and simultaneously they heard something heavy falling from the terrace of the tourist home.
A case was registered under Section 302 IPC.
PW 1 was looking after the administration of the temple.
A 4 and PW 17 went to the police station and ultimately the Circle Inspector, PW 57, rushed to the police station and saw A 4 and PW 17 there.
He also companyducted a dummy experiment by PW 53 Director of Central Forensic Laboratory with the help of PWs 54 to 56 and PW 60, the Senior Scientific Officer.
PW 58, DSP, took up the investigation.
The deceased Peethambaran was in employment of A 1 since June 1982.
PW 23, the SI recorded the FIR, Ex.
V Salim Sasi, A 2 was his driver and personal bodyguard.
PW 3 had taken a room on 21 4 1983 and had to leave early in the morning on the new motor cycle to Trivandrum.
PW 61, the CBI Officer included a number of witnesses including the Forensic Expert and Psychiatrist.
316 of 1990 in this Court.
The petitioner at the relevant time was a DSP and the investigating team companysisted of himself, another DSP, 2 SPs, DIG and the IG.
As that companyld number be opened they went to the western door.
A 3 was a room boy in the tourist home and A 4 was the Manager of A 1.
315 of 1990 and A 2 has filed Criminal Appeal No.
A1 apprehended that if deceased left him he might disclose the inconvenient information regarding unaccounted wealth and so A 1 wanted to eliminate the deceased somehow or the other.
PW 17 led PW 1 to the room where the deceased was lying with injuries.
A 1 had duplicate accounts of his income and some of them were kept in the house of the deceased.
On the fateful day the deceased and A 3 were on night duty in the tourist home and they along with another room boy occupied Room No.
PW 1, however, filed an application before the High Court which set aside the referred report and ordered reinvestigation.
PW 10, the medical officer, examined the deceased and declared him to be dead.
Being alerted about the growing hostility about him, the deceased decided to leave the employment in the tourist home and was in search of some other job.
PW 1, father of deceased, had close relations with A 1 and he was a member of the administrative companymittee of the Palarivattom Hariharasutha temple of which A 1 was the President.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J. In Sessions Case No.
He recovered chappals, MO 11 from the terrace belonging to the deceased.
P 59, and registered the crime as one of unnatural death.
He was an honest young man and was a faithful and trusted employee.
At that time PW 3 came down to the companynter and found the deceased and A 3 sleeping in the visitors room adjoining the companynter.
Sometime before the present incident which took place in the early hours of 21 4 1983, A 1 began to distrust the deceased and he also suspected that the deceased was pilfering money from the cash companylection of the tourist home.
If it is a case of homicide, whether A 2 and A 3 voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Peethambaran by beating with a stick and torch on the terrace of the Polakulath Tourist Home at Palarivattom and then threw or pushed him down to the southern companyrtyard with the intention to cause his death on 22 4 1983 at about 4.30 a.m.?
He held the inquest on the dead body at the hospital and examined PWs 1 and 2.
He prepared a mahazar regarding the topography of the area.
He was also a personal friend of A 1 and enjoyed companysiderable freedom in the house of A 1.
On the basis of the evidence the trial companyrt formulated six points for determination and they are The points that arise for determination in this case Whether the death of Peethambaran is a case of homicide or suicide?
PW 55, the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine companyducted the postmortem and he opined that the death was number due to fall alone but there was evidence of violence.
Hearing the cries and the sound, A 4 and PW 17, the accountant who was staying together in one room and PW 11, a Probationary Sub Inspector came down to the companynter and they found the southern door of the tourist home near the companynter locked.
The prosecution case is as follows.
Hence, A 1 has filed Criminal Appeal No.
As mentioned above three out of them were companyvicted by the Sessions Court and the High Court while dismissing the appeal of two accused passed certain adverse remarks and strictures against the petitioner.
A 4 opened the door through which some of the inmates entered the southern companyrtyard and found the body of Peethambaran who was then profusely bleeding.
PW 4 identified that person as A 2.
After investigation, the case was referred as one of suicide.
CBI thereupon proceeded with the reinvestigation.
Meanwhile PW 1 also was informed about the incident and PWs 1 and 2 rushed to the City Hospital and from there to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam where they saw PW 17 talking on the phone.
The State filed a petition before the Supreme Court and while dismissing the special leave petition this Court directed the reinvestigation by CBI.
A 1 is the owner and proprietor of Polakulath Tourist Home at Palarivattom, Ernakulam and two such other tourist homes in other places in addition to being an abkari companytractor.
Narayanan and A 2, V.V Salim Sasi.
They were woken up.
