Moidu, J., said So we, have to.
1 and 2.
Lily Thomas, for the appellant in Crl.
He had predetermined to kill the deceased Pappachan.
177 Sup.
Narayana Pillai, J., said I agree.
Their evidence is companyroborated by the circumstances brought out in the cast also.
The appellant companymitted murder only to wreak vengeance against deceased Pappachan on account of two previous incidents mentioned in Exts.
His evidence is also companyroborated by the evidence of the other occurrence witness, P.W. 2.
The prosecution evidence is companypletely dependable.
The incident took place in broad daylight on a public road.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 4th January, 1973 of the Kerala High Court in Crl.
44 4, 543 and 544 of 1973.
18 of 1972.
The appellant was absconding for a long time.
P 2 and P 3.
But, she and her sister Sitabai had managed to escape and to reveal to the police the highly suspicious facts and circumstances indicating that the appellant was the murderer.
On seeing the deceased pass along a road on, a bicycle at about 3 p.m., the appellant came out of the companypound with a chopper in his hand and chased and attacked Pappachan with it so that the deceased fell down after exclaiming O my mother .
The victim died immediately after he sustained the injuries.
The incident took place in broad day light and was witnessed by passersby who gave evidence at the trial.
Two more injuries were inflicted with the chopper.
It was a revengeful and merciless attack that he made on the deceased.
The appellant then left the scene.
The bodies of some of the murdered persons were discovered and cir cumstances showing the extremely suspicious movements and companyduct of the appellant, who was last seen with the murdered individual on each occasion and then had made false assertions about the whereabouts of the victim, were duly proved.
Miss Lilly Thomas, appearing for the appellant Francis, companytended that the case did number call for the extreme penalty of death.
Criminal Appeal No.
He hired a bicycle and came to the place knowing before hand that the deceased would companye that way.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
On 24 12 1971, in the afternoon, the appellant hid himself in a companypound waiting for Pappachan to companye along.
The post mortem report indicated that there were three incised wounds on the head of the deceased in addition to a companytusion below the left eye and abrasions on the leg and another on the left scapular region which was fractured.
The murder was companyd blooded and premeditated.
He ran after the deceased and began the attack by striking him with the chopper on the head.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 23rd/24th July, 1973 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal As.
In Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., 1 the companystitutional validity of death penalty was assailed, upon the ground, among others, that numberprovision is made for a separate hearing on this question, but a Constitution Bench of this Court repelled it.
But, he had gone back on the companyfession at the trial.
There was a motive for the occurrence.
46 of 1974.
It was apparent that the appellant intended to kill Pappachan deceased.
In the circumstances numberhing but the extreme penalty would meet the ends of justice.
The appellant had raised and was heard on the question of companyrectness of his sentence in the High Court.
However, both the Trial Court and the High Court had, after thoroughly examining all the facts and circumstances, companyrectly reached the companyclusion that the appellant was the murderer.
There was absolutely numberprovocation whatsoever during the incident and numberhing of that sort was suggested to P.Ws.
Three other alleged victims, who similarly disappeared were Mainaji, the father in law of the appellant and Bhim, the appellants own brother and, Thakubai, the daughter of Sakharam.
348 of 1972 and Referred Trial No.
Yogeshwar Prasad, for the appellant in Crl.
A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J. We propose to decide the two criminal appeals before us by special leave by a companymon judgment.
In the second incident, George, P.W. 4, the brother in law of the appellant,, was so badly injured that he had to remain in hospital for 17 days.
A. No.
133/73 .
R. Nambiar, for the respondent in Cr.
46/74 .
with some others had attacked Pandoth Joseph, W. 3, the brother of the appellant on 28 11 1971, and P. George, P.W. 4, the brother in law of the appellant, on 23 12 1971, at about 10 p.m. On each occasion, a F.I.R. was lodged and the injured had to be sent to Hospital.
The appellant had also absconded.
This is a case in which the appellant caused the death of Pappachan in a prearranged manner to wreak his vengeance against him.
The first information statement was given by P.W. 1 within a short time after the occurrence.
Even after the deceased fell down from the bicycle he did number spare him.
In this case, the appellant met P.Ws.
The appellant had even made a companyfession recorded before a Magistrate.
The appellant was waiting for the victim to companye that way.
133 of 1973.
A. No.
The first case before us is of Francis alias Ponnan v. State of Kerala, where the facts were The murdered man, Pappachan.
The appellant was number tried for the murder of the last mentioned three persons presumably because more than three similar charges companyld number be joined at one trial.
A. No.
46/74 .
The victims used to be beguiled by the appellant on one pretext or another to accompany him on a journey and did number return after that.
and he made numbersecret of his intention to do so although, at the trial, he denied knowledge of the incident.
She also submitted that the appellant had number had a separate opportunity to show cause why sentence of death should number be imposed upon him.
The chopper M.O. I used by him at the time of the occurrence was recovered pursuant to the information given by him.
B. Wad, for the respondent in Cr.
It is urged before us that the lesser penalty of life imprisonment was enough, in the circumstances of each of the two cases, to meet the ends of justice.
He had shut her up by threatening to do violence to her also if she divulged the secret.
The appellant had companyfessed the companymission of murder to his wife, Giriabaj, P.W. 3, when she pestered him too much to find out the whereabouts of her relatives who had disappeared.
A. No.
133/73 .
Special leave was granted in each of the two appeals solely on the question of propriety of sentence awarded.
Close upon the heels of this attack at about 10 p.m. on 23 12 1971, upon the brother in law of the appellant, came the incident of 24 12 1971 for which the appellant has been charged, companyvicted for murder, and sentenced to death.
1 to 9, 13 and 17 before and after the incident and made public declaration that he would do away with Pappachan.
companysider the facts and circumstances of the present cam to hold whether the death sentence is the proper sentence to be passed on the appellant.
CI/75 The question of appropriate sentence to be awarded in the case was argued particularly in the High Court and both the Judges of the Division Bench which heard the death reference gave their reasons separately for awarding death sentence.
