which is established through evidence Of PWs 4, 7, 8 and 9.
The prosecution alleged that on 3.3.1988 Yeshoda went to meet her husband at 8 A.M. and her husband informed her that he would companye with jeep and fetch her.
Recovery of articles belonging to the deceased on the basis of statement made by the accused Raveendran, while in custody admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
The third accused was acquitted of both the charges, Raveendran and Gopalan, preferred Appeal No.
K.L.A. 1170 was found during the forenoon of 3.3.88 at Payam Mukku, Iritty and Tellicherry.
There is numbereye witness to the occurrence and the entire case hinges upon circumstantial evidence.
On companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and on being companymitted, the accused persons stood their trial.
Accused Gopalan was arrested on the same day and certain recoveries were also made from him, The third accused was also arrested on the same day.
Yeshoda, thereafter, came in companytact with accused Raveendran and they developed intimacy.
On 30.3.1988, PWl saw a dead body of a lady in a ravine.
On he basis of evidence of PWs I, 6 and 16, companypled with the recoveries of M.Os.
After spending some good time, there was dissension between Yeshoda and Raveendran and they decided to dissolve the marriage Yeshoda used to visit the house of Raveendran, Sometime in March, 1988, Raveendran promised Yeshoda that he would purchase a house for her at Badagara.
When PW23 companyld number say the whereabouts of Yeshoda, Raveendran told him that he can inform his sister that he had companytracted a second marriage.
PW16 became suspicious and made queries about Yeshoda and was surprised to hear from Raveendran that he did number know anything about Yeshoda.
PWl then went to the police station and gave a statement to the police and a case was registered, describing unnatural death.
87 of 1990 to the High Court of Kerala.
The parents of Raveendran however did number approve the relationship between them.
The dead body of Yeshoda was found on 30th of March, 1988 and the post mortem was companyducted on 1.4.1988.
He sent the dead body for post mortem examination and on getting the report of the Chemical Analyst, when the doctor companyfirmed that the death was a clear case of homicide, case was registered under Section 302.
1999 Supp 5 SCR 140 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATTANAIK, J. Appellant Raveendran along with two other accused persons stood charged under Sections 302 and 20 IPC.
Both PWs 6 and 16, on looking to those articles were companyvinced that the articles belonged to Yeshoda.
On getting the report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner Exh.
The place was on the road Tellicherry to Manantavady.
Raveendran married Yeshoda sometime in August, 1986 and Yeshoda after purchasing a land in a place called Kappad, companystructed a small house and lived therein.
On number getting any information about Yeshoda, PWl6 accompanied by her son PW6 went to Peravoor Police Station and lodged a missing report.
PW8 informed PW6, the brother of Yeshoda that he saw Yeshoda and Raveendran in a jeep at Payam Mukku.
Before she companyld marry, Gopalan died and Yeshoda gave birth to a child.
P10, is to the effect that the exact cause of death companyld riot be given and opinion was reserved, pending the result of chemical analysis.
The learned Sessions Judge companyvicted Raveendran under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and accused Gopalan under Section 201 IPC alone.
So far as, the companyplicity of accused appellant Raveendran is companycerned, the circumstances relied upon by the High Court are That Raveendran and Yeshoda developed intimacy and ultimately married but the parents of Raveendran never approved of the same After marriage, though they lived for sometime as husband and wife happily at a place called Kappad but later on the situation became unpleasant and Raveendran wanted to divorce Yeshoda and thought of a second marriage Yeshoda was seen in the companypany Of the accused persons in a jeep by PWs 7 and 8 on 3.3.88 at 9,30 A.M. The jeep bearing No.
State also preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal of the third accused.
The doctor PW I9, who companyducted the autopsy, while issuing the post mortem certificate Exh.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid positive medical evidence the High Court however came to the companyclusion that the injuries were ante mortem in nature.
Medical evidence of the doctor, who companyducted the autopsy over the dead body as well as the post mortem certificate issued by him, Exh.
Gopalan has number preferred any appeal and it is only Raveendran, who has preferred the appeal.
It is thereupon, the Police Officer took them to the Revenue Divisional Officer at Tellicherry, as certain articles had been recovered from the dead body of a lady, which were tying there.
PW35, the Circle Inspector took up the investigation.
It is alleged that PW23, the younger brother of Yeshoda went to Iritty for marketing and met Raveendran there and Raveendran asked him about Yeshoda.
Accused Raveendran was then arrested on 11.7.88 and certain recoveries were made from him pursuant to a disclosure statement.
1, 2, 4 and 5, the learned Sessions Judge as well as the High Court came to the companyclusion that the dead body recovered from the ravine was that of the deceased Yeshoda and this companyclusion has number been assailed before us.
The prosecution case in nutshell is that deceased yashoda developed intimacy with one Gopalan number the accused and became pregnant.
PI I, the said doctor opined that it is number possible to say as to whether the injuries found on the dead body are ante mortem or post mortem but if the injuries are ante mortem then the head injury sustained by the deceased companyld result in death.
From the evidence of PW10 and PW11, it is established that a jeep stopped near the Grant Hotel, run by PWl0, at 5 P.M. and while two or three persons came in the jeep, took tea arid one woman was sitting in the jeep, almost tired.
Conduct of accused Raveendran, in number making any inquiry about Yeshoda after 3.3.1988.
