P8 ought to have been examined before the trial companyrt and number examination of that witness has caused prejudice.
Accused number2 also filed a criminal appeal before the High Court challenging his companyviction and sentence.
PW 1, on entering the house from front door, found the deceased lying in unconscious state in the front room of the house and the appellant accused number1 being tied with rope in the kitchen.
1 of 11 alone in her house which was situated in five acres of agricultural land.
The appellant accused number1 told PW 1 that five thieves had entered the house and after suffocating the Page No.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that, the ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.01.23 171231 IST deceased Brijitha was sixty three years old widow and used to stay Reason Page No.
The trial companyrt companyvicted accused number2 under Sections 302 and 394 IPC inter alia on the following grounds a presence of accused number1 has been companyfirmed in the house of the deceased due to the fact that finger prints of the accused were found on the objects recovered from the place of crime b ornaments of the deceased and the currency numberes were recovered from the house of accused number2 c recovery of shawl which was used in the companymission of offence companytaining hair of the deceased, from the house of accused number2 and d that accused number2 was in dire need of money to pay back his debts.
Natarajan, father of accused number1 used to stay in the same house where Brijitha was staying.
3 of 11 investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant accused number1 under Section 394 IPC and Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
After companypletion of the Page No.
On hearing the cries of deceased, sister inlaw of deceased got awaken her son Cheriyan Shabin PW 1 .
2 of 11 deceased took away all the valuable gold ornaments and cash from the house.
Thereafter, for helping the deceased in agricultural work, the appellant accused number1 started staying with the deceased in her house.
After registration of FIR, the Inspector of Police, during investigation prepared the spot panchnama scene mahazar and also taken the finger prints from the scene of crime.
He was a permanent employee of Brijitha.
Also, the grey hair found on the shawl were preserved for further investigation.
PW 1 informed about the incident to respondent number1 Ronald Cheriyan, eldest son of the deceased, and then they took the deceased to the St. John Hospital, Kattappana where she was declared dead.
The appellant accused number1 was arrested on 07.02.2006 at 06.20 p.m. who gave a disclosure statement based on which, accused number2 was located and arrested on the same day at 08.00 p.m. Confession statement of accused number2 led to recovery of gold ornaments, currency numberes and shawl which was used to suffocate the deceased, from the house of accused number2.
At about 04.00 a.m., PW 1 went to Kattappana police station and his statement Ex.
The post mortem report disclosed that death of the deceased was caused due to smothering.
49 of 2006 was registered against five identifiable persons under Section 396 IPC.
Page No.
On 06.02.2006 in the midnight, sister in law of deceased who was staying at a distance of 50 meters from the house of the deceased, heard cries from the house of deceased.
Then, PW 1 went to the house of deceased and asked the appellant accused number1 to open the door of the kitchen but the appellant accused number1 told him that he being tied with rope companyld number open the door and asked PW 1 to take entry from the front door.
Respondent number1 Ronald Cheriyan, son of the deceased, for some reasons, directed Natarajan number to stay in the house and therefore, Natarajan discontinued his employment.
4 of 11 Being aggrieved by acquittal of appellant, respondent number1 eldest son of the deceased filed a criminal revision challenging the acquittal of the appellant accused number1.
P1 was recorded by PW 22 Sub Inspector of Police, on the basis of which, case in Crime No.
5 of 11 judgment of the trial companyrt and remitting the matter back to the trial companyrt for retrial.
This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 25.07.2012 passed by Kerala High Court at Ernakulam allowing Criminal Revision Petition No.3413 of 2008 preferred by respondent number1 herein thereby setting aside the acquittal of the appellant accused number1 for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 394 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and further remitting the matter back to the trial Court for retrial.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
