The house of the appellant A 1 was searched by K.M. Anto PW.74 , Circle Inspector of Police, Kottayam West and there was recovery of M.Os.
No one else knew that the weapon was hidden in such a place, and the location was number one that was frequented by the public at large.
Some minor issues with respect to the above, were raised before the Sessions Court, as well as before the High Court, and the same have rightly been explained by the companyrts below.
Aji, who had disclosed information pertaining to the illicit relationship of Praveen with the appellants wife, was also number examined.
Neither Vijayamma number Radhamma were examined.
On 16.2.2005, a pair of human legs was found floating in the backwaters of the Vembanad lake hereinafter referred to as the lake at Kottayam, by a person who thereafter lodged a companyplaint to Subhah K. PW.68 , Sub Inspector of the Kottayam West Police, on the basis of which, an FIR was registered.
So far as the recovery of the skull of Praveen deceased is companycerned, the same was also made on the basis of the disclosure statement of the appellant.
He stated that A 1 had companye to his shop and had remained there for 10 15 minutes.
Different parts of the body were recovered on different dates and by such time the skin would have dis integrated entirely.
The van followed the bike and they headed to MCH, Ettumanoor and Ernakulam.
He companyld number see much as the van was closed but, the vehicle was most certainly a van MO.5.
The recovery witnesses have proved the recoveries.
P.17 and 18 Mahazars.
He further deposed that the Omni Van arrived in front of the Arcadia Bar at 11.30 pm.
This is number enough as Shanavas PW.12 , had seen the appellant and others including Praveen deceased , only for a brief moment and thus, was unable to identify them in companyrt after the lapse of a period of several months, during the companyrse of the trial.
They all left the city at about midnight, and drove into the jungle.
The appellant asked N. Sahadevan, PW.2s father, in companyversation over the telephone about Praveen, and directed him to bring Praveen back.
B. Muraleedharan Nair PW.77 has stated that the vehicle was identified by the appellant himself telling that this was the van which had been used for companymitting the crime.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant at the relevant time had been working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Malappuram, and his wife was living at Palluruthy, and was using a vehicle which was driven by Praveen deceased .
Thereafter, the, van left the place and he followed the van to MCH.
Vinu A 2 lifted his hand and proceeded further.
Thereafter, the van in which the appellant A 1 was sitting, followed them.
Baiju PW.9 , was working as the barman at Hotel Arcadia.
Mohanan PW 10 , an auto rickshaw driver, deposed that on 15th February 2005, he had seen an Omni Van along the eastern side of the Arpookara temple.
During this cross examination on behalf of A 2, the said witness also deposed that he had told the police and magistrate that A 2 and Praveen had eaten a Bulls eye, and that he had accepted cash from them and had also returned the balance.
The High Court companycurring with the opinion of the Sessions Court, held as under The DNA analysis made it clear that the blood samples of the parents of Praveen matched with the DNA of Praveen, deceased and the same proved and established the identity of the dead body as the DNA had also been extracted from the portion of the limbs recovered from the lake and companypared with that of DNA of parents.
They were further companyvicted under Section 364 read with Section 120 B IPC, and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ each, in default of which, they would undergo SI for a period of one year.
Praveen developed an illicit relationship with the appellants wife, and the appellant was informed of this development by his Manager, Aji.
The recovery of the chopper M.O.4 stood proved as the said chopper was crafted by Vijayakumar PW.5 , who deposed that appellant was familiar with him and that the appellant had given him a leaf plate for the purpose of making a chopper, as also, a kitchen knife.
He deposed that he did number know A1s friends, or the place to which A1 belonged.
Haridas PW.14 , an auto rickshaw driver had seen the appellant and others only for a fleeting moment.
At about 8.30 p.m. on 15th February 2005, A2 and Praveen came to his petty shop from the Arcadia Bar premises, on a red companyoured bike.
The appellant had exclusive knowledge as regards the place of companycealment, and the evidence on record makes it clear that when he was in fact, taken to such place, the appellant himself got into the water and retrieved the chopper from there.
P.C. by a Magistrate who did number even mention the date of recording such statements, such statements were number exhibited before the companyrt for the purpose of companyroboration and companyfrontation.
K.M. Antony PW.17 recovered the same and companyducted inquest.
This witness further deposed that he had been shown only one photograph.
The recovery of the van was in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act , and as the same was done at the behest of the appellant, his companyduct was relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
Phone calls made by the appellant A 1 to Babu PW.6 , were also number denied by the appellant in his cross examination under Section 313 Cr.
He was also related to the appellant.
86 of 2006, which was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment and order dated 10.12.2009.
During his cross examination by the appellant A 1 , the witness deposed that he had in fact, seen three other persons there.
Praveen died in the intervening night between 15/16.2.2005.
B. Muralidharan Nair PW.77 , Dy.
The Maruti Van followed them.
Undoubtedly, the van was returned on 16.2.2005 and was recovered on 24.2.2005, and hence, it might have been used in the interim period, but this does number affect the evidence on record.
He thereafter, crossed M.C. Road and went into the Post Office and placed inland like material inside the post box.
The injuries found on the body that were revealed by the post mortem report established that the dismemberment of the parts of the body was possible by using a weapon like the chopper MO.4 , as was explained opined by Dr. Babu PW.71 .
Mohammad Sherif PW.13 a businessman, deposed that he knew the appellant A 1 and identified him as Shaji and also Vinu A 2 .
The evidence of Baiju PW.9 who was working at Hotel Arcadia at Kottayam, revealed that he was the man who had served drinks to Vinu A 2 and Praveen deceased .
The head was then recovered and inquest prepared.
Jose PW.8 and Mohamamed Sherif Monai PW.13 knew the appellant, as well as Vinu A 2 and Praveen deceased .
They then went to a bar, had drinks as were served to them by Saiju PW.9 , and came out of the bar at 8.30 p.m., after which they ate at a thattukada a small petty shop , where they were served by Jose PW.8 , an employee of the thattukada.
All the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
The said chopper was recovered from the southern side of the lake on the basis of such disclosure statement made by the appellant.
B. Muraleedharan Nair PW.77 , stated that the seizure was at the behest of the appellant and the vehicle infact recovered belonged to the brother in law of Babu PW.6 and as the owner of the vehicle did number have enough space to park the vehicle in his house, the van was being parked in the companypound of Babu PW.6 .
The appellant A 1 went back to the car and started driving.
The companyrts below have appreciated the entire evidence on record, including the evidence of the defence.
That night, he was driving from MCH, to Kottayam town via Panambalam road.
When the meeting took place in the presence of various relatives, the appellant A 1 , attempted to assault Praveen, but they were separated by other persons.
During the cross examination on behalf of the appellant A 1 , the witness deposed that he did number tell anybody about A1 and that he did number even talk to Jose PW.8 , about the incident that occurred on 15/02/2005.
The appellant A 1 returned to the van after crossing the road, got into the drivers seat and drove off towards Baker Junction.
The motive as explained hereinabove stood proved.
On 15.2.2005, Divakaran PW.7 , neighbour of Vinu A 2 , while companying out of a bus stop, saw Vinu A 2 companying on a motor bike while Praveen was standing in the market.
Upon asking, the said man only replied that one person had gone up.
He deposed that it was in fact, A 2 who had companye with another person on the 15th February 2005, at about 6.30 p.m. to the Hotel and had companysumed liquor.
There was sufficient light on the road, and the High Court recorded a finding to the effect that Shanavas PW.12 , an auto rickshaw driver, even if he had been unable to see Praveen, was still able to identify the appellant and others.
B. Muralidharan Nair PW.77 obtained custody of the accused from companyrt.
On 19.2.2005, a torso in a plastic bag, was seen floating on the eastern side of the lake.
The trial however, companyld be companyducted only against two persons, i.e. the appellant A 1 and Vinu A 2 , as all the others were absconding.
The motor bike also started.
The appellant told Praveen to leave the said place and to number enter the city.
Praveen told his father after a period of 2/3 days that it was number safe for him to stay in hospital as 2/3 gundas had been roaming around in the hospital.
A Maruti Van M.O.5 was also recovered after information was furnished by the appellant A 1 , to the effect that the said Maruti Van had also been used.
The chain of circumstances is number companyplete.
Thereafter, the incident became the talk of the town and the same was high lighted by both, the print and the electronic media.
It appears that in the cross examination, he did number support the case of the prosecution.
Pavithran PW.1 immediately informed his brother and requested him to help Praveen, as he may number be spared by the appellant.
Mohanan PW.10 , another auto rickshaw driver saw the Maruti Van parked on the road and a person standing near it.
P.C. were number a part of such documents, before the trial companyrt, number was any issue raised by him at the time of cross examination of B. Muralidharan Nair PW.77 , the investigating officer.
The recovery of other articles also stood proved as the High Court yet again companycurring with the finding recorded by the Sessions Court in this regard, held as under The recovery has been made by the Investigating agency on the statement voluntarily made by the appellant in respect of various materials and the High Court took numbere of the fact that the appellant was the seasoned police officer and unless and until some of the links were identified and located, numberody companyld doubt his involvement.
Vinu A 2 , stopped the bike and took Praveen towards Kottayam.
Furthermore, a man was also seen by him standing near the door of the drivers seat.
Shanavas PW.12 , an auto rickshaw driver carrying patients to the Medical College, Kottayam found one motor cycle parked on the side of the road.
The Virca Report proved by Sujatha PW.64 , companyroborated the same.
Baiju PW.9 was number acquainted with either Vinu A 2 or Praveen deceased but he did in fact, have an opportunity to see them for a sufficient amount of time as he had served them food.
He identified A 1 as the person he had seen there and A 2, as the person who had been riding the motorcycle.
Pavithran PW.1 identified the hands to be those of Praveen as well.
Upon obtaining requisite information, K.M. Antony PW.17 , Circle Inspector of Vaikom, reached the scene and Pavithran PW.1 also identified the torso, to be that of his son.
He had seen an Omni Van and a motorcycle on the side of the road beyond Chemmanampadi, near the Medical College, and had seen two persons companying out of the said van.
He further admitted that the help of the police, as well as that of the Municipality, was needed to run the petty shop which did business from 8.00 p.m. to 1.30 a.m. Reji PW11 deposed that on 15.2.2005 at about mid night, he had gone to Baker Junction and there he had seen the appellant A 1 , getting out of the drivers seat of a green companyoured van.
P.C. The aforementioned call details were duly proved.
The evidence referred to hereinabove alongwith the material on record, reveals that Praveen deceased was a victim of homicide and further that there is numberdispute regarding the identification of his body and its parts thereof, as has been referred to hereinabove.
He was last seen on 15.2.2005 with Vinu A 2 and the appellant A 1 .
He numbered the registration number of the van, and also that of the motor bike.
His body was also identified by PWs.1 to 3 and the DNA report did number leave any room for doubt with respect to the said identification.
Thus, they do number require any further discussion.
The appellant reached Palluruthy, and made enquiries about the situation from Praveen and others, and his relatives tried to resolve the aforesaid matter.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Jose PW.8 and Mohammed Sherif PW.13 identified the appellant A 1 and Vinu A 2 and stated they knew both of them very well.
Mohanan PW.10 , stopped his auto and asked him what had happened, however he only replied that a person had gone nearby.
He only stated that he knew A1 when he was the companytrol room, S.I. Mohammed Sherif PW.13 denied having told the Police that Shaji Sir of Valiadu was the person he had seen on the road.
Some police officers companylected samples of blood stains from the floor of the said vehicle and also some hair.
So far as the present case is companycerned, the appellant A 1 was companyvicted under Section 302 read with Section 120 B of the IPC, and was awarded a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
Hence, this appeal.
Thus, he went back to the city and sought employment.
He stated that they had remained in the bar till about 8.30 p.m. and that A 2 had paid the bill.
After the companypletion of the preliminary enquiry, the appellant and Vinu A 2 , were arrested on 24.2.2005.
Though the appellant and Vinu A 2 were arrested, numberTest Identification Parade was companyducted.
The three other persons came out of the van and had black companyfee at the witnesss shop.
After having companypleted the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against five persons, including the appellant.
Subsequent to the trial of this case, A 3 and A 4 were also apprehended, put to trial separately, and companyvicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as the IPC .
This letter seems to have been written to misdirect mislead the deceaseds family.
However, his evidence is number very relevant with respect to the issues involved in this case, as at the initial stage the witness had supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that it was in fact, the appellant A 1 , who had posted the letter in the name of the deceaseds father, that was purported to have been written by Praveen deceased , stating that he was going to Bombay in search of employment.
In the said car, there were also some other persons.
While returning, he stated that he had seen the Omni Van some 200 metres east of the temple, and on the southern side of the road at about 12.30 1 am.
He prepared both, the chopper and the knife in accordance with instructions, and handed them over to the appellant in early January, 2005.
The same became entirely insignificant, as immediately after the murder of Praveen, the dismembered parts of his body were recovered.
The DNA test established that the different parts of the body that were recovered from the lake were in fact, those of Praveen.
Praveen pleaded his innocence, and told the appellant that Aji had played this dirty game for some personal gain.
Different parts of the body were found, and the identification of the dead body, merely on the basis of a mole on the leg of the body cannot be held to be proper identification by the father, as the dead body was recovered after a lapse of 3/4 days.
Praveen deceased was seen by Divakaran PW.7 talking to Vinu A 2 at his work place.
Jose PW8 , an employee of PW13 was previously acquainted with the accused A 2 and Praveen deceased , and hence, PW8 introduced them as his friends.
one lakh, in default of which, he would undergo SI for a period of one year.
Both the accused were also companyvicted under Section 201 read with Section 120 B IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 3 years, and a fine of Rs.2,000/ each, in default of which, they would undergo SI for a period of 3 months each.
There is also material on record to show that the said van was used in the crime by the appellant A 1 and 3 others.
During cross examination on behalf of appellant A 1 , the witness deposed that the person standing near the said van, had a North Malabari accent.
He further said that he knew of A1 only as companytrol room S.I. He had read about the incident in the subsequent days newspaper.
He deposed that he knew S.I.s such as Satheesan and Suseelan, and that they were also from the West Police Station.
They had companyfee, as was served to them by Jose PW.8 , and seen by Mohammed Sherif Monai PW.13 .
The investigating team was taken to the relevant place by the appellant, and it was on the basis of his disclosure statement that the skull was found.
The van was taken by the appellant as allowed by Babu PW.6 after taking the companysent of the owner and the witness further disclosed that the van was brought back by the appellant after few days.
The hair and blood stains recovered during the investigation, were companypared with the hair companylected by the Scientific Officer from the deceased, which established that the said hair did in fact, belong to Praveen deceased , and thus, the use of the said vehicle in the crime stood proved.
While the inquest of the torso was being companyducted, a pair of hands was seen floating in the lake.
Other persons also joined him, and Vinu A 2 , along with Praveen, left on a Motor Cycle.
Later, when A 2 and Praveen riding a bike, approached the Arcadia Bar, A 2 signaled to A 1 to follow him and rode in the direction of Thirunakkara.
During the cross examination on behalf of the appellant A 1 , the witness deposed that at the time when A 2 had lifted his hand, there was only a distance of 5 feet between the van and motorcycle.
Divakaran PW.7 was acquainted with both Vinu A 2 and Praveen deceased since childhood.
A 5 is still absconding.
The pillion rider of the motor cycle sat in the van and after he got into the van, the van left immediately.
He stated that he had taken the Maruti Van MO.5 from him on the afternoon of 15.2.2005, and had returned the same to him on the afternoon of 16.2.2005.
The recoveries of a shirt MO.1 , underwear MO.2 and of a watch MO.3 , belonging to Praveen deceased were identified by Pavithran PW.1 .
The van was green in companyour with KL7 registration and 5855 number.
Jose PW.8 , Shanavas PW.12 , and Mohamamed Sherif Monai PW.13 , identified Praveen deceased , by seeing only his passport sized photograph.
All of them including A 1 then returned to the van.
There was numberreason for the prosecution witnesses, particularly, Jose PW.8 , Mohanan PW.10 , Shanavas PW.12 and Mohamamed Sherif Monai PW.13 , to depose against the appellant and both the companyrts below also have found their evidence to be trustworthy.
Vijayakumar PW.5 identified the chopper.
Thus, Mohanan PW.10 left the place.
On 18.2.2005, Pavithran PW.1 lodged an FIR in the Police Station alleging that his son Praveen had gone missing, and that after he became aware of the same, he had spent the last 3/4 days searching for him, but had been still unable to trace him.
S.P., Kottayam, received information that a human head in a plastic companyer, had been spotted on the shores of the back waters of the lake.
There is numberdispute that Praveen deceased , was a victim of homicide, and that the dismembered parts of the body recovered from the lake were those of Praveen, as the same stood proved by the DNA report.
Praveen deceased , was asked number to companye to appellants house thereafter, and thus Praveen left and began working in a shop at Ettumanoor, as a driver.
In the presence of other relatives, the matter was then amicably settled.
The statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Cr.
The said PW.6 was familiar to the appellant who has deposed that the appellant had companye to him on 15.2.2005 and told the said witness that the appellants vehicle had developed some trouble and that is why he wanted to use the vehicle parked in the house of the said witness.
During this period, on 25/26.11.2004, Vijayamma, relative of Praveen deceased , and N. Sahadevan PW.2s father, informed Pavithran PW.1 , father of Praveen, that Praveen was in danger as Vijayamma had found out about the illicit relationship that Praveen had developed with the appellants wife.
He further deposed that the two people had then caught hold of the pillion rider of the motor cycle, and had taken him to the van.
Therefore, holding a TI Parade would have been a mere formality.
13 to 18, under Exts.
N. Sahadevan, PW.2s father informed Pavithran PW.1 , Praveens father who resided at Trivendrum, via the telephone of this danger to Praveens life.
However, he did number identify them.
As he had slowed down seeing the vehicles on the road, he also saw two persons companying out of the van.
Same stood proved by super imposition.
Shanavas PW.12 also an auto driver by profession, identified Shaji A 1 and Vinu A 2 .
As per the deposition of B. Muraleedharan Nair PW.77 , the appellant made a disclosure statement to the effect that Praveens body was mutilated using the chopper M.O.4 .
Mohammed Sherif Monai PW.13 , who was the owner of the thattukada, saw the appellant A 1 , companying in a Maruti car.
Though, Mohanan PW.10 and Shanavas PW.12 , the auto rickshaw drivers, were chance witnesses, their presence cannot be doubted as it is an ordinary circumstance that patients are taken to the hospital even in the late hours of night, and the said incident had occurred on the road that led to the hospital.
Vinu A 2 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ only, in default of which, he would undergo SI for 3 months.
The witness had numbericed the presence of the two because they were both highly intoxicated at the said time.
Praveen was brought by Jilesh M.S. PW.2 , and taken to Trivendrum for treatment.
N. Sahadevan, PW.2s father, went and brought Praveen to his own house, whilst informing everybody, that his mother was seriously ill.
The appellant also examined Ajeesh M. Muraleedharan DW.1 , who was a Sub Editor, Malayala Manorama and thereafter, the High Court companycurred with the findings of fact recorded by the Sessions Court on various issues.
The chopper O.4 , alleged to have been used in the said crime was recovered at the instance of the appellant.
He deposed that he had first seen them on 15th February 2005 while he was proceeding in his auto from Baker Junction to MCH.
Aggrieved, both of them preferred Criminal Appeal No.
A1 got out of the driver seat and proceeded to the theatre.
However, when Aji was called to participate in the said meeting, he stood by his version of events and stated that he had seen Praveen and the appellants wife in a companypromising position.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.12.2009 delivered by the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.
He deposed that on 15.2.2005 at 8.30 p.m., Praveen deceased came with Vinu A 2 to his shop, and that the two, after their meal, left for the theatre, on a motor cycle.
145 of 2005.
PW.2s father then took Praveen back.
86 of 2006, by way of which it has affirmed the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, Kottayam dated 3.1.2006, passed in Sessions Case No.
A glove and a plastic rope were also recovered at his behest, and in light of the aforementioned circumstances, it cannot be doubted that the said recoveries suffered from any illegality.
