Kerala High Court
Murukan vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2022
Crl.A.Nos. 802 & 848 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 18TH MAGHA, 1943
CRL.A NO. 802 OF 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 135/2006 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,
KOTTAYAM
CP 19/2003 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ETTUMANOOR
APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED:
SURENDRAN
S/O PADMANABHAN,CHARUPARAKUNNU HOUSE,
VAMANAPURAM, NEDUMANGADU,
(NOW RESIDING IN PAZHOOPARAMBIL HOUSE,
NEAR ALPHONSA BHAVAN, ARPOOKKARA,
KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV SRI.V.K.SUNIL
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,,
ERNAKULAM.
BY SMT.S.L.SYLAJA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.11.2021,
ALONG WITH CRL.A.848/2008, THE COURT ON 07.02.2022 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.Nos. 802 & 848 of 2008 -2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 18TH MAGHA, 1943
CRL.A NO. 848 OF 2008
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 135/2006 OF ADDL. SESSIONS COURT,
KOTTAYAM
CP 19/2003 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ETTUMANUR
APPELLANT/ACCUSED No.3:
MURUKAN
S/O KRISHNAPILLAI,
PULIPRAVILAKATHUMELEPUTHENPURA HOUSE,
KALLIYOOR DESOM, DO VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY SMT.S.L.SYLAJA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.11.2021, ALONG WITH CRL.A.802/2008, THE COURT ON
07.02.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.Nos. 802 & 848 of 2008 -3-
T.R.RAVI,J.
-----------------------------
Crl.A.Nos. 802 & 848 of 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2022
JUDGMENT
The accused Nos.2 and 3 in Sessions Case No.135 of 2006 on
the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, have filed these
appeals, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 3.4.2008 whereby
they have been found guilty of offences under Section 489B and C
of the Indian Penal Code and have been convicted and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a
fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence under Section 489B of
I.P.C., and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a further period of 3 months. For the offence
under Section 489C of the I.P.C, they have been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay
a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, and in case of default in payment of fine
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months.
The substantive sentences are to run concurrently and set off has
been allowed for the period of detention already undergone by both
the accused.
2. Heard Sri M.P.Madhavankutty, counsel for the appellant
in Crl.Appeal No.848 of 2008 and Sri V.K.Sunil, counsel for the
appellant in Crl.Appeal No.802 of 2008 and the Public Prosecutor on
behalf of the State.
3. A total number of 10 persons were charge sheeted for
having committed the offences punishable under sections 489B and
C read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, CBCID(CFS), Ernakulam in Crime No.
268/1998 of Gandhinagar Police Station. The case of the
prosecution is that, the accused in furtherance of their common
intention, engaged in the trafficking of counterfeit Indian currency
notes having the denomination of Rs.100/- worth Rs.40,000/-, and
counterfeit Saudi Riyal having a denomination of 500. On 1.8.1998,
PW1, a Fish Vendor, received two Rs.100/- denomination Indian
currency notes as the price for fish, which had been sold to Karuna
hotel, situated at Gandhinagar near Medical College, Kottayam. On
coming to know that the said currency notes were counterfeit
currency notes, the matter was informed to the Gandhinagar Police
on the same day itself. The prosecution proceeded against the 1 st
accused, who was alleged to be the owner of Karuna Hotel. PW19
the Sub Inspector, on the same day, seized 2 counterfeit currency
notes having denomination of Rs.100/- from Karuna Hotel, and
subsequently during the course of investigation, on 3.8.1998, he is
stated to have recovered counterfeit currency notes having
denomination of Rs.100/- from the possession of the 2 nd accused
and the 4th accused and counterfeit Saudi Riyal having
denomination of 500, and counterfeit currency notes of Rs.100/-
denomination from the possession of the 5 th accused. It is the case
of the prosecution that the accused were involved in the trafficking
of counterfeit currency notes, knowing the same to be forged and
intending to use the same as genuine. It is the specific case of the
prosecution that on 3.8.1998 at 2:30 PM, PW19 apprehended the
2nd accused and on the basis of the information given by the 2 nd
accused, MO4 series of 94 counterfeit currency notes having
denomination of Rs.100/- were recovered as per Exhibit P9 seizure
mahazar. On the same day, MO6 series of 96 counterfeit currency
notes were seized from the possession of the 4 th accused Murukan
and MO8 and MO9 series counterfeit currency notes having
denomination of Rs.100/- and MO10 series of 17 Saudi Riyals
having denomination of 500 were recovered from the possession of
the 5th accused and the accused 4 and 5 were arrested at 6:15 PM
on 3.8.1998. The seized contraband articles and accused 1, 2, 4
and 5 were produced before the Committal Court. Subsequently
they were released on bail. The investigation was handed over to
C.B.C.I.D.(CFS), Ernakulam and CW23, who is no more, conducted
further investigation and sent the seized counterfeit currency notes
to the Government Note Press, Dewas for the purpose of getting
expert opinion. Thereafter PW20 Deputy Superintendent of Police
took over the investigation of the case and arrested accused No. 7
on 10.4.2001.
4. Accused No.9 surrendered before the Committal Court.
The investigating agency was not able to apprehend the accused
Nos. 3, 6, 8 and 10 who were absconding at the time of trial. Even
though the 5th accused appeared before the Committal Court, he
also absconded later. The case against the accused 3,5,6,8 and 10
were split up by the Committal Court since they were absconding
and the case was proceeded against remaining accused treating
them as Accused 1 to 5. During the trial, Exhibits P1 to P34 were
marked on the side of the prosecution and PW1 to PW21 were
examined. Exhibits D1 and D2 were marked on the side of the
defence and DW1 and DW 2 were examined. MO1 series to MO11
were produced and identified. After the trial, the court below found
that the accused 1,4 and 5 are not guilty and they were acquitted.
Accused 2 and 3 were found guilty of offence under Section 489B
and C of the Indian Penal Code and were convicted and were
imposed the sentence referred above. The 2 nd and 3rd accused have
hence preferred these appeals.
5. Sections 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code are
extracted below;
"489B. Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-
notes or bank-notes.--Whoever sells to, or buys or
receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or
uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note
or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the
same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
489C. Possession of forged or counterfeit currency-notes
or bank-notes.--Whoever has in his possession any forged
or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or
having reason to believe the same to be forged or
counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or
that it may be used as genuine, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."
6. In order to make out an offence under Section 489B,
there should be a sale or purchase or a receipt by a person from
any other person of any forged or counterfeit currency or bank
note. Such sale, purchase or receipt should be knowing or having
reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit. Trafficking
in or using as genuine any forged or counterfeit currency note or
bank note is also an offence under Section 489B. In the case of
Section 489C, an offence is made out when a person is found to be
in possession of any forged or counterfeit currency note or bank
note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or
counterfeit and intending to use the same as genuine or that it may
be used as genuine. So, there is a primary requirement of being in
possession coupled with knowledge about the forged or counterfeit
nature of the currency note or bank note. There should also be an
intention to use those notes as genuine.
7. In the decision in Anthru @ Abdurahiman v. State of
Kerala reported in [2020 (4) KHC 469], this Court had occasion
to consider the nature of the offence under Sections 489B and
489C. This Court held that mere possession does not lead to a
presumption that the possession is with knowledge that the note is
a counterfeit note. This Court further held that if the notes seized
were of such a nature, that a mere look at them would convince
anybody that they were fake notes, it could be presumed that the
accused had knowledge or reason to believe that they were
counterfeit currency notes. It was further held that there should be
positive evidence of the witness to the effect that the counterfeit
notes were of such a nature or description that a mere look at them
would convince any person of average intelligence that it was
counterfeit notes, failing which there cannot be a conviction under
Sections 489B or 489C. In Sukumaran v. SI of Police reported in
[2016 (4) KHC 660], this Court held that mere possession of the
notes in the absence of the requisite mens rea is not sufficient to
make out a case under Sections 489B or 489C.
8. The counsel for the appellants pointed out that the
Sessions Court held that Ext.P9(a) disclosure statement attributed
to the 2nd accused is not admissible under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, 1972. The Court specifically found that the disclosure
statement does not say anywhere that the 2nd accused had put MO4
series currency notes under the stone. So there is no authorship of
concealment in the statement. The Court further held that unless
the authorship of concealment is established, the recovery cannot
be termed as a discovery envisaged under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, 1872. It is hence the contention of the counsel that if
the recovery is not established, there is nothing to connect the 2 nd
accused with the alleged crime. Reliance is placed on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohmed Inayatulla v. State of
Maharashtra reported in [AIR 1976 SC 483], wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Section 27 is in the nature of an
exception to Section 25 and Section 26 of the Evidence Act. It has
been held by the Court that the word 'distinctively' has been used in
the Section to limit and define the scope of the provable
information. In the case before the Supreme Court, the appellant
who is accused of theft of certain chemical drums from the Bombay
Port Trust on the basis of information supplied by the accused the
stolen drums were recovered. The information received from the
accused was that "I will tell the place of deposit of the three
Chemical drums which I took out from the Haji Bunder on first
August". The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the later part of the
statement which amounts to an outright admission cannot be
admissible and what remains is only a statement that the accused
will tell the place of deposit of the three chemical drums. The
Sessions Court had held that the information given by the 2 nd
accused cannot be considered as admissible under Section 27 for
the reason that the authorship of concealment is not stated.
However, the Court held that the conduct of the 2 nd accused, in
recovering MO4, is admissible under Section 8 of the Evidence Act,
1872. The judgment of the Sessions Court was in 2008. Later, a Full
Bench of this Court had considered whether for admissibility of
information given by the accused under custody under Section 27,
authorship of concealment was sine qua non. In the judgment in
Ajayan @ Baby v. State of Kerala reported in [2011 (1) KLT 8],
the Full Bench held in paragraphs 23 and 24 as follows:
"23. Sec. 27 of the Act is based on the doctrine of confirmation by
subsequent events. When the accused gives information to the
Police Officer that a particular object is kept concealed at a
particular place or given to a particular person and either points
out that place wherefrom the said object is recovered by the Police
or is produced by the accused or he points out the person who
produces the object, recovery of the object confirms truth of the
information given by the accused. For the application of Sec. 27, it
makes no difference whether information given is that the article is
concealed at a particular place or that it is given to a particular
person. Section 27 does not say that for admissibility of the
information authorship of concealment is essential. The expression
"distinctly" only means "directly", "indubitably", "strictly",
"unmistakably". That expression is used in Sec. 27 to limit and
define the scope of information admissible in evidence. It refers to
that part of the information supplied by the accused which is the
direct and immediate cause of the discovery. The expression
"distinctly" is used to show 'exclusivity' of the information acquired
by the Police Officer from the accused and leading to the discovery
of the fact. The Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Bhup
Singh ((1997) 10 SCC 675) pointed out that the ratio in Pulukuri
Kottaya "has become locus classicus and even the lapse of half a
century after its pronouncement has not eroded its forensic worth".
The Supreme Court quoted with approval the decision in State of
Bombay v. Chhaganlal Gangaram Lavar (AIR 1955 Bombay 1)
in Pandurang Kalu Patel v. State of Maharashtra which is thus:
"So long as the Supreme Court does not take a
different view from the view taken by the Privy Council,
the decisions of the Privy Council are still binding upon
us, and when we say that the decisions of the Privy
Council are binding upon us, what is binding is not
merely the point actually decided but an opinion
expressed by the Privy Council, which opinion is
expressed after careful consideration of all the
arguments and which is deliberately and advisedly
given."
24. In view of what we have stated above, we hold that authorship
of concealment is not sine qua non to make information received
from a person accused of an offence while in the custody of the
Police Officer admissible under Sec. 27 of the Act and that if the
information as deposed to by the Investigating Officer is otherwise
admissible in evidence it would not become inadmissible solely for
the reason that the information deposed by the Police Officer does
not reveal authorship of concealment. .... .... ...."
9. On the evidence available on record, I do not think it is
necessary to go into the question of admissibility or otherwise of
the information under Sections 27 or under Section 8 of the
Evidence Act, 1872. In so far as the 2 nd accused is concerned, PW6
Philip Jacob who has signed in Ext.P9 mahazar and Ext.P11 search
list, admitted the signature in the said documents but categorically
denied having seen the recovery of the notes from under the hollow
brick at 3.45 PM on 3.8.1998. He has specifically stated that he had
signed the documents at the house of one Shanmughan, where the
2nd accused was residing, after midnight on 1.8.1998. He also
denied the statements that the 2nd accused belongs to
Thiruvananthapuram and that the SI and party took away the 2 nd
accused after the witness had signed the mahazar on 3.8.1998.
According to him the version of the prosecution as above is not
true. Apart from resiling from the earlier version, the witness
specifically says about arrest of 2 nd accused on 1.8.1998. PW8
Antony Panjikkaran, who has also signed the mahazar and the
Search list, has stated that he did not know about the search
conducted on 1.8.1998 in the house of the 2 nd accused and he has
not gone to the said house on that day and that he had not signed
any mahazar from the said house. He states that on 3.8.1998, he
was taken by the Police to the property belonging to his sister at
about 3.30 PM and that the 2nd accused was present there. He says
that he does not remember having seen PW6 in the said place. This
supports the version given by PW6. He also denied having seen the
2nd accused retrieving MO4 from under a hollow brick and handing it
over to the Police. Instead, he says that when he reached the spot,
he saw the bunch of notes in the hands of the Police. He denies
having signed the mahazar, but says that he was asked to sign on a
paper. He also denied the earlier statements attributed to him,
which was marked as Ext.P15. PW13 Shanmughan, in whose house
the 2nd accused was residing was, according to the prosecution,
present at the time of search on 1.8.1998 and his name is also
shown as witness in Ext.P11 search list. He has denied the
statements attributed to him in the statement taken from him
under Section 161 Cr.P.C and says that the police had gone over to
his house on 1.8.1998 at about 1 AM and enquired about the 2 nd
accused and that he had shown the 2 nd accused to the Police.
According to him, the police immediately arrested the 2 nd accused
and took him away. The evidence of the independent witnesses do
not support the prosecution case. Two of the witnesses and the 2 nd
accused in his Section 313 statement say that the 2 nd accused was
taken into custody on 1.8.1998 after midnight.
10. The only other evidence available are those tendered by
PW18 and PW19 police officers. They also do not have a consistent
case. PW18 says that the 2 nd accused was arrested from his rented
house. He also says that the arrest was at the place where MO4
was recovered. According to him, the 2 nd accused was questioned
by the SI of Police at the residence, after arrest, for about 10 to 15
minutes. His evidence is not only self contradictory on many
aspects, but also varies from the version of PW19. The SI of Police,
who was examined as PW19, says that 2 nd accused was arrested
from near the rented house where he was residing, at 2.30 PM on
3.8.1998. According to him, on questioning, the 2 nd accused had
given information regarding the counterfeit notes, and it was on the
basis of such information that the recovery of MO4 was carried out.
11. The statement attributed to the 2nd accused as deposed
by PW19, which has been marked as Ext.P9(a) on translation reads
as "Notes are kept under a stone in a property near my house. If I
am taken there I will show the place where the notes are kept".
That was the information allegedly received under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act, 1872. The witness also says that he could identify the
notes as fake notes by a mere look. The witness says that he had
gone to Thiruvananthapuram on 2.8.1998. He says that after
returning to Kottayam, he had gone to the Police Station and
questioned the accused 2, 3 and Kabeer (absconding). He states
that he reached the police station at about 6.30 PM on 3.8.1998.
According to the counsel for the appellant, if the questioning of the
2nd accused was in the police station after reaching there, the time
of questioning and the time of recovery on the basis of information
given by the accused do not match and it is a serious contradiction.
So also, the said version is against the version of PW18 who claims
to have been with PW19 at the house of the 2 nd accused while his
statement was recorded.
12. The version of PW18 and PW19 have to be appreciated in
the light of Ext.P29 remand application submitted on 4.8.1998
before the Court, for the remand of Accused 2 and 3, which is a
contemporaneous document. The specific case put forward in the
application is that the 1st accused was arrested on 1.8.1998 and
produced in court on 2.8.1998 and remanded, that PW19 had
enquired about the accused 2, 3 and Kabeer (absconding) at
Thiruvananthapuram and other places and that on 3.8.1998 he had
arrested the 2nd accused at 2.30 PM from a place near Panambalam.
In continuation it is stated that the 2 nd accused was taken to the
police station, his arrest was recorded, his body search was
conducted and his statement was taken. It is stated that the 2 nd
accused had stated that himself, his brother Krishnan, Shajimon
and Kunjumon had gone to Neyyattinkara and through Murukan,
Kabeer and one Surendran had obtained the currency notes and
that on knowing that Shajimon was apprehended, the notes were
removed from his house and that except for one bundle, the rest
were handed over to Murukan and Kabeer in the early morning of
3.8.1998 at Kottayam Railway Station. It is stated that thereafter
the recovery of MO4 was conducted and from there PW19 had
proceeded to the Kottayam Railway Station along with the 2 nd
accused and the 2nd accused identified the accused 3 and
Kabeer (absconding) at the Railway Station and they were arrested
at 6.15 PM. It is worthwhile to note that Shajimon and Surendran,
mentioned above were acquitted by the Court.
13. It can thus be seen that at the time of examination,
PW18 and PW19 have different versions about the incidents and
enquiry. PW18 says that the 2nd accused was arrested from his
house by PW19 and questioned from his house and thereafter taken
to the place from where MO4 was recovered. He says that he was
present when the 2nd accused was arrested and questioned. PW19
says he was arrested near his house in the road margin and later
questioned. According to PW18, the 2 nd accused was residing at
about half a kilometer distance from the place from where MO4 was
recovered. According to PW19, the distance was only 20 metres. In
Ext.P29, it is stated that the 2 nd accused was taken to the Police
Station and arrest was recorded at the Police Station and he was
questioned from the Police Station. There is hence contradiction in
the prosecution evidence even regarding the place of arrest and the
place of questioning. The time of recovery of MO4 and the time of
arrest of the 3rd accused and Kabeer also do not tally. When
compared to the version of the independent witnesses and Section
313 statement of the 2nd accused, to the effect that the 2nd accused
was taken into custody on 1.8.1998 itself, it can be seen that there
are several contradictions and blank spaces to be filled. The
production of arrest memo relating to the accused bears
considerable importance in such circumstances. Even though the
prosecution had produced arrest memos of persons who were taken
into custody subsequently, with regard to the arrests said to have
been made on 3.8.1998, no arrest memos have been produced
before the Court. Another fact which is very relevant is that the 2 nd
accused was linked to the crime on the basis of the statement said
to have been made by the 1 st accused. As far as the 1st accused is
concerned, PW1 on whose complaint the crime was registered
categorically stated that the 1st accused was not the person who
gave him the fake notes. It was also brought out in evidence that
the 1st accused was not the owner of Karuna Hotel and there was no
search conducted in his house or any recovery made from him. The
Sessions Court categorically held that there is nothing to connect
the 1st accused to the crime and acquitted him. The complainant
had not made any complaint against the accused 2 and 3 and they
come into the picture only through the 1st accused, who is acquitted
for having no connection with the crime. So there is nothing to
attribute any common intention.
14. On an analysis of the entire evidence, I am of the opinion
that the evidence is not sufficient to arrive at a finding that MO4
was recovered from the possession of the 2 nd accused or through
the 2nd accused and hence the question whether possession was
with knowledge etc. do not even arise. There is also nothing in
evidence to show that the ingredients of an offence under Section
498B are present. Along with the lack of clarity even regarding the
arrest of the 2nd accused, I am of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has not been able to establish the commitment of an
offence either under Section 489B or under Section 489C. Since I
find that the recovery is not proved, there is no necessity to go into
the question whether MO4 was discovered under Section 27 of the
Evidence Act or whether a conduct under Section 8 is said to have
been established.
15. Regarding the case against the 3rd accused, the available
evidence is that of PW18 and PW19. The contradictions already
pointed out in the evidence of PW18 and PW19 will apply while
considering the case against the 3rd accused also. The allegation is
that MO6 series currency notes were seized from the possession of
the 3rd respondent on 3.8.1998. The independent witnesses who
were porters working in the Kottayam Railway station were
examined as PW7 and PW9. They are shown as witnesses in
Ext.P12 seizure mahazar. They denied having seen either the search
or the seizure of MO6. The defence version was that the 3 rd accused
was arrested from his house on 2.8.1998, at Thiruvananthapuram.
The 3rd accused says that he was apprehended from his house by
PW19 along with the officer attached to Nemom Police Station. He
says that his house was searched and nothing was recovered. He
says that he was taken to several other police stations and brought
to Kottayam. PW19 admits having gone to Thiruvananthapuram and
other places in search of the accused 2 to 4 on 2.8.1998. According
to him, the arrests were made at Kottayam on 3.8.1998 at 6.15 PM
from Kottayam Railway Station. According to the prosecution
version in Ext.P29 the remaining currency notes other than MO4
were handed over by the 2nd accused to the 3rd accused in the early
hours of 3.8.1998. If one were to accept the prosecution case, the
3rd accused who received the counterfeit notes from the 2 nd accused
in the early hours on 3.8.1998, waited till 6.15 PM for PW19 to
arrive with the 2nd accused and apprehend him. To say the least, it
is a highly unbelievable story. During cross examination, PW19 has
stated that mistakes have happened while entering the details of
the currency notes. On specific questions as to whether PW19 had
reported in Nemom Police Station and Kanhiramkulam Police
Station on 2.8.1998 during the investigations conducted in
Thiruvananthapuram, he says that he did not remember. He also
says that he did not remember as to the police station under whose
jurisdiction the 3rd accused was residing. The uncertainty contained
in the statements of PW19 has to be read along with the evidence
of DW1 and DW2 who have stated to the effect that the 3 rd accused
was arrested from Thiruvananthapuram. There is no evidence to
show that the 3rd accused was involved in any of the activities
contemplated in Section 489B. Absence of arrest memo and
independent evidence regarding the seizure of the currency notes
from the person of the 3rd respondent coupled with the
contradictory evidence tendered on behalf of the prosecution, I am
of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to
establish the commitment of an offence either under Section 489B
or under Section 489C as against the 3rd accused.
16. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of
the Additional Sessions Judge, Kottayam, in Sessions Case No.135
of 2006 in so far as it finds the appellants (2 nd and 3rd accused)
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 489B and 489C of
the Indian Penal Code, is set aside and the appellants are found not
guilty of the offences and are acquitted. Bail bonds if any executed
by the appellants stand cancelled and the appellants are set at
liberty.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI, JUDGE
dsn
