Kerala High Court
Ramesh vs State Of Kerala on 30 January, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:7013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 10TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 481 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2018 IN SC NO.575 OF
2012 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/ACCUSED (6 AND 7):
1 ANTU, AGED 40 YEARS
S/O.DEVASSIKUTTY, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE,
ALOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT
2 SEBI, AGED 41 YEARS,
S/O. OSEPH @ KOCHAPPU, MAPARAMBULLY HOUSE,
PARIYARAM, ORAPPANA DESOM, THRISSUR DIST.
BY ADV SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR
RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031
(CRIME NO. 140/2003 OF VARANTHARAPILLY POLICE
STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT)
BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.01.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.647/2018, THE COURT ON
30.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
-: 2:-
2025:KER:7013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 10TH MAGHA, 1946
CRL.A NO. 647 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2018 IN SC NO.575
OF 2012 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, IRINJALAKUDA
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:
RAMESH, AGED 35 YEARS
S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, KOODAMMATTIL HOUSE,
PARIYARAM, KONNAKUZHI, THRISSUR (DIST.)
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)
SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED
SRI.R.ANIL
SRI.T.ANIL KUMAR
SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR
SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM NILACKAPPILLIL
SRI.THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT
SRI.E.VIJIN KARTHIK
RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
22.01.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.A.481/2018, THE COURT ON
30.01.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
-: 3:-
2025:KER:7013
P.B.SURESH KUMAR & JOBIN SEBASTIAN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
These appeals arise from S.C.No.575 of 2012 on the
files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Irinjalakuda.
There were seven accused in the case, and among them, the
first accused was convicted for the offences punishable under
Sections 201, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
accused 6 and 7 were convicted for the offence punishable
under Section 201 of IPC. The remaining accused were
acquitted. Crl.Appeal No.647 of 2018 is preferred by the first
accused and Crl.Appeal No.481 of 2018 is preferred by accused
6 and 7.
2. At about 5.15 a.m. on 03.09.2003, a vehicle
rammed into the motorcycle ridden by one Vinayan with one
Mujeeb on its pillion at Palappilly - Varandarappilly public road
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
in Thrissur District and as a result, Vinayan died and Mujeeb
sustained serious injuries. A case was registered by
Varandarappilly Police based on the information furnished by
Mujeeb on the same day. The local police, who investigated the
case, initially came to the conclusion that it is a case of road
traffic accident and submitted a final report to that effect.
However, as per the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.6328 of 2004, the case was re-investigated later by the
Crime Branch Wing of the State Police. Although eight persons
were arrayed as accused in the case in the course of re-
investigation, one among them died and the final report was
filed subsequently against the remaining seven accused.
3. The accusation against the accused in the final
report is that the fourth accused, who was on inimical terms
with the family of Vinayan, hatched a criminal conspiracy with
accused 1 to 3 to commit the murder of Vinayan; that in
pursuance thereof, on 03.09.2003, accused 1 to 3, in a tempo
van bearing number KL-8C-4707, followed Vinayan who was
proceeding on his motorcycle bearing number KL-8T/2730 to
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
the estate where he was working, with Mujeeb on its pillion;
that at about 5.15 a.m., the said temp van rammed into the
motorcycle ridden by Vinayan with the intention of causing his
death and thereby committed his murder and caused serious
injuries to Mujeeb. It is also the accusation in the case that
accused 1 to 3, thereafter hatched a criminal conspiracy with
accused 4 to 8 for causing disappearance of the evidence of
the crime and in pursuance thereof, the sixth accused
appeared before the police and confessed that it was tempo
van bearing number KLE- 8784 driven by the sixth accused
that rammed into the motorcycle ridden by Vinayan and the
seventh accused thereafter dismantled both the tempo vans.
4. On the accused being committed to trial, the
Court of Session framed charges against them under Sections
109, 120B, 307, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC. The
accused pleaded not guilty. The evidence in the case consists
of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 55 and Exts.P1 to P63 proved
through them. MOs 1 to 4 are the material objects identified by
the witnesses. Exts.D1 to D6 are the case diary statements of
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
the witnesses proved at the instance of the accused.
Thereupon, as noted, on an appreciation of the matters before
it, the Court of Session found the first accused guilty of
offences punishable under Sections 201, 307 and 302 IPC and
accused 6 and 7 guilty of the offence punishable under Section
201 IPC. Accused 1, 6 and 7 are deeply aggrieved by their
conviction and sentence in the case, hence these appeals.
5. As per order dated 05.04.2018 in
Crl.M.A.No.1995 of 2018 in Crl.Appeal No.481 of 2018, this
Court suspended the execution of the sentence passed against
accused 6 and 7.
6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.B.Raman
Pillai for the first accused and Adv.Sri.Vishnuprasad Nair for
accused 6 and 7. Sri.Alex M. Thombra addressed arguments
on behalf of the State.
7. The essence of the elaborate submissions
made by the learned Senior Counsel for the first accused is
that it is a case of road traffic accident and not murder and in
either case, there is no evidence to connect the first accused
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
with the occurrence. The submission made by the learned
counsel for accused 6 and 7 was also that there is no evidence
to support the case of the prosecution that accused 6 and 7
caused disappearance of the evidence of the crime.
8. The point that arises for consideration is
whether the conviction of accused 1, 6 and 7 and the sentence
passed against them, are sustainable in law.
9. In order to adjudicate the point, it is necessary
to delve into the evidence in the case. As noted, the charges
framed against the accused under Sections 120B and 109 IPC
are found against. That apart, some of the accused were
acquitted of the charges on the ground that their complicity in
the crime was not established. In the said circumstances,
according to us, it is suffice that we refer to the evidence let in
by the prosecution to prove the charges against the convicted
accused namely, the charges under Sections 307, 302 and 201
IPC. The charges under the said provisions against the accused
1, 6 and 7 read thus:
"That on the same day at about 5.15 a.m when the said
Vinayan was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KL-8/T
2730 near his house the accused Nos. 1 to 3 chased him in
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
the tempo van stated above and he reached near Mutt bus
stop in Velupadam the said Vinayan stopped for taking CW.1
also as pillion rider in the motor cycle. While so you the
accused 1 to 3 over took the motor cycle and at the junction
of Pulikkanni the tempo van took reversal and hit against CW1
intentionally to kill him and suffered with injuries and thereby
attempted to commit murder of CW.1, punishable u/s 307 of
IPC.
That on the same day at 5.30 a.m about 75 Cm.
southern side of the gate of Forest Research Institute in
Palappilly-Varantharappilly road the tempo van stated above
dashed against the motor cycle and thereby the victim
Vinayan fell down with lethal injuries and succumbed to the
injuries, punishable u/s 302 of IPC.
That you, all the accused with an intention to screen
the offence and the offender purchased KCE-8784 tempo van
from the 5th accused to produce it before the police instead of
the actual vehicle involved in the incident and the 6 th accused
confessed the guilt of 1st accused by getting money through
8th accused and 6th accused with the tempo van No.KCE-8784
surrendered to the Police Station and 7 th accused demolished
both the tempo van after producing it before the police to
conceal the evidence and thereby committed the offence
punishable u/s 201 of IPC."
Keeping in mind the charges aforesaid, let us now deal with the
relevant evidence.
10. PW1 is Mujeeb. PW1 was working with Vinayan
in the same estate. The version of PW1 as regards the
occurrence is that on 03.09.2003, while PW1 was riding on the
pillion of the motorcycle ridden by Vinayan on the way to their
place of work, a matador tempo van deliberately rammed into
the motorcycle and then sped away from the scene and as a
result, Vinayan died on the spot and PW1 sustained injuries on
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
his leg. It was deposed by PW1 that when he was getting on
the motorcycle at Velupadam, a vehicle with yellow colour on
its front and back portions and green colour on its side
portions, overtook the motorcycle and that after sometime, it
was the same vehicle that rammed into the motorcycle. It was
deposed by PW1 that there were three persons inside the
vehicle and the first accused who was identified by him in
court, was driving the vehicle then. PW1 affirmed in his
evidence that it was he who lodged Ext.P1 First Information
Statement. In cross-examination, when PW1 was asked as to
whether he noted the features of the tempo van, he answered
in the affirmative and when it was put to PW1 that he does not
appear to have stated the features of the vehicle to the police,
PW1 asserted that he stated the features to the police.
Likewise, when PW1 was asked as to whether he stated to the
police that he cannot assert with confidence that it was the
first accused who drove the vehicle at the time of occurrence
when the first accused was shown to him, his answer was that
he does not remember. Ext.D4 is a statement made by PW1 to
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
the police that he cannot assert with confidence that it was the
first accused who drove the vehicle at the time of occurrence
when the first accused was shown to him by the police. When
Ext.D4 was put to the notice of PW1, his reply was that he does
not have any explanation to offer. Similarly, when PW1 was
asked as to whether he knew that the vehicle which overtook
the motorcycle was a tempo van, he asserted that he knew
that it was a tempo van and denied the suggestion made to
him that it was based on information furnished by somebody
that he asserted so and that he did not give to the police the
contrary statement, marked as Ext.D5 .
11. PW4 is a person who had previous
acquaintance with Vinayan. PW4 deposed that there was a
dispute between Vinayan and the fourth accused pertaining to
the boundary of a property sold to the latter by the family of
the former. PW5 was a neighbour of Vinayan. The evidence of
PW5 was that he saw a tempo van parked near the house of
one Preman which is close to the house of Vinayan, between 5
a.m. and 5.15 a.m. on the date of occurrence and that there
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
were a few persons inside the said vehicle at that time. PW6 is
another neighbour of Vinayan. PW6 also gave evidence on
similar lines of the evidence tendered by PW5. PW7 is a
witness who supported the case of the prosecution, but his
evidence was not acted upon by the Court of Session as he
was found to be an unreliable witness.
12. PW8 is an auto driver. PW8 deposed that on
03.09.2003 at about 5.15 a.m., when he was proceeding to the
house of his maternal aunt, he saw on the way, a tempo van
coming from Varandarappilly direction. According to him, that
vehicle stopped in front of his auto and then returned to
Varandarappilly direction. It was deposed by PW8 that he could
see in the background of the street light and natural light, the
persons inside the tempo van and the first accused, with whom
he had previous acquaintance with, driving the tempo van. It
was specifically stated by PW8 in his evidence that the number
of the said tempo van was KL-8C-4707. PW8 is a witness whose
statement was recorded earlier under Section 164 of the Code.
Ext.P7 is the statement of PW8 recorded under Section 164 of
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
the Code. When it was put to PW8 that he does not appear to
have stated before the Magistrate or to the Crime Branch,
Crime Investigation Department, (the CBCID) that he had
previous acquaintance with the first accused, the explanation
offered by him was that he does not remember. PW8 however
admitted in cross-examination that his statement to the CBCID
was that he could not identify the persons who were sitting
inside the tempo van. Similarly, it was admitted by PW8 in his
evidence that he stated to the CBCID that he does not know
the number of the tempo van nor the number of persons who
were inside that vehicle.
13. As in the case of PW7, PW11 is also a witness
who supported the case of the prosecution, but his evidence
was not acted upon by the Court of Session as he was found to
be an unreliable witness. PW12 is a person who is residing near
the scene of occurrence. The evidence of PW12 was that on
the relevant day at about 5 a.m., he saw a tempo van
proceeding towards the direction of the scene of occurrence
and that after sometime, he heard a sound and when he
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
reached the place from where the sound came, he saw PW1
there and another person as also a motor cycle lying there.
14. PW13 is a person who had previous
acquaintance with the first accused as PW13 used to hire the
tempo van of the first accused for transporting bananas. It was
deposed by PW13 that one day during 2003, when he hired the
tempo van of the first accused, accused 2 and 3 were also with
him in the tempo van. In cross-examination, it was admitted by
PW13 that he used to hire other vehicles also for transporting
bananas, subject to availability and that he cannot state the
date and particulars of the vehicles hired by him ten years ago.
15. PW20 is a person who is engaged in
dismantling old vehicles. Even though PW20 deposed that he
purchased a vehicle from the seventh accused for dismantling,
he does not remember the registration number of the vehicle.
PW20 however identified MO4 as the chassis of the vehicle
entrusted to him by the seventh accused and Ext.P16 as the
letter given to him by the seventh accused while entrusting the
vehicle for dismantling. PW20 identified the seventh accused in
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
the dock. PW29 was the witness to Ext.P23 mahazar, in terms
of which MO4 chassis and Ext.P16 were seized by the police.
PW29 deposed that fact in his evidence. However, in cross-
examination, it was stated by PW29 that Ext.P16 was prepared
after the police arrived at the shop of PW20. PW21 is also a
person who is engaged in dismantling old vehicles. It was
deposed by PW21 that the seventh accused entrusted to him a
Bajaj tempo van for dismantling and that he does not
remember the number of that vehicle.
16. PW43 was the Sub Inspector of Police attached
to Varandarappilly Police Station during the relevant time. It
was PW43 who took Vinayan to the hospital from the scene of
occurrence on receiving information about the occurrence. It
was PW43 who recorded Ext.P1 statement from PW1 and
registered Ext.P36 First Information Report. It was deposed by
PW43 that on 22.09.2003, the sixth accused appeared before
him and informed him that it was the vehicle bearing number
KLE 8784 driven by him that was involved in the occurrence. It
was deposed by PW43 that the sixth accused could not state
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
the place of occurrence and that in the further interrogation,
the sixth accused stated to him that it was the first accused
who drove the vehicle at the time of occurrence. It was also
deposed by PW43 that the sixth accused came back again on
the following day with the first accused and after interrogation,
the vehicle bearing number KL-8C-4707 was seized from the
house of the first accused.
17. PW45 is the brother of Vinayan. PW45 deposed
that there was a boundary dispute between him and the fourth
accused and there was a case in respect of an altercation that
took place between them in connection with the said dispute
and the fourth accused was remanded to custody in that case.
It was stated by PW45 that thereupon the fourth accused used
to threaten that he will ensure that PW45 and his brother
Vinayan would go under the wheels (വണ യട അ യൽ പ ക ). It was
also stated by PW45 in his evidence that the first accused is
the brother-in-law of the younger brother of the fourth
accused.
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
18. PW52 was the police officer attached to the
CBCID who conducted a part of the investigation in the case.
Ext.D4 is the portion of the statement of PW1 recorded by
PW52 under Section 161 of the Code, namely, "അ ക സമയത
ടപ ഓ ച രനത ഈ ന ൽകന രപമഷ എന പ ര റഞയ ള പ% എന എന ക ഉറപ ച
റയ ൻ കഴയല". Likewise, Ext.D5 is another portion of the
statement of PW1 recorded by PW52 under Section 161 of the
Code, namely, "03.09.2003-ന മഠ പ. പ ൽ ന ന ഞ ൻ വനയട0 ബ2ക ന
പറകൽ കയറന സമയ ഏപത വ ഹന ഞങടള ഓവർ പ ക ട9യ പ യരന. ഏത ബ പ
വ ഹനമ ട%ന ഞ ൻ അപപ ൾ ശദ ച രന ല". PW52 confirmed that PW1
gave Exts.D4 and D5 statements. PW53 was the police officer
attached to the CBCID who conducted another part of the
investigation in the case. In the cross-examination, it was
deposed by PW53 that PW1 did not disclose in the statement
recorded under Section 161 of the Code that he identified the
person who was driving the vehicle involved in the occurrence.
19. The above referred is the evidence in the case.
The first and foremost question to be considered is whether
the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt, that
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
it was the first accused who rammed into the motorcycle
ridden by Vinayan, the deceased with the tempo van driven by
him bearing number KL-8C-4707. In order to prove the said
fact, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW1 and few
circumstances. As noted, PW1 deposed that while he was
riding pillion on the motorcycle ridden by Vinayan, a matador
tempo van rammed into the said motorcycle; that when he was
getting on the motorcycle at Velupadam, a tempo van with
yellow colour on its front and back portions and green colour
on its side portions, overtook the said motorcycle and that
after sometime, it was the same tempo van that rammed into
the motorcycle, and at that time, he noticed that the first
accused was driving the tempo van. As noted, in cross-
examination, when PW1 was asked as to whether he noted the
features of the tempo van, he answered in the affirmative and
when it was put to PW1 that he does not appear to have stated
so to the police, PW1 asserted that he noted the features of
the tempo van. Similarly, when PW1 was asked as to whether
he knew that the vehicle overtook the motorcycle ridden by
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
the deceased is a tempo van, he asserted that he knew that it
was a tempo van and denied the suggestion made to him that
it was based on information furnished by somebody that he
asserted so and that he did not give Ext.D5 statement to the
contrary to the police. Ext.D5 contradiction in the evidence of
PW1 reads thus:
"03.09.2003-ന മഠ പ. പ ൽ ന ന ഞ ൻ വ നയട0 ബ2ക ന പറക ൽ കയറന സമയ
ഏപത വ ഹന ഞങടള ഓവർ പ ക ട9യ പ യ രന. ഏത ബ പ വ ഹനമ ട%ന ഞ ൻ
അപപ ൾ ശദ ച രന ല"
PW52 affirmed in his evidence that PW1 gave Ext.D5
statement. Likewise, when PW1 was asked as to whether he
stated to the police that he cannot assert with confidence that
it was the first accused who drove the tempo van at the time of
occurrence when the first accused was shown to him, his
answer was that he does not remember. When the statement
made by PW1 to the police to that effect which was marked as
Ext.D4 was put to PW1, his reply was that he does not have
any explanation to offer. Ext.D4 reads thus:
"അ ക സമയത ട പ ഓ ച രനത ഈ ന ൽകന രപമഷ എന പ ര റഞയ ള പ%
എന എന ക ഉറപ ച റയ ൻ കഴ യ ല"
As in the case of Ext.D5, PW52 affirmed in his evidence that
PW1 gave Ext.D4 statement as well. In the light of Exts.D4 and
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
D5 contradictions, according to us, it is not safe to place
reliance on the evidence tendered by PW1 that it was a tempo
van that rammed into the motorcycle ridden by the deceased
and that the tempo van was driven by the first accused at the
relevant time.
20. In a case where the prosecution attempts to
establish its case through direct and circumstantial evidence, it
is trite that merely for the reason that direct evidence let in by
the prosecution is not found acceptable, the accused is not
entitled to be acquitted, if the circumstantial evidence
establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The next aspect to be considered, therefore, is whether the
circumstances relied on by the prosecution would show that it
was a tempo van that was involved in the occurrence and that
the same was driven by the first accused at the relevant time.
The following are the circumstances relied on by the
prosecution for the said purpose:
1. that the first accused is a close relative of the
fourth accused and that the latter maintained enmity
towards the deceased;
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
2. that the first accused was in possession of the
tempo van bearing number KL-8C-4707;
3. that PW5 saw a tempo van parked near the
residence of the deceased between 5 a.m. and 5.15 a.m.
on the date of occurrence;
4. that PW12 saw a tempo van proceeding towards
the scene of occurrence a few minutes prior to the
occurrence;
5. that PW8 saw the first accused driving a tempo
van towards the direction of the scene of occurrence a
few minutes prior to the occurrence;
6. that the first accused caused disappearance of the
evidence in the case by dismantling the tempo vans
bearing numbers KLE-8784 and KL-8C-4707.
Among the circumstances referred to above, the crucial
circumstance is that the first accused was seen driving the
tempo van bearing number KL-8C-4707 towards the direction
of the scene of occurrence, minutes before the occurrence. It is
seen that it was PW8 who deposed that he saw the tempo van
bearing number KL-8C-4707 proceeding to the direction of the
scene of occurrence, minutes before the occurrence and that
the first accused was driving the tempo van then. As noted,
PW8 is a witness whose statement was recorded under Section
164 of the Code. When it was put to PW8 that he does not
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
appear to have stated before the Magistrate that he had
previous acquaintance with the first accused, the explanation
offered by him was that he does not remember. Likewise, it
was admitted by PW8 in cross-examination that his statement
to the CBCID officers was that even though there were three
persons in the tempo van, he could not identify them. The
relevant part of the deposition reads thus:
"CBCID ഉപ>? ഗസർക 3 പ ർ ഉണ യരന. ആടള മനസല ക ൻ കഴ ഞ ല എന
റഞ ടണ"
Similarly, it was admitted by PW8 in his evidence that he
stated to the CBCID that he does not know the number of the
tempo van or the number of persons inside that vehicle. The
relevant part of the deposition of PW8 reads thus:
"വണയട ന ർ അറയടലന എവട ന ന ണ വനടതനറയടലന , എത പ ർ
ഉണ യരടനനറയടലന ഒടകയ % ആ>? റഞത എന റഞ ടണ"
In the light of the said admissions by PW8, according to us, it is
not safe to place reliance on his evidence that he saw the first
accused driving the vehicle, minutes before the occurrence.
Another circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the
first accused was in possession of the tempo van bearing
No.KL-8C-4707. If the first accused is not the person who was
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
driving the vehicle involved in the occurrence, the said
circumstance may not have any relevance. The remaining
circumstances are circumstances 1, 3, 4 and 6 referred to in
paragraph 20 above. The said circumstances do not establish
that it was the first accused who drove the vehicle which
rammed into the motorcycle ridden by the deceased. We take
this view also for the reason that PWs 5 and 6 who found a
tempo van parked near the residence of the deceased between
5.00 a.m. and 5.15 a.m. on the date of occurrence, do not say
anything about the particulars of the tempo van they saw, like
its colour, number etc. to connect the same with the first
accused. Likewise, PW12 who saw a tempo van proceeding to
the scene of the occurrence, minutes prior to the same, also
does not say in his evidence, anything about the particulars of
the tempo van to connect the same with the first accused. In
other words, circumstances 2 and 4 will not come to the aid of
the prosecution. The remaining are circumstances 1 and 6
namely that the first accused is a relative of the fourth accused
who maintained enmity towards the deceased and that the
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
first accused dismantled the tempo vans held by him. Needless
to say, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that it was the first accused who intentionally
rammed the tempo van bearing number KL-8C-4707 into the
motorcycle ridden by the deceased. If that be so, the first
accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt insofar as the
charges under sections 307 and 302 IPC are concerned.
Inasmuch as it is found that the first accused cannot be
convicted for the offences alleged against him under sections
307 and 302 IPC, he also cannot be convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 201 IPC for, in the absence of any
satisfactory evidence that it was the first accused who drove
the vehicle involved in the occurrence, he cannot be attributed
to the liability for having caused disappearance of the
evidence of the crime.
21. The next question is whether the conviction of
accused 6 and 7 for the offence punishable under Section 201
IPC, is sustainable. In order to attract the offence punishable
under Section 201 IPC, it has to be established that the person
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
concerned, knowing or having reason to believe that an
offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the
commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of
screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that
intention gives any information respecting the offence which
he knows or believes to be false. It is alleging that the sixth
accused gave information in respect of the subject crime to the
police which he knew to be false, he was arrayed as the sixth
accused in the case. The only evidence let in by the
prosecution to substantiate the said case is the evidence of
PW43, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Varandarappilly
Police Station at the relevant time. As noted, the evidence
tendered by PW43 was that the sixth accused appeared before
him on 22.09.2003 and informed him that it was the vehicle
bearing number KLE-8784 driven by him that was involved in
the occurrence; that the sixth accused could not state the
place of occurrence and that in the further interrogation, the
sixth accused admitted to PW43 that it was the first accused
who drove the vehicle at the time of occurrence. In order to
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
prove the said facts, we do not have any other corroborative
evidence, than the oral testimony of PW43. According to us, it
is not safe to convict a person solely based on the oral
testimony of a police officer in a case of this nature.
22. Coming to the case of the seventh accused,
the allegation against him is that he was the person who
arranged for dismantling the vehicles held by the first accused.
The prosecution relies on the evidence tendered by PWs 20, 21
and 29 to prove the guilt of the seventh accused. As noted,
PW20 deposed that he purchased a vehicle from the seventh
accused for dismantling, although he does not remember the
registration number of the vehicle. PW20 identified MO4
chassis as the chassis of the vehicle entrusted to him by the
seventh accused and Ext.P16 as the letter given to him by the
seventh accused while entrusting the vehicle for dismantling.
Ext.P16 is styled as a document signed by the seventh accused
while entrusting vehicle bearing number KLE 8784 for
dismantling to PW20. It is on the basis of Ext.P16 that the
prosecution attempts to establish the complicity of the seventh
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
accused in the crime. PW29 is the witness to Ext.P23 mahazar
in terms of which Ext.P16 letter was seized by the police. PW29
deposed in cross-examination that Ext.P16 was prepared after
the police arrived at the shop of PW20. The evidence tendered
by PW21 makes Ext.P16 suspicious. PW21 is also a person who
is engaged in dismantling old vehicles. It was deposed by
PW21 that the seventh accused entrusted to him a Bajaj tempo
van for dismantling and that he does not remember the
number of the said vehicle. We wonder as to how the evidence
tendered by PW21 would help the prosecution in establishing
the case against the seventh accused that he caused
disappearance of the evidence in the case. Needless to say,
the conviction of accused 6 and 7 for the offence punishable
under Section 201 IPC is also unsustainable in law.
In the result, the appeals are allowed, the conviction
of accused 1, 6 and 7 are set aside and they are acquitted.
The bail bond executed by accused 6 and 7 pursuant to the
interim order passed by this court on 05.04.2018 in
Crl.M.Appln.No.1995 of 2018 in Crl.Appeal No.481 of 2018 will
Crl.Appeal Nos.481 and 647 of 2018
2025:KER:7013
stand cancelled. The first accused shall be set at liberty
forthwith from the prison concerned, if his continued detention
is not required in connection with any other case. Registry shall
communicate this judgment forthwith to the prison concerned,
where the first accused is undergoing incarceration.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN, JUDGE.
ds 22.01.2025
