Thankapandi vs State Of Kerala on 13 November, 2024

[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Thankapandi vs State Of Kerala on 13 November, 2024

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.09.2018 of the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in S.C.No.355/2016 convicting the accused thereunder for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C, and awarding the punishment of life imprisonment and fine Rs.10,000/- for murder, and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine Rs.5,000/- for causing disappearance of evidence. The Trial Court also prescribed default clauses of rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year respectively in case of non-payment of the aforesaid fine.

2. The prosecution case is summarised as follows:

Deceased Pandeeswari was the first wife of the accused, an estate worker at the place called Thondimala in Devikulam. The marital life of the accused and the deceased was tumultuous due to his act of keeping a second wife. The accused also suspected the fidelity of the deceased Pandeeswari. Thus he wanted to finish off the deceased. With the above intention, the accused went to Bodimettu, along with Pandeeswary and their child, and entrusted the child to the mother of the accused, and thereafter brought Pandeeswari back to Thondimala by about 3:00 p.m on 20.02.2009. Thereafter, the accused subjected Pandeeswari to sexual 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 3 abuse and suffocated her with a cloth by gagging her mouth and nose. He then strangulated Pandeeswari by constricting her neck and caused her death at a place south of Pullumedu on the western side of the cardamom estate. The accused then buried the dead body beneath a boulder about 150 meters north of the water tank inside the estate, by digging a pit with a stick and hands. He also disposed of the dress of Pandeeswari by partially burning it and abandoning the same along with her slippers near a tree.

Thus the accused committed the offence of uxoricide and caused the disappearance of the evidence punishable under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C.

3. The crime came to light only on 28.02.2009 when some workers of the cardamom estate found a dead body on the western side of the said estate. PW3, an accountant of the cardamom estate, reported the matter to the Santhanpara Police Station, and accordingly, Ext.P28 F.I.R was registered under section 174 Cr.P.C on the basis of Ext.P5 F.I.S given by him. The Circle Inspector of Police, Devikulam, who took over the investigation, initiated the routine procedures and conducted the inquest after getting the dead body exhumed in the presence of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. He also prepared the required mahazar and made arrangements for the postmortem examination of the dead body. Later on, it was revealed that the cause of death of Pandeeswari was murder, and 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 4 accordingly, the Investigating Officer sent the necessary reports altering the sections to Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon getting reliable information that it was the accused who had committed the murder of his wife, the Investigating Officer arrested him and subjected him to custodial interrogation. Thereupon, the accused is said to have disclosed the place where he had disposed of the partially burnt saree, scarf, and slippers of the deceased. On the basis of the aforesaid disclosure statement of the accused in police custody, the Investigating Officer claims to have proceeded to the place, along with the accused and recovered the aforesaid material objects. The Investigating Officer also made the arrangements for garnering scientific evidence including the confirmation of the identity of the victim, by resorting to the technique of superimposition of the skull. After the completion of the investigation, the final report was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

4. Upon commitment of the case, the learned Sessions Judge ensured that the accused was defended by a legal aid counsel since he did not engage a counsel of his choice. After considering the prosecution records and hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty. In the trial that followed, 16 witnesses were 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 5 examined from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW16, and 29 documents were marked as Exts.P1 to P29. Four material objects were identified as MO1 to MO4. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded by the Sessions Judge under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused had denied the incriminating circumstances and contended that he had no wife by name Pandeeswari, and that his wife was one Vanitha in whom a child is said to have been begotten. The accused further stated that he had been falsely indicted in this case by PW2 who was on inimical terms with him. Finding that there is no scope for an acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C., the learned Sessions Judge afforded an opportunity to the accused to adduce defence evidence, but he did not opt for the same. After hearing both sides, and evaluating the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge arrived at a conclusion that the accused murdered his wife Pandeeswari and caused the disappearance of evidence by disposing of the dead body and the dress and slippers of the deceased. Accordingly, the accused was convicted and sentenced for the commission of the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant is before us with this appeal.

5. Heard Adv.Mr. Sujithkumar T.U., the learned counsel for the appellant and Adv. Mrs. Neema P.V., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 6

6. As already stated above, the trial court relied on the evidence adduced by the prosecution through PW1 to PW16 and the documents and the material objects marked as Exts.P1 to P29 and MO1 to MO4 to arrive at the finding of guilt of the accused.

7. PW1 was the Area Committee Secretary of CPI(M) who claimed to have witnessed the exhumation of the dead body of the deceased, and the preparation of Ext.P1 inquest report.

8. PW2 is a labourer of the cardamom estate who is said to have seen the accused digging a pit near a boulder at the place called Pullumedu in the cardamom estate for burying the dead body of a lady which was found lying near that place. According to PW2, the accused had confessed to him that he had killed his wife. PW2 claims to have ascertained that it was the dead body of Pandeeswari, the wife of the accused, which was lying there. It is further stated by PW2 that the accused had threatened him that he would finish off PW2 and his wife and children if he disclosed what he had seen there to anybody else. PW2 is also a witness to the recovery of the slippers, scarf and burnt portion of the saree, effected by the Investigating Officer, a few days later. The above recovered items were marked as MO1, MO2 and MO3 series, and the Mahazar prepared by the Investigating Officer, was marked as Ext.P2. PW2 identified Ext.P3 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 7 photographs of deceased Pandeeswari, affixed in the FSL report. Another photograph of Pandeeswari was also marked as Ext.P4 through PW2.

9. PW3 was the accountant of the cardamom estate who gave Ext.P5 first information statement to the Santhanpara Police. PW4, is a witness examined by the prosecution for establishing that the accused was found along with a lady passing through the pathway of the cardamom estate. But, he turned hostile to the prosecution and stated that he did not see any such incident. The contradiction in the prior statement given by this witness to the police is marked as Ext.P6.

10. PW5 is the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Devikulam in whose presence the dead body of the victim was disinterred and Ext.P1 exhumation report was prepared.

11. PW6 was a witness examined by the prosecution to establish that the accused and the deceased resided together as husband and wife in a house on rent arranged by her husband. However, she turned hostile to the prosecution and stated that she did not know the accused or Pandeeswari.

12. PW7 was the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine at Government Medical College Hospital, Kottayam who conducted the autopsy of the victim and issued Ext.P7 postmortem certificate.

2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 8

13. PW8 was the Assistant Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram who examined the material objects sent by the Investigating Agency and issued the Ext.P9 report pertaining to the identification of the skull of the victim as that of the person shown in the photographs sent by the Investigating Agency.

14. PW9 is the husband of PW6, examined by the prosecution to show that the accused and the deceased resided in a rented house arranged by him. But the above witness turned hostile to the prosecution and discredited the prosecution version in the above regard.

15. PW10 was the Police Constable who performed the body bandobast duty of the victim.

16. PW11 was the Circle Inspector of Police, Devikulam who conducted a substantial portion of the investigation in this case. It is PW11 who arrested the accused on 07.03.2009 from his house at Tamil Nadu. He also claims to have conducted a search at the above residence and recovered the shirt and lungi worn by the accused at the time when he allegedly committed the crime. According to PW11, in the custodial interrogation of the accused at that time, he made the disclosure that the apparel and slippers of the deceased had been thrown by him to the bushes beneath a tree at the place called Pullumedu towards the west of the cardamom estate. On the basis of the above information, PW11 claims 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 9 to have recovered the partly burnt saree, scarf and slippers of the deceased from the place of concealment. PW11 also took the necessary steps for recording the statement of PW2 under section 164 Cr.P.C. Two photographs of the deceased Pandeeswari were recovered by PW11 from the rented residence where the deceased and the accused had been residing. On the basis of the application submitted by PW11, the skull of the deceased was subjected to analysis by superimposition with the images in the photographs recovered by PW11, and the report was obtained in confirmation of the identity of the victim. The contradictions marked out of the prior statements of PW6 and PW9 were proved through PW11.

17. PW12 was the Circle Inspector of Police, Devikulam who completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

18. PW13 was the neighbour of the deceased during the year 2009, while she resided at the place called Thondimala. Though PW13 stated that the deceased and her husband Thankapandi were residing in the house situated at a distance of about 15 ft from the house where she had been residing at Thondimala, she did not identify the accused standing in the dock. PW13 asserted during the chief examination itself that it was for the first time that she was seeing the person standing in the dock.

2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 10

19. PW14 was the Sub Inspector of Police, Santhanpara who recorded Ext.P5 first information statement and registered Ext.P28 F.I.R under section 174 Cr.P.C on the basis of the above statement.

20. PW15 is a person who is said to have worked along with the accused in the same cardamom estate. According to PW15, he along with one Prakash (PW9), had gone to the house of the accused at Tamil Nadu when they realised that the victim was missing. It is stated that PW15 and his colleague Prakash met the accused there and consumed food and liquor together. At that time the accused is said to have confessed to PW15 that he had killed the victim since she maintained a relationship with other men. According to PW15, the accused had threatened him and his colleague that if they revealed the above aspect to anybody, they would be done away with. PW15 identified Ext.P4 series photographs of the victim.

21. PW16 was the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Peermade who had recorded the statement of PW2 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The aforesaid statement is marked as Ext.P29 through that witness.

22. This is a case where the prosecution relies upon the evidence pertaining to the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to PW2 and PW15, his co-workers in a cardamom estate, about the murder of the victim who is none other than the wife of the accused. PW2 claims to have not only witnessed the extra-judicial confession of the accused but also 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 11 seen the act of the accused trying to bury the dead body of his wife. It has been stated by PW2 in unequivocal terms before the Trial Court that he had the occasion to see the accused digging a pit with hands and stick at a secluded place in the cardamom estate; and when asked about the above act, the accused is said to have replied that it was for the purpose of burying wash for the manufacture of arrack. However, PW2 claims to have seen the body of a woman lying there clad in a red saree beside the place where the accused was found digging the pit. PW2 unveiled the saree and realised that the said dead body was that of Pandeeswari, the wife of the accused. The accused, thereupon, craved and appealed to PW2 after making the confession of his act of murder of his wife, that he shall not disclose it to anybody. Thereafter, the accused allegedly changed his voice and threatened PW2 that if he disclosed it to anybody, he and his wife and children would also be eliminated in the same way the accused finished off his wife. According to PW2, he did not reveal the incident to anybody due to the aforesaid threat of the accused. PW2 further stated that the police approached him and asked about the incident on the basis of the information received from the accused. The evidence tendered by PW2 also reveals that he was present at the spot when the accused retrieved MO1 slippers, MO2 scarf and MO3 series burnt portions of the saree from a place about 200 ft away from the place where the body of the victim was 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 12 found. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the version of PW2 in the above regard.

23. It is true that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence, and that the courts shall be extremely cautious while relying on such evidence for arriving at a finding of conviction of the accused. It is well settled that, as a matter of abundant caution, courts may look for corroboration of the evidence let in by the prosecution by way of extra-judicial confession. As far as the present case is concerned, the corroboration of the confession made by the accused could be seen to have existed instantaneously in the light of the evidence of PW2 who had the occasion to see the dead body of the deceased kept lying covered with a saree, beside the place where the accused was trying to dig a pit. Thus the evidence tendered by PW2 stands on a high pedestal when compared with the usual evidence of witnesses regarding the extra-judicial confession made to them by the accused. Here is a case where PW2 had the occasion to confirm the confession made by the accused about the commission of the crime by seeing the dead body of the victim, and the eager efforts of the accused to bury the said dead body beneath a boulder at a place which usually remains unnoticed by public gaze. Nothing has been brought forth to show that the said confession was made by the accused under threat, inducement, or duress. There is also no reason to think that PW2 might 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 13 have tried to falsely implicate the accused in this crime by giving untrue statements before the trial court about the confession made by the accused, at the time when he saw the accused beside the dead body of the victim, trying to dig a pit at a desolate place of the cardamom estate.

24. The extent and scope of extra-judicial confession as a piece of evidence for convicting an accused, have been dealt with by the Apex Court in Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab [(2012) 11 SCC 768] as follows:

" The second circumstance pertains to extra-judicial confession. Mr Goel, learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently criticised the extra-judicial confession on the ground that such confession was made after 18 days of the occurrence. That apart, it is submitted that the father of Natha Singh and the grandfather of the deceased are real brothers and, therefore, he is an interested witness and to overcome the same, he has deposed in court that he has strained relationship with the informant, though he had not stated so in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC.

The issue that emanates for appreciation is whether such confessional statement should be given any credence or thrown overboard. In this context, we may refer with profit to the authority in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2001) 2 SCC 205 :

2001 SCC (Cri) 323] (SCC p. 212, para 6) wherein, after referring to the decisions in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh [AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 Cri LJ 910] , Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1975) 4 SCC 234 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 479 : AIR 1975 SC 1320] , Narayan Singh v. State of M.P. [(1985) 4 SCC 26 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 460 : AIR 1985 SC 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 14 1678] , Kishore Chand v. State of H.P. [(1991) 1 SCC 286 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 172] and Baldev Raj v. State of Haryana [1991 Supp (1) SCC 14 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 659 : AIR 1991 SC 37] , it has been opined that it is the settled position of law that extra-judicial confession, if true and voluntary, can be relied upon by the court to convict the accused for the commission of the crime alleged.

Despite inherent weakness of extra-judicial confession as an item of evidence, it cannot be ignored when shown that such confession was made before a person who has no reason to state falsely and his evidence is credible. The evidence in the form of extra-judicial confession made by the accused before the witness cannot be always termed to be a tainted evidence. Corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution. If the court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that it was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. The aspects which have to be taken care of are the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a confession. That apart, before relying on the confession, the court has to be satisfied that it is voluntary and it is not the result of inducement, threat or promise as envisaged under Section 24 of the Act or brought about in suspicious circumstances to circumvent Sections 25 and 26."

25. The guidelines to be followed while appreciating the evidence of extra judicial confession, have been enunciated by the Apex Court in R. Kuppusamy v. State [(2013) 3 SCC 322] as hereunder:

"That a truthful extra-judicial confession made voluntarily and without any inducement can be made a basis for recording a 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 15 conviction against the person making the confession was not disputed before us at the hearing. What was argued by Ms Mahalakshmi Pavani, counsel appearing for the appellant, was that an extra-judicial confession being in its very nature an evidence of a weak type, the courts would adopt a cautious approach while dealing with such evidence and record a conviction only if the extra-judicial confession is, apart from being found truthful and voluntary, also corroborated by other evidence. There was, according to the learned counsel, no such corroboration forthcoming in the present case which according to her was sufficient by itself to justify rejection of the confessional statement as a piece of evidence against the appellant. Reliance, in support of the contention urged by the learned counsel, was placed upon the decisions of this Court in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(2001) 2 SCC 205 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 323] and Sahadevan v. State of T.N. [(2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 146].

In Gura Singh case [(2001) 2 SCC 205 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 323] a two-Judge Bench of this Court was also dealing with an extra-judicial confession and the question whether the same could be made a basis for recording the conviction against the accused. This Court held that despite the inherent weakness of an extra-judicial confession as a piece of evidence, the same cannot be ignored if it is otherwise shown to be voluntary and truthful. This Court also held that extra-judicial confession cannot always be termed as tainted evidence and that corroboration of such evidence is required only as a measure of abundant caution. If the court found the witness to whom confession was made to be trustworthy and that the confession was true and voluntary, a conviction can be founded on such evidence alone. More 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 16 importantly, the Court declared that courts cannot start with the presumption that extra-judicial confession is always suspect or a weak type of evidence but it would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak about such a confession and whether the confession is voluntary and truthful. In Sahadevan case [(2012) 6 SCC 403 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 146] a two-Judge Bench of this Court comprehensively reviewed the case law on the subject and concluded that an extra-judicial confession is an admissible piece of evidence capable of supporting the conviction of an accused provided the same is made voluntarily and is otherwise found to be truthful. This Court also reiterated the principle that if an extra-judicial confession is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is corroborated by other evidence, it acquires credibility. To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab [1996 SCC (Cri) 1158] and Jaspal Singh v. State of Punjab [(1997) 1 SCC 510 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 358] .

It is unnecessary, in the light of above pronouncements, to embark upon any further review of the decisions of this Court on the subject. The legal position is fairly well settled that an extra-judicial confession is capable of sustaining a conviction provided the same is not made under any inducement, is voluntary and truthful. Whether or not these attributes of an extra-judicial confession are satisfied in a given case will, however, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is eventually the satisfaction of the court as to the reliability of the confession, keeping in view the circumstances in which the same is made, the person to whom it is alleged to have been made and the corroboration, if any, available as to the truth of 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 17 such a confession that will determine whether the extra-judicial confession ought to be made a basis for holding the accused guilty."

26. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant challenged the trustworthiness of the evidence of PW2 by pointing to his act of not disclosing the event allegedly witnessed by him till the police came after him pursuant to the apprehension of the accused. There is absolutely no reason to be suspicious about the above conduct of PW2, a rustic villager, in view of the threat said to have been perpetrated upon him by the accused, who is found to be involved in other cases as well. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant against the credibility of the evidence of PW2 is that he disclosed the incident to the police after three days from the date of apprehension of the accused, and that the above conduct of PW2 who did not care to reveal the incident at least at the time when the alleged recovery of MO1 to MO3 were effected, is highly suspicious. We are not able to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in the above regard since it is not possible to think that a rustic plantation labourer like PW2 would show the diligence and promptness to volunteer and reveal to the police about a horrific incident which he witnessed, immediately after the apprehension of the accused and the recovery of the material objects. It is quite usual that crude villagers like PW2 would be timid and reticent to face and interact with men 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 18 in khaki, especially when the subject matter relates to the commission of a serious crime. Therefore, it is not possible to doubt the credibility of the evidence tendered by PW2 about the extra-judicial confession made by the accused, for the sole reason that he opted to reveal the incident only when the police approached him and insisted on opening up.

27. The evidence tendered by PW2 carries further reliability in view of the fact that he had substantiated the retrieval of MO1 to MO3, the wearing apparel and slippers of the deceased from a place which is not far away from the place where the dead body of the victim was found. Even if the evidence tendered by PW2 in respect of the confessional portion of the statements by the accused is excluded, still it is not possible to ignore his evidence pertaining to the act of the accused trying to dig a pit in a secluded place of the cardamom estate, with the dead body of his wife lying near. The above act of the accused trying to dispose of the dead body of the victim in a clandestine manner without being noticed by anybody, itself points to the fact that the death of the victim was the consequence of some criminal act perpetrated by the accused. Being a fact exclusively within the knowledge of the accused, it is up to him to explain how his wife lost her life, and what was the need to hide that incident and to dispose of the dead body in a dubious manner. Since the accused could not offer any explanation on the above aspect, it has to be concluded that 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 19 the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to PW2 got corroboration from the strange and suspicious conduct of the accused trying to dispose of the dead body of his wife without getting noticed by anybody.

28. It is true that the accused had denied the contention of the prosecution that deceased Pandeeswary was his wife. He also disputed the case of the prosecution that he had resided along with the victim in a rented house for several years while employed in the cardamom estate. However, the version of the accused in the above regard can only be taken as an attempt to wriggle out of the criminal liability in connection with the homicide attributed to him. The fact that the accused and the victim were living together as husband and wife, along with their child, in a rented residence during the time when he was working at the cardamom estate, is revealed from the evidence of PW2 and PW13. It is true that PW13, who resided in the neighbourhood of the house where the accused and deceased resided together, could not identify the accused at the dock. However, it could be seen from the testimony of the above witness that she had no doubt about the fact that the victim Pandeeswary along with her husband Thankapandy and their small child, had been residing in a house just 50 feet away from the house where she had been residing at Thondimala during the year 2009. Therefore the failure of the above witness to identify the accused at the time of trial which took place after 8 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 20 years from the time when she had seen the accused for the last time, cannot be taken as a vitiating factor affecting the trustworthiness of that witness. It is pertinent to note that PW13 had recognized and identified the victim after perusing Ext. P4 photograph shown to her. There is no case for the accused that he is not Thankapandy, or that there was any other in that name there during the relevant time. Thus the contention of the accused denying his marital relationship with the victim can only be taken as an attempt to try whether he could evade the criminal liability relating to the death of his wife.

29. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused is that the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the dead body recovered from the cardamom plantation as that of the person by name Pandeeswary. There is absolutely no merit in the contention of the appellant in the above regard in view of the clinching evidence of PW2 who had the occasion to see the accused attempting to bury the dead body of Pandeeswary at a secluded place in the cardamom plantation. Furthermore, the scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution through Ext. P9 report and the evidence of PW8, would establish the fact that the dead body recovered from an unnoticed place of the cardamom plantation, was that of Pandeeswary whose photograph is brought on record as Ext. P3. Ext. P9 report shows that the identity of the victim was established in 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 21 the test of analysis of superimposition of the skull of the retrieved body with the photograph of the victim, making use of computer technology. In Ext. P9 report PW8, an Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, has narrated 10 parameters for arriving at the conclusion that the skull of the retrieved body was that of the person seen in Ext.P3 & P4 photographs. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the sanctity or reliability of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the above regard. Therefore, the challenge raised by the accused about the identity of the dead body recovered in this case is totally untenable.

30. The learned counsel for the accused put forward a contention that the investigating agency filed a report dated 06.01.2009 incorporating Section 201 IPC even before the recovery of MO1 to MO3 allegedly disposed of by the accused to cause the disappearance of evidence, and hence it could be seen that there was absolutely no bonafides in the prosecution case. We find no merit in the above argument since the act of the accused disposing of the dead body of his wife by burying it in a secluded place of the cardamom estate without getting noticed by anybody, itself would amount to the act of causing the disappearance of evidence. Thus the report filed by the Investigating Agency about the offence relating to causing the disappearance of evidence, even before the recovery of MO1 to MO3, cannot be termed as strange or unusual. Needless to say, the 2024:KER:84398 Crl.A.No.591/2021 22 above argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is bereft of merit.

31. Though there is evidence of PW15 also pertaining to the extra-judicial confession made by the accused about his act of murdering his wife, we do not propose to place reliance on it in view of the statement of the said witness that the aforesaid revelation of the accused about the commission of the crime was at a time when both of them were under the influence of alcohol. It has to be stated that the prosecution could successfully establish the offences charged against the accused dehors the evidence of PW15.

32. As a conclusion to the aforesaid discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court which convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The sentences awarded for both offences are perfectly in order.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(sd/-) RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE (sd/-) G.GIRISH, JUDGE jsr/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court