Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

59. It is also important to note that taking advantage of the victim was staying alone in the house and their family members were residing at Kerala and this accused was staying along with the deceased from October-2011 and he was having acquaintance with the family affairs of the victim. The witnesses have categorically deposed that this accused only told them that the victim went to Kerala and he has suffered paralysis and also he was taken to America for treatment and he passed away at America and his body was not brought to Kerala and it was cremated at America itself. It is also evident from the evidence of the prosecution that this accused pretended as a relative of the victim and tried to negotiate with the prospective purchaser to sell the property of the deceased victim. The same is also spoken by the prosecution witnesses and in spite of the body was recovered at the instance of the accused and agricultural equipments which have been sold to the persons after committing the murder and the same were recovered at the instance of the accused and those witnesses who have been purchased the same have categorically deposed that the same was sold at the instance of the accused. In spite of all these materials available on record that the accused has committed the murder to make the wrongful gain taking the advantage of the loneliness of the aged victim who was away from the family members. The accused after committing the murder disposed of the body to screen the evidence to escape from the clutches of law. In spite of all these materials available on record, the trial Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case taking note of the minor discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and there was no any explanation on the part of the accused and the witnesses, who have been examined before the Court have categorically identified the accused that he was staying along with victim. The trial Court taking the answer elicited from the mouth of some of the witnesses that there were no any documentary evidence to prove that the accused was staying along with the victim, given the benefit of doubt in his favour. But the witnesses, who have been categorically deposed before the Court that they had found the accused in the house of the victim and also categorically deposed that after the victim was not found in the house of the victim, this accused was in the very house and made the statement before the witnesses that the victim was went to Kerala for taking treatment for his paralysis and also pretended that he was a relative of the deceased and made an attempt to sell the properties both movable as well as immovable properties, and when the witnesses who have been examined before the Court have categorically deposed with regard to the very role of the accused and conduct of the accused and this Court has already pointed out that nothing is on record to show that these witnesses were having any enmity against the accused to falsely implicate him and it is also the fact that the victim is also a Keralian and the accused is also Keralian and none of the witnesses have any prior acquaintance with the accused and it is not elicited that they were having any enmity. The trial Court has committed an error in not appreciating the evidence in a right perspective. Instead of considering the minor discrepancies, exaggerated the same and magnified the same while coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused.