SREEJU T.V. Vs. STATE OF KERALA
LAWS(KER)-2024-8-7
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on
August 09,2024
Sreeju T.V.
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
LAXMIPAT CHORARIA V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]FR. GEORGE CHERIAN V. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
SURESH V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
CHOTKAU V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DEONANDAN MISHRA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHWAR SINGH VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI GENU MOHITE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SHIVAJI SAHABRAO BOBADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
GAMBHIR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD BIRDHICHAND SARDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN MARIK VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SUKHVINDERSINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKER SUBHASH CHAND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH :SHIAM BEHARI [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDRA ALIAS RAVI BANSI GOHAR KISHORE AMARSINGH MAHESHKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. LEKH RAJ [REFERRED TO]
BODH RAJ VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
DANA YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
MALKHANSINGH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT GIR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE N C T OF DELHI VS. NAVJOT SANDHU ALIAS AFSAN GURU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF U P VS. KISHANPAL [REFERRED TO]
SHEO SHANKAR SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
SHAHBUDDIN VS. STATE NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYA LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
NIZAM AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
RAMBRAKSH @ JALIM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [REFERRED TO]
SATPAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
SONVIR @ SOMVIR VS. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH @ SARKARI VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
BIJU VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP KUMAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Syamkumar V.M., J. -
(1.)This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant who was
the accused in S.C.No.293 of 2014 of the Sessions Court, Kalpetta,
Wayanad (arising out of Crime No.430 of 2014 of Pulpally Police
Station) challenging his conviction and sentence for the offences
punishable under Ss. 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as the IPC), Regulation 12 & 19(3) of
Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and
Electricity Supply) Regulation 2010 and Sec. 135(a)(e) of the
Electricity Act, 2003.
The Prosecution case:
(2.)The prosecution case is that, on 7/8/2014, at 2:30 A.M. at Pakkam in Pulpally amsom, the appellant murdered his seven month pregnant lover, Ambika by electrocuting her. The appellant, it is alleged, had applied high voltage electric current from an LT 3phase 4 wire line, after twisting an aluminium wire around the leg of the deceased. He had thereafter buried her body in the adjacent Narivayal forest. Prosecution case was that the appellant had thus committed the offences under Ss. 302 & 201 of IPC, Regulation 12 & 19(3) of Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulation 2010 and Sec. 135(a)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Proceedings before the trial court :
(3.)On appearance of the appellant, after hearing both sides under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C."), charges were framed against him. When the charges were read over and explained to him, appellant pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW51 and marked Exts.P1 to P109. MO1 to MO28 were identified. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence against him and submitted a separate statement denying the prosecution case. He stated that he and the deceased were in a romantic relationship and that on August 4, 2014, they visited the Parassinikadavu temple in Kannur and stayed overnight. The next day, August 5, 2014, they returned and the victim went back to her home. He never saw her again, alive or dead. On August 6, 2014, he never travelled by KSRTC bus from Mananthavady to Pakkam. He had gone to Kannur for work and was taken into custody from there. He was made accused solely because of his relationship with the deceased. Thereafter, the case was heard under Sec. 232 Cr.P.C. and the Court held that the case is not fit for discharge under Sec. 232 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the case was posted for evidence on the side of the appellant. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D6 were marked on the defence side.
The Prosecution case:
(2.)The prosecution case is that, on 7/8/2014, at 2:30 A.M. at Pakkam in Pulpally amsom, the appellant murdered his seven month pregnant lover, Ambika by electrocuting her. The appellant, it is alleged, had applied high voltage electric current from an LT 3phase 4 wire line, after twisting an aluminium wire around the leg of the deceased. He had thereafter buried her body in the adjacent Narivayal forest. Prosecution case was that the appellant had thus committed the offences under Ss. 302 & 201 of IPC, Regulation 12 & 19(3) of Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electricity Supply) Regulation 2010 and Sec. 135(a)(e) of the Electricity Act, 2003.
Proceedings before the trial court :
(3.)On appearance of the appellant, after hearing both sides under Sec. 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C."), charges were framed against him. When the charges were read over and explained to him, appellant pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW51 and marked Exts.P1 to P109. MO1 to MO28 were identified. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating evidence against him and submitted a separate statement denying the prosecution case. He stated that he and the deceased were in a romantic relationship and that on August 4, 2014, they visited the Parassinikadavu temple in Kannur and stayed overnight. The next day, August 5, 2014, they returned and the victim went back to her home. He never saw her again, alive or dead. On August 6, 2014, he never travelled by KSRTC bus from Mananthavady to Pakkam. He had gone to Kannur for work and was taken into custody from there. He was made accused solely because of his relationship with the deceased. Thereafter, the case was heard under Sec. 232 Cr.P.C. and the Court held that the case is not fit for discharge under Sec. 232 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the case was posted for evidence on the side of the appellant. DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D6 were marked on the defence side.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.