Sarassan @ Sarasadas Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
indian penal code (ipc), 1860 - sections 302, 498a, 306, 304b; code of criminal procedure (crpc), 1973 - sections 174, 161; dowry prohibition act, 1961 - punishment for murder -- the appellant and laxmi kumari got married on april 30, 2000. 3. on september 2, 2000 in the afternoon the landlady, saroja (pw7) received a telephone call asking for laxmi kumari. after some time her husband, the appellant also reached there. in the morning of september 3, 2000 laxmi kumari's father, pw1 received a phone call from the brother of the appellant, seshagiri rao intimating him that his daughter had fallen seriously ill and had been admitted to the hospital. 6. after recording the statement of the father of the deceased the sub- inspector (pw15) proceeded for mythri hospital and got the body of the deceased shifted to gandhi hospital for post mortem examination. at that time, the appellant and his brother were also present at the police station. on september 3, his in-laws reached the hospital. the limca bottle was seized in the presence of two `panchas,' under seizure report (exhibit p-10 & exhibit p-18) which was prepared on september 7, 2000 at 10.30 a.m. 15. on september 29, 2000 the investigating officer, sub-inspector g. prasada rao (pw16) went to bhradrachalam and recorded the statement of brahmachary (pw4), the goldsmith from whom the appellant is said to have obtained cyanide. in the statement recorded under section 161 of cr. p.c. (later produced before the court as exhibit p-2), brahmachary confirmed that the appellant had obtained cyanide from him. the high court, by a long and detailed judgment set aside the judgment of the trial court and convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. it is seen above that the confessional statement was completely repudiated by the appellant before the trial court. of the two panchas, only venkateswar reddy was examined as pw12, but he did not support the prosecution case either in regard to the appellant's confessional statement or the seizure report of the limca bottle and was declared hostile. it was only pw18, the investigating officer, who stated before the trial court that the accused voluntarily made the confessional statement and voluntarily produced the empty limca bottle from the `sajja' at his residence. 27. pw7 was the landlady in whose house the appellant and the deceased lived on rent, and pw3 was her maid. 28. pw4 was brahmachary, the goldsmith residing at bhadrachalam, from whom the appellant is supposed to have obtained the cyanide as per his confessional statement. 29. next comes, the issue of the appellant mixing up cyanide in the cold drink bottle of limca and giving it to the deceased to drink. thirdly, and most importantly, the appellant was presented before him after allegedly making the confessional statement before the police and the punch witnesses. 31. next comes, the recovery of the empty limca bottle from one of the rooms at the appellant's residence that was found by the forensic laboratory to contain cyanide. proceeding step by step, it may be noted that the appellant's residence was thoroughly searched soon after the death of laxmi kumari on september 3 itself. venkateshwar reddy was examined by the prosecution as pw12. the high court was, unfortunately, unable to keep aside the so called confessional statement. v.ramkumar, j.bail application no.7016 of 2010dated this the 9th day of november, 2010order1. the petitioners, who are accused nos.1 & 4 in crime no.419 of 2010 of kanjiramkulam police station for offences punishable under sections 332 & 395 i.p.c. and sec.138(f)(g) of the panchayath raj act and sec.136(1)(c)(d)&(f) and 135(4) explanation (a) of the representation of people act, 1951,seek anticipatory bail. 2. the learned public prosecutor opposed the application.3. anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. but at the same time, i am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the magistrate having jurisdiction. accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 22/11/2010 or on 23/11/2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. the petitioners shall thereafter be produced before the magistrate who on being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed. 4. this petition is disposed of as above.

Judgment:
V.RAMKUMAR, J.

Bail Application No.7016 of 2010

Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010

ORDER

1. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 & 4 in Crime No.419 of 2010 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 332 & 395 I.P.C. and Sec.138(f)(g) of the Panchayath Raj Act and Sec.136(1)(c)(d)&(f) and 135(4) Explanation (a) of the Representation of People Act, 1951,seek anticipatory bail.

2. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the application.

3. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a case of this nature. But at the same time, I am inclined to permit the petitioners to surrender before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation and then to have their application for bail considered by the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petitioners shall surrender before the investigating officer on 22/11/2010 or on 23/11/2010 for the purpose of interrogation and recovery of incriminating material, if any. The petitioners shall thereafter be produced before the Magistrate who on being satisfied that the petitioners have been interrogated by the police shall consider and dispose of their application for regular bail preferably on the same date on which it is filed.

4. This petition is disposed of as above.