BABU vs STATE OF KERALA

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
ND
THURSDAY, THE 22 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026/30TH ASWINA, 1948
CRL.A NO. 1243 OF 2016
CRIME NO.213/2001 OF Vanchiyoor Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.11.2016 SC NO.1153 OF
2006 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VI,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1:
BABU
S/O.CHELLAPPAN, AGED 55 YERAS,
BABITHA BHAVAN, SREEKANTESWARAM, VANCHIYOOR,
THIRUVAVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.G.SUDHEER
RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT :
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
SRI. M A SHAHIB, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17.09.2026, THE COURT ON 22.10.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
CR
JUDGMENT
nd
Dated this the 22 day of October, 2026
The first accused in S.C.No.1153/2006 on the files of the
Additional Sessions Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed
this appeal, challenging judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 28.11.2016 rendered in the above case against him.
st
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/1
accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused
the impugned judgment and the evidence available.
3. In this case, pursuant to death of one Thankam,
Crime No.213/01 of Vanchiyoor Police Station was registered,
and thereafter the husband and the sister-in-law of the
deceased got arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively on
the allegation that they have committed offences punishable
under Sections 323, 324, 326, 498A, 306 and 307 r/w. 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
short), on the premise that Thankam died due to cruelty and
assault at the instance of the first and the second accused.
4. The learned Sessions Judge on framing charge,
PW1 to PW19 were examined, Exts.P1 to P15 and MO1 to
MO3 were marked on the side of the prosecution. No evidence
was adduced on the side of the defence.
5. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Sessions
Judge found that the first accused/appellant had committed
offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 306, 307
and 498A of IPC while acquitting the second accused.
Thereby the appellant/first accused was convicted and
sentenced as under:
st
“In the result 1 accused is sentenced to Rigorous
Imprisonment for six months u/s 323 of IPC,
Rigorous Imprisonment for one year u/s 324 of
IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for four years u/s
325 of IPC with fine of Rs.2000/- and in default
rigorous imprisonment for two months, rigorous
imprisonment for six years u/s 306 IPC with fine

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
of Rs.5000/- with rigorous imprisonment for 3
months in default of payment, rigorous
imprisonment for seven years with fine of
Rs.5000/- u/s 307 of IPC and in default, rigorous
imprisonment for 3 months, and rigorous
imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.2000/-
and in default rigorous imprisonment for two
months for offence u/s 498A IPC. Substantive
sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
Set off shall be given for the period of detention
from 03.11.2001 to 23.11.2001."
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant/first accused that, in this case, no convincing
evidence was adduced by the prosecution to find commission
of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 325, 306, 307
and 498A of IPC and Exts.P9 and P10, the photocopy of the
extract of the diary and a photocopy of a letter respectively,
alleged to be written by Thankam (the deceased), were given
much reliance to find that the first accused had committed the
above offences. According to him, Exts.P9 and P10 were

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
taken by the Investigating Officer after a long delay, and the
prosecution failed to establish the handwriting in Exts.P9 and
P10 as that of Thankam (the deceased). According to him,
PW1 and PW2, the children of Thankam, and PW4, a
neighbour, though gave statements supporting the prosecution
case, before the Police, during their examination before the
Sessions Court, they turned hostile to the prosecution. Thus
nothing extracted in their evidence against the appellant.
Despite that, the learned Sessions Judge relied on Exts.P9
and P10, supported by the evidence of PW13 and PW14, who
are the brothers of Thankam to find the guilt of the appellant.
He has pointed out that if the evidence of PW13 and PW14,
when read as a whole, the same is nothing, but hearsay. It is
submitted further that even though the Doctor examined as
PW12 noted injuries, the injuries would, by itself, not sufficient
to hold that the first accused caused the injuries without
support of convincing evidence. Therefore, the verdict would

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
require interference to acquit the accused, enlarging benefit of
doubts.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/first
accused and submitted that the evidence available in the form of
Exts.P9 and P10, supported by the evidence of PW12, the
Doctor, and Ext.P8, post-mortem certificate, as to cause of
death, when read along with the evidence of PW13 and PW14,
the prosecution case has been proved beyond reasonable
doubts. Further the evidence of PW13 and PW14 is not hearsay
in its entirety. Therefore, no interference in the impugned
judgment is required.
8. Having considered the rival submissions, points arise
for consideration are:
1. Whether the Sessions Judge is right in holding
that the appellant/ first accused committed the
offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC?
2. Whether the Sessions Judge is erred in holding
that the appellant/ first accused committed the

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC?
3. Whether the Sessions Judge is justified in holding
that the appellant/ first accused committed the
offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC?
4. Whether the Sessions Judge is erred in holding
that the appellant/ first accused committed the
offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC?
5. Whether the Sessions Judge is went wrong in
holding that the appellant/ first accused committed
the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC?
6. Whether the Sessions Judge is right in holding
that the appellant/ first accused committed the
offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC?
7. Whether the impugned verdict would require any
interference by this Court?
8. The order to be passed.
9. Point Nos.1 to 8
In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that Thankam died
at 11.15 hours on 22.10.2001 and PW12 conducted autopsy on
her body. Before the court, PW12 deposed that while she was
working as an Assistant Professor of Forensic medicine and

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
Deputy Police Surgeon, she had conducted post-mortem
examination on the body of the deceased, Thankam, aged 30
years on 23.10.2001. She had noted the following 27 ante-
mortem injuries.
1. Multiple abrasions of size varying from 0.1x0.3 cm to
0.3x0.5 cm over an area 1x1 cm on the right side of front
of neck, 1.5 cm outer to midline and 6 cm below jaw
bone.
2. Multiple small abrasions over an area 1x0.5 cm on the left
side of front of neck, 2 cm outer to midline and 9 cm
below jaw bone.
3. Multiple small abrasions over an area 2x1 cm on the left
side of front neck 5.5 cm outer to midline and 2.5 cm
below jaw bone
Flap dissection of neck was done under bloodless field.
Upper part of sternomasteid muscles on either side
showed infiltration of blood. Subcutaneous tissue and
muscles over an area 7x3.5x0.3 cm underneath injury
numbers 1 to 3 showed infiltration of blood. The
submandibular salivary gland on the right side showed
infiltration involving the substance of the gland. Back wall
of larynx, both pyriform fessae and oesophagus just
below the larynx showed infiltration 0.2 to 0.4 cm thick.
Brain showed severe congestion and oedema.
4. Contusion 1.5x1x0.3 cm on the left side of face 6.5 cm
outer to midline and overlying the jaw bone.
Underneath the submandibular salivary gland showed

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
infiltration of blood.
5. Two contusions 2 x 1.5 x 0.4 cm and 2 x 1 x 0.3 cm
placed 1 cm apart parallel in a horizontal line on the
right side of face, the front inner one 3.5 cm outer to
midline and overlying the jaw bone.
6. Contusion 2x1.5x0.5 cm on the inner aspect of upper
lip in the midline.
7. Contusion 5x1.5x0.5 cm on the upper lip at the region
of phrenulum and adjoining part of gum
8. Contusion 1x0.5x0.3 cm at the bridge of nose 1 cm
below the root.
9. Contusion 8x4x2 cm on the front of chest horizontal
crossing the midline and 9 cm below top of breast
bone.
10. Abraded contusion l' C' shaped 3x0.3x0.5 cm on the
left side of chest its upper end 2 cm outer to midline
and overlying the collar bone and was seen lying at
the upper outer part of injury No.9. The soft tissue
around aorta and tissues at the root of hear showed
infiltration of blood around.
11. Contusion 7x3x1 cm on the outer aspect of right side
of chest its inner end 24 cm below the front fold of
armpit.
12. Contusion 3x1x0.5 cm on the back of right forearm
9cm above wrist with multiple linear abrasions
extending upwards from its upper end.
13. Contusion 2x1x0.3 cm on the front of outer aspect of
right wrist.
14. Contusion 3x2x1 cm on the back of right arm 6 cm

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
above elbow.
15. Abraded contusion 2x2x0.5 cm on the front of right
leg 12 cm above ankle.
16. Contusion 3x3x0.5 cm on the back of left forearm
5 cm above wrist.
17. Contusion 9x5x1 cm on the back of left forearm 8 cm
above wrist with an abrasion 2x1 cm oblique at its
upper end.
18. Abrasion 0.3x0.3 cm on the back of left hand 2.5 cm
above the index finger.
19. Contusion 3x2x0.3 cm on the back of left elbow.
20. Two abrasions 1.5x0.8 cm and 2x1 cm one above the
other in a vertical line and 0.5 cm apart, the lower one
being 1.5 cm above injury No.19.
21. Contusion 1.5x1x0.3 cm on the outer aspect of left
arm 5 cm above elbow.
22. Contusion 8x2.5x0.5 cm on the outer aspect of left
arm 2.5cm above injury No.21.
23. Contusion 5x1.5x0.5 cm on the outer aspect of right
arm 3 cm above injury No.22.
24. Contusion 3x1.5x0.5 cm, 1 cm above injury No.23.
25. Contusion 2x1.5x0.5 cm on the back of left arm 2 cm
outer to the back fold of armpit.
26. Contusion 6x1x0.5 cm on the outer aspect of left side
of chest 23 cm below the front fold of armpit.
27. Contusion 2x1x0.3 cm on the front of left arm 10cm
below the front fold of armpit.

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
She further deposed that she had examined the clinical case
sheet bearing IP No.131049 of the Medical College Hospital
after autopsy. The viscera, sample of blood, vaginal swab and
smear were preserved and sent for chemical analysis and
subsequently, she had received the report of chemical
analysis. Ext.P8 was the post-mortem report issued by her.
The post-mortem findings were consistent with history of
poisoning. She deposed that injury Nos.2 and 3 could be
caused by attempted throttling. Such acts could lead to
asphyxia, and if continued for a sufficient length of time, they
could lead to death. Infiltration of blood on the upper part of
the sterno mastoid muscles on either side would occur by
attempted throttling. Congestion and edema of brain could
have been caused due to the pressure applied on neck for a
considerable time. Injury Nos. 4 to 8 were around mouth. Such
injuries could occur due to the attempted forceful
administration of any substance or attempt of smothering. She

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
further stated that injury No.9 could be caused by MO1 stick
and injury Nos. 11 and 26 could be caused by fisting. Injury
Nos.12 to 14, 16, 17, 19, 21, 25 and 27 could be caused by
beating with MO1 stick or by holding her forcefully. Edema on
brain might have contributed to the death and it was not a
case of simple suicide. It was probable that after
sustaining such injuries due to mental trauma, she might
have consumed poison. The Doctor denied the suggestion
that the poison consumed could result in these injuries. The
internal injuries were not caused due to use of poison.
Those injuries were caused due to blunt force. No poison
was found in the chemical analysis. The finding regarding
death due to poisoning was based on history of
treatment. She testified that the patient had died at 11.15
hours on 22.10.2001 and the post-mortem was conducted at
9.05 hours on 23.10.2001. Injury Nos.4 to 8 were internal and
external injuries. Even when stomach wash was done by

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
force, it would not result in any abrasions. Injury Nos.9 to 14,
16, 17, 19, 25 and 27 could not be caused due to the person
falling and rolling on rough surface. The ante-mortem injuries
were healing wounds, and the approximate age of the injuries
was 3 to 5 days.
10. Apart from that, in order to prove the contents of
Ext.P9, photocopy of diary extract, originally written in Tamil,
PW16, who translated the document in the form of Ext.P9(a),
was examined. According to her, she had been working as a
tutor at the Tamil Government Higher Secondary School and
possessed degrees viz., M.A, Mphill and B.Ed in Tamil. As
requested by the police, she had given a translation of Ext.P9,
which got identified as Ext.P9(a). The police had also
requested her to translate Ext.P10, but she could not translate
the same because of many portions of the documents were
unclear and illegible. She stated that Ext.P9 was a ‘nil’ dated
letter written by a sister to her brother and his family. She

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
greeted her brother, his wife and children. She read the
legible portions of Ext.P10 also. In Ext.P10, Thankam had
complained that she was harassed every day. She first had
thought of not informing her family. She had not committed any
th
wrong. She also noted an incident occurred on 20 of previous
month. When she entered an autorickshaw with her children,
she was pulled out of the autorickshaw and an attempt was
made to beat her. Sri.Manoharan, the autorickshaw driver, had
restrained her. The child was also restrained. Her husband
(might be) had gone in autorickshaw and she was rebuked for
attempting to go to her residence. There was also a reference
to the visit made by the uncle to whom she had stated that she
was beaten up every day and she requested to be taken to her
house. Further she stated that she could not write everything
and she thought of committing suicide by jumping in front of
the train. When she had come to the residence with daughter,
th
on the 7 day, the mother had instructed to thrash her.

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
Thereafter, there was a quarrel after 10 to 15 days and she
was beaten inside the residence. It was demanded that the
thali be broken and she would be thrown on the road.
Thereafter, she had slept near the door with her daughter.
After giving tea, an attempt was made to beat her. Then she
got into an autorickshaw with two children. Then her son was
restrained and she was told to go anywhere and not to return
never. She had gone to the railway road. When somebody told
that they would hand her to the police, she had returned to the
home fearing that police would beat her. Because of her
situation all others have to suffer pain (probably intending her
siblings). She though that she would not be permitted to live
with two children. She could live only after the expiry of
mother-in-law. She is the sole child of her mother and she
would remember how her mother had nourished her with love.
When Manoharan came on Monday morning the mother
asked him to kick her down. When Manoharan came both had

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
rebuked her heavily. He was kicked upon her abdomen.
11. PW16 further deposed that those lines were the
only legible portions of Ext.P10 and that the rest could not be
read as the photocopy was illegible. According to her, if it was
the original of Ext.P10, she could have read the same. She
further stated that in Ext.P9 diary extract, it was written at the
beginning that her marriage took place on 03.03.1990. She
added that in the writings, some Malayalam terms had crept
into the writings, though they were written in Tamil Script and
that there were numerous errors in the Tamil script. She noted
that the letter was written in spoken language. She also
admitted that in Ext.P10 “2001 February” was written in both
Malayalam and Tamil.
12. Apart from her evidence, PW13 and PW14, the
siblings of Thankam also supported the prosecution. PW13,
deposed that his residence, which was the tharavad house of
Thankam were situated at Azhakiyamandalam at Thakkala in

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
Tamil Nadu. He could speak Malayalam but could not write or
read the same. He was literate in Tamil. He testified that the
deceased Thankam was his second sister and was married to
the first accused. The second accused is the sister of the first
accused and Parvathydai is the mother of the first accused.
He deposed that while the deceased Thankam had been
residing with the first accused at his residence at
Punnapuram, the mother of the first accused also resided with
them. PW13 stated that PW14 is his brother residing in
Chennai. He further deposed that at 7 pm on 20.10.2001, the
first accused had contacted him by telephone in the
neighbouring house at Azhakiyamandalam. The first accused
told him that Thankam was unwell and was admitted in the
Medical College Hospital. He stated that he could not go to
Thiruvananthapuram on that day because there was a
marriage in the family, but he had sent his father to
Thiruvananthapuram on 21.10.2001. His father informed him

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
over phone that Thankam was in a serious condition. Then, he
along with his brother (PW14) reached Medical College
Hospital at 7.30 pm on the said day. He deposed that
th
Thankam was admitted in the 17 ward and only a neighbour
named 'Lakshmi' was present with Thankam, and Lakshmi
informed him that the first accused had left the hospital upon
seeing him. He had immediately informed the matter to his
brother. According to him, Thankam did not speak anything
and was crying. He further stated that she symbolically
entrusted her children to his father, implying that he was to
take care of them. Subsequently, Thankam died on
22.10.2001. Regarding the marriage of Thankam, PW13
stated that her marriage with the first accused was solemnised
in the year 1989. There had been quarrels in the family. The
second accused also joined the first accused to quarrel with
deceased. On the date of receipt of salary by first accused the

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
second accused would be present there. He testified that
there was harassment of the deceased 20 days prior to
20.10.2001 during which Thankam was physically manhandled
and had become unconscious. On being informed so by the
neighbours, he and others went to the residence of the
accused and brought Thankam to Tamil Nadu and provided
treatment. Thereafter, the second accused, her husband -
Ramaswami and neighbour - Manoharan came there and took
Thankam back, promising that there would be no further
trouble and she was taken back to the residence of the first
accused five days prior to 20.10.2001. PW13 further deposed
that the first accused had insisted Thankam that nobody from
her family should visit his residence and Thankam had
complained to him that the first accused used to come home
consuming alcohol, manhandle her and burn her body with
cigarettes. He further stated that the children also had
complained to him that on 20.10.2001 the first accused had

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
manhandled Thankam and when she fainted, he took her to
room and poured poison into her mouth and thereafter, the
neighbours took her to the hospital by hearing her cries. The
children had also complained to him that the first accused had
manhandled deceased by hitting her with handle of a spade
and with an iron rode. He further deposed that the Circle
Inspector had seized a bottle, handle of a spade and a diary
written by Thankam from the residence of the first accused. He
had seen that diary and took a photocopy of the same from
the Circle Inspector. He stated that he had given Ext.P6(a) FI
statement to the police and identified MO1 and MO2. He
deposed further that during further investigation, he had
delivered the copy of the diary given to him by the Circle
Inspector. PW14 had given him a letter written by deceased
Thankam and he had delivered the same to the police. Before
delivering the same to the police, he had taken a photocopy of
the same. The said photocopy was also delivered to the police

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
subsequently, along with Ext.P9 and, the same tendered in
evidence through him as Ext.P10. The consistent version of
PW14 is that the entries in Exts.P9 and P10 were written by
Thankam in her hand. He could identify the hand writing of the
deceased. During cross examination, PW13 stated that their
family consider a “ Madan statue ” as the family deity, where
goat sacrificing is an event. When such pooja would be
st
conducted, the relatives would attend the same. The 1
accused and his family used to attend such poojas only 7
years prior to 2001. The ‘ Madan ’ would enter the body of his
father. He denied the suggestion that such practices were
st
used to treat illness. He denied the suggestion that the 1 wife
of PW14 had died due to such pooja. He had also denied the
suggestion that 5 days prior to 20.10.2001 such Pooja was
conducted for deceased Thankam. He asserted that at that
time, deceased was treated by Dwararaja Vaidiyar at
Parakkodu. He testified further that while his daughter was

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
attending college she had eloped with PW1 and there was no
contact with her thereafter. He did not perform her marriage
with PW1 and marriage, if any, was without his consent. When
st
the 1 accused contacted him on 20.10.2001 by telephone,
the incident of consumption of poison by Thankam was not
st
revealed by the 1 accused. Injuries on the body of Thankam
were noted by his wife and elder sister. His father was not
nd
capable of making complaint. The 2 accused had not resided
with deceased Thankam.
13. PW14 testified that deceased Thankam was his
st
younger sister. After marriage with the 1 accused, she
occasionally used to send letters to him. He also occasionally
used to visit her. Thankam had told him that there were
nd
problems in the family and when the 2 accused would visit
their house, there would be quarrels. He had met Thankam six
months prior to her death. Then also she had said that there
were problems. He further testified that on 18.10.2001, he had

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
received a letter stating that she was being harassed and
tortured. The letter further recited that she was beaten up
and kicked and she intended to die. All such harassments
were at the instance of her husband and accordingly, she
said that herself and her children would die since she was
subjected to torture very much by the first accused. He
had immediately sent that letter to PW13, telling him that he
was not able to attend her and PW13 and father should
intervene in the matter and do something. On 21.10.2001, he
got telephonic information that Thankam was in hospital. He
reached the hospital at 11.00 hours on 22.10.2001 and met
Thankam, and immediately thereafter she died. On
24.10.2001, he and PW13 went to the police station and
delivered the letter which he had received from Thankam to
the police. He was permitted to go through Ext.P10 (it was
recorded by the Sessions Judge that while going through the
said letter PW14 cried). PW14 identified Ext.P10 as the copy

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
of the letter which he had received from Thankam and he had
reiterated that Exts.P9 and P10 were written by Thankam in
her own handwriting. PW13 was present with him when his
statement was recorded and the recorded statement was
translated to him by PW13. He did not deliver the cover in
which the original of Ext.P10 was sent. He had sent the
original of Ext.P10 to PW13 by post. He did not know whether
envelope of the said letter was delivered by PW13 to police.
According to PW14, PW13 had delivered the letter to the
police and he was present there. Thankam used to send other
letters but only this letter had mentally pained him, since it was
recited there that Thankam was going to die, accused was
harassing her very much and requested him to do something.
The letter he received had 4 sheets and 8 pages [sides]
without page numbers. Those papers were torn off from a
diary. It was two full sheets (each having four pages). He
stated that as Ext.P10 which is a zerox copy, it did not reveal

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
that it had been taken from diary. The pages had lines but
Ext.P10 did not have any line. When it was suggested that
Exts.P9 and P10 as concocted documents, he had
emphatically denied the same.
14. PW19 examined in this case is the Circle Inspector,
who had conducted further investigation as per the order of
the court on 21.06.2015. He deposed that on perusal of the
records, he found that the documents seized as per Exts.P3
and P4 had not been produced in the court. Though he had
made attempts to recover the same, he found that those
documents had been irrecoverably lost. Therefore, he
recovered Exts.P9 and P10, which were the copies of the
diary and letter, from the possession of PW13. Ext.P15 was
the mahazar prepared for recovery of those documents and he
obtained Ext.P9(a) translation of Ext.P9 and he was told that it
was not possible to translate Ext.P10.

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
15. Here is a case where the learned Sessions Judge
found that the accused had committed offences punishable
under Sections 323, 324, 326, 306, 307 and 498A of IPC.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, despite the
hostility of PW1, PW2 and PW4, the learned Sessions Judge
given emphasis on Exts.P9 and P10, supported by the
evidence of PW13, PW14 and PW19, the siblings of the
deceased Thankam. According to him, Ext.P9 is only a
photocopy and Ext.P10 does not contain the entire diary.
Therefore, reliance could not be given to those document.
However, when reading the evidence of PW13 and PW14,
along with the evidence given by PW16, who translated Ext.P9
as Ext.P9(a) (the transcribed version) and the contents of
Ext.P10 to extend readable supported by the evidence of
PW19, the investigating officer who as part of further
investigation seized Exts.P9 and P10, when the same was
found missing, would categorically show the physical and

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
mental tortures suffered by Thankam before her death; which
would constitute the ingredients for the offences found by the
learned Sessions Judge. Thus the evidence of PW13, PW14,
PW16 and PW19, supported by Exts.P8, P9 and P10, when
marshalled with the evidence of PW12, the doctor who
conducted the autopsy on the body of Thankam, which would
show 27 ante-mortem injuries, and the evidence brought out
from Exts.P9, P9(a) and P10, is liable to be accepted, as
rightly done by the learned Sessions Judge. Thus none of the
contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant,
including his contention that the handwriting in Exts.P9 and
P10 were not identified, the evidence of PW13 and PW14 is
mere hearsay could not be accepted. Similarly, his contention
regarding hostility of the children of the accused also has no
significance, as the children, now under the control of the
accused after their mother’s (Thankam’s) death, are not
expected to give evidence against their father. Therefore, the

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
same is a natural consequence, and thus, this contention also
must fail.
16. Thus it is held that the learned Sessions Judge is
right in holding that the appellant/first accused had committed
offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 306, 307
and 498A of IPC. Therefore, the said conviction does not
require any interference.
17. Coming to the sentence, having noticed the
seriousness of the allegations, on par with the sentence
imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, modification of
sentence also cannot be considered in the facts and
circumstances of the case. In such view of the matter, the
sentence also is liable to be confirmed.
In the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
The order suspending sentence and granting bail to the
appellant/first accused stands cancelled and the bail bond
executed by the first accused also stands cancelled. The

CNR : KLHC010142442016
2026:KER:81049
CRL.A.NO.1243 OF 2016
appellant/first accused is directed to surrender before the
Sessions Court, forthwith to undergo the sentence, failing
which, the Sessions Court is directed to execute the sentence,
without fail.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to
the Sessions Court, forthwith, without fail, for information and
compliance.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
nkr