{"id":150927,"date":"2000-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000"},"modified":"2016-10-19T17:46:48","modified_gmt":"2016-10-19T12:16:48","slug":"state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000","title":{"rendered":"State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000<\/div>\n
Author: Sethi<\/div>\n
Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, R.P. Sethi.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 784  of  1994\nAppeal (crl.)\t785\t of  1994\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF KERALA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP. SUGATHAN & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t26\/09\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nD.P. Mohapatra & R.P. Sethi.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
SETHI,J.\n<\/p>\n
L…I…T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T…….T..J<\/p>\n
    Jealousy,  on account of love affair of two men with one
\nwoman,\tultimately  resulted  in the death of one  and\tupon
\nconviction,  sentence  to life imprisonment of the other  in
\nthe  case  out of which the present appeal has arisen.\t The
\ncommon\t beloved  was  Krishna\t Kumari,   respondent\tNo.2
\n(hereinafter  referred to as “A2”) and one of her  paramours
\nwas  Soman deceased whose decapitated head and headless body
\nwere recovered from a river in Kerala.\tAfter completing his
\npost-graduation\t the deceased Soman was in the employment of
\nCanara\tBank  posted  at   Tirurangadi\tBranch.\t  The  other
\nparamour  of the woman is P.  Sugathan (hereinafter referred
\nto   as\t  “A1”)\t who,  on   the\t date  of  occurrence,\t was
\nSub-Inspector of Police posted at Police Station, Ramankiri.
\nUpon  trial  A1\t and  A2 were  convicted  for  the  offences
\npunishable  under various sections of the Indian Penal\tCode
\nincluding  Section 302, and sentenced to imprisonments,\t the
\nmaximum\t of  which was the life imprisonment.\tThe  Accused
\nNo.3  tried  with them was convicted and sentenced  for\t the
\noffences  under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
\nThe  conviction\t and  sentence\tof A1  was  upheld  but\t the
\nconviction  of the lady accused A2 under Section 302 IPC was
\nset  aside.  She was, however, convicted and sentenced under
\nSection\t 201  of the IPC.  Feeling aggrieved, the State\t has
\nfiled  appeal No.784 of 1994 for setting aside the  judgment
\nof  the High Court and on proof of the existence of  alleged
\nconspiracy,  to convict and sentence to A2 as well.  Against
\nhis  conviction\t and  sentence under Section 302  and  other
\noffences  under\t the  Indian Penal Code, the  A1  has  filed
\nCriminal Appeal No.785 of 1993 with prayer of acquitting him
\nof  the charges.  Both the appeals have been heard  together
\nand  are  being\t disposed of by this common  judgment.\t The
\nfacts  of  the case are that deceased Soman had his  college
\neducation  in the University College at Trivandrum  (Kerala)
\nwhere  initially  he  stayed with his elder sister  who\t was
\nemployed  in  the office of the Accountant  General.   After
\nabout  one and a half years he shifted to the college hostel
\nbut  continued visiting occasionally the house of his sister
\nPW4.   Krishna\tKumari\tA2 was, at that time,  the  domestic
\nservant\t of his sister.\t The acquaintance between Soman\t and
\nKrishan\t Kumari developed into love affair between the\ttwo.
\nAfter  his  post graduation he got a job in the Canara\tBank
\nand  was posted at Thirurangadi but his love affection\twith
\nKrishan\t Kumari\t A2 continued.\tHe was married somewhere  in
\nthe  year  1981-82  which resulted in the  breaking  of\t his
\nrelations   with  A2.\tThereafter   A2\t developed   illicit
\nrelations  with\t A1  and started residing with\thim  as\t his
\nconcubine.  In 1987 A1 was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police
\nat  Ramankiri  Police  Station.\t Despite his having  a\twife
\nliving\tand three children, A1 started living with A2 as her
\nhusband\t in a rented house at Kalarcode.  His legally wedded
\nwife  and  three  children were, at that time,\tresiding  at
\nAlleppey  in another house.  Even though A1 and A2 had taken
\na  house on rent in Kalarcode, they normally used to stay in
\nthe  official quarters attached to Ramankiri Police Station.
\nOut  of\t their illicit relationship they had got a son.\t  In
\nearly 1987 deceased Soman accidently came across with A2 and
\nis alleged to have revived his old intimacy and love affair.
\nComing\tto know about the intimacy of his concubine, Krishna
\nKumari\tand  acquiring\tknowledge   that  Soman\t was  making
\nattempts  to re-establish his old relationship with  Krishna
\nKumari, A1 made up his mind to put an end to the intimacy by
\ncausing\t his death.  It was alleged by the prosecution\tthat
\nA1 and A2 hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of Soman
\nand  in pursuance of the said conspiracy A2 met Soman at the
\nHaripad bus stand on the morning of 18th July, 1987 and took
\nhim to the house taken on lease at Kalarcode.  On 19th July,
\n1987  A2  allegedly using deceitful means is stated to\thave
\ntaken  Soman  to  the official quarters of A1  and  sometime
\nafter  10.30 p.m.  they caused his death by suffocating him.
\nAt  this stage one Prasannan, who later became the  approver
\nand  Mohanan  accused  No.3 are stated to  have\t joined\t the
\nconspiracy,  earlier hatched by A1 and A2.  The dead body of
\nSoman  was removed by A1 and A2 with the help of  Prasannan,
\nthe driver of the boat.\t They carried the dead body from the
\nPolice\tquarters to the boat and thereafter the approver, as
\nper  the  directions of the A1, drove the boat in the  Pamba
\nRiver  to  some distance.  When the boat reached quite at  a
\ndistance  in the river, A1 cut off the head from the body of
\nthe  deceased  with a knife supplied by the  approver.\t The
\nhead  was  thrown  in the river.  The boat  again  proceeded
\nfurther.  A1 caused many penetrating injuries on the abdomen
\nof  the headless body and pushed it also into the waters  of
\nPamba  River,  apparently  with the object  to\tdestroy\t the
\nevidence.   As after 18th July, 1987 Soman did not return to
\nhis   house,   his  father   started  inquiring\t about\t his
\nwhereabouts.   Soman’s mother, wife, sister and in-laws\t who
\nwere at Thiruvananthapuram were contacted over the telephone
\nto  convey the news of his missing and also to ascertain  as
\nto  whether by any chance, he had reached there.  Finding no
\nclue  of the missing Soman, all his relations reached to his
\nfamily house and intensified his search.  On 20th July, 1987
\nan  FIR in a man-missing case Crime No.254\/87 was registered
\nat Kayamkulam Police Station.  On 22nd July, 1987 PW2 Mathew
\nfound  a  headless  body floating in the  Pamba\t River.\t  He
\ncontacted  the Police at Pulimcunnu Police Station, where on
\nthe  basis  of his statement Crime No.75\/87 was\t registered.
\nPW56 who was investigating Crime No.75\/87 conducted a search
\nof  A1’s  official quarters at Ramankiri on 25th July,\t1987
\nand  prepared  Exhibit P-29, a search list.  He deputed\t two
\npolice\tconstables to guard the quarters.  The investigation
\nof  Crime No.75\/87 and Crime No.254\/87 were clubbed together
\nby  the\t orders\t of the Dy.Superintendent of  Police.\tDIG,
\nCrime\tInvestigation  directed\t  the  Dy.Superintendent  of
\nPolice,\t Crime\tBranch to take up the investigations of\t the
\ncase  who  after  taking over,\tverified  the  investigation
\nconducted  by the former investigating officers and searched
\nthe  houses  of\t PW1,  PW8.   Accused  No.3  surrendered  on
\n1.8.1987  before the investigating officer.  A1 and A2\twere
\nalso arrested on that day.  Various articles were seized and
\nsuper-imposition  test\ton the dead body was conducted.\t  On
\n21st  August,  1987 Prasannan who was arraigned\t as  Accused
\nNo.4  expressed\t his  willingness  to  make  a\tconfessional
\nstatement  which was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate  on
\n27th  August,  1987  after giving  him\tnecessary  statutory
\nwarning.   Thereafter  an application was filed\t before\t the
\nChief\tJudicial  Magistrate,\tAlappuzha  submitting\tthat
\nPrasannan  was willing to give a full and true disclosure of
\nthe  whole circumstances within his knowledge regarding\t the
\ncommission  of\tthe  crime and he may be made  an  approver.
\nAfter  perusing\t his  confessional   statement,\t the   Chief
\nJudicial  Magistrate summoned Prasannan PW1 and recorded his
\nstatement.   He was tendered pardon under Section 306 of the
\nCode  of Criminal Procedure.  The Judicial Magistrate, First
\nClass,\tRamankiri  committed  the accused to  the  Court  of
\nSessions.   The\t order\tof committal was challenged  by\t the
\naccused\t persons  on the ground that PW1, who  accepted\t the
\npardon\thad  not been examined under Section 306(4)  of\t the
\nCode  of Criminal Procedure before commitment of the case to
\nthe  Court of Sessions.\t The High Court vide order passed in
\nCr.M.P.\t 327\/87 quashed the committal order and directed the
\nMagistrate  to\tproceed\t afresh in accordance with  law\t and
\ncomply with the provisions of Section 306(4)&(5) of the Code
\nof  Criminal Procedure.\t The accused persons were granted an
\nopportunity  to\t cross-examine the approver at the  time  of
\nrecording of his statement under Section 306.  The statement
\nof  the\t approver was recorded as per the directions of\t the
\nHigh  Court and all the three accused again committed to the
\ncourt  of Sessions to stand trial for various offences under
\nthe  Indian Penal Code.\t The prosecution examined 63 persons
\nas  witnesses  in  the\tcase  and  the\taccused\t produced  6
\nwitnesses  in  their defence.  As noted earlier,  the  Trial
\nCourt  convicted  A1  and A2 and sentenced them\t to  undergo
\nrigorous  imprisonment for three years under Section 193,  5
\nyears  rigorous\t imprisonment  under Section 201,  6  months
\nunder  Section\t342 and imprisonment for life under  Section
\n302  read  with Section 120B of the IPC.  All the  sentences
\nwere  to  run concurrently.  Accused No.3 was  sentenced  to
\nundergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 201
\nread  with  Section 34 IPC.  The High Court relied upon\t the
\ntestimony  of  the  approver  but found on  facts  that\t the
\nprosecution  has  failed to prove the conspiracy between  A1
\nand  A2\t before\t the murder of Soman and acquitted  her\t for
\noffences  under Section 302 and 120B, IPC.  However, she was
\nfound  to be guilty of the offence punishable under  Section
\n201  IPC and sentenced to the period of imprisonment she had
\nalready\t undergone  by\tthat  time   which  was\t treated  as
\nsufficient  in\tthe  circumstances  of\tthe  case.   Dr.Jose
\nVarghese,  learned  Advocate  appearing for  the  appellant-
\nState  urged that the High Court committed a mistake of\t law
\nin  holding  that the criminal conspiracy between A1 and  A2
\nfor murdering deceased Soman has not been proved.  According
\nto  him there was sufficient evidence in the form of various
\ncircumstances  brought\ton record to prove the existence  of
\nconspiracy.   The  conduct of A2, the factum of her  posting
\nsome  letters  got  written  from the  deceased\t before\t his
\nmurder,\t inducement  by her to the deceased to come  at\t the
\nresidence  of A2 and her active participation in  destroying
\nthe  dead  body\t are stated to be  sufficient  circumstances
\nwhich would lead to irresistible conclusion of the existence
\nof conspiracy.\tCriminal conspiracy is defined under Section
\n120(A)\tof  the Indian Penal Code as under:  “Definition  of@@
\n\t\t       JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\ncriminal conspiracy.  When two or more persons agreed to do,
\nor cause to be done.\n<\/p>\n
    (1) an illegal act, or<\/p>\n
    (2)\t an act which is not illegal by illegal means,\tsuch
\nan agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:\n<\/p>\n
    Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit
\nan offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some
\nact  besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to
\nsuch agreement in pursuance thereof.\n<\/p>\n
    Explanation–It is immaterial whether the illegal act is
\nthe  ultimate  object  of  such\t  agreement,  or  is  merely
\nincidental  to\tthat  object.” Section 120B  prescribes\t the
\npunishment  for\t criminal conspiracy which by itself  is  an
\nindependent  offence,  punishable separately from  the\tmain
\noffence.    The\t offence  of   criminal\t conspiracy  can  be
\nestablished   by  direct  evidence   or\t by   circumstantial
\nevidence.   Section  10 of the Evidence Act  introduces\t the
\ndoctrine of agency and will be attracted only when the court
\nis satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that
\ntwo  or\t more persons have conspired together to  commit  an
\noffence\t or an actionable ground, that is say, there  should
\nbe a prima facie evidence that the person was a party to the
\nconspiracy  before  his\t acts  can   be\t used  against\t the
\nco-conspirators.   This\t Court in Bhagwan Swarup Lal  Bishan
\nLal  vs.   State of Maharashtra<\/a> [AIR 1965 SC 682] held\tthat
\nthe  expression “in reference to their common intention”  in
\nSection\t 10  – is very comprehensive and it appears to\thave
\nbeen designedly used to give it a wider scope than the words
\n“in  furtherance  of” in the English law;  with the  result,
\nanything,  said, done or written by a co- conspirator, after
\nthe  conspiracy\t was  formed, will be evidence\tagainst\t the
\nother  before he entered the field of conspiracy or after he
\nleft  it.   Anything said, done or written is relevant\tfact
\nonly  “as  against  each of the persons believed  to  be  so
\nconspiring  as well for the purpose of proving the existence
\nof  the\t conspiracy as for the purpose of showing  that\t any
\nsuch  person  was a party to it”.  It was further held:\t  In
\nshort,\tthe  section can be analysed as follows:  (1)  There
\nshall  be  a  prima facie evidence  affording  a  reasonable
\nground\tfor a Court to believe that two or more persons\t are
\nmembers\t of  a\tconspiracy;  (2) if the\t said  condition  is
\nfulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them
\nin  reference  to  their common intention will\tbe  evidence
\nagainst\t the  other;  (3) anything said, done or written  by
\nhim  should have been said, done or written by him after the
\nintention  was formed by any one of them;  (4) it would also
\nbe relevant for the said purpose against another who entered
\nthe  conspiracy whether it was said, done or written  before
\nhe  entered the conspiracy or after he left it;\t and (5)  it
\ncan  only  be used against a co-conspirator and not  in\t his
\nfavour.”\n<\/p>\n
    We\tare  aware  of\tthe  fact  that\t direct\t independent
\nevidence  of criminal conspiracy is generally not  available
\nand  its existence is a matter of inference.  The inferences
\nare  normally  deduced from acts of parties in pursuance  of
\npurpose\t in common between the conspirators.  This Court  in
\nV.C.   Shukla v.  State [1980(2) SCC 665] held that to prove
\ncriminal  conspiracy  there  must  be  evidence\t direct\t  or
\ncircumstantial\tto show that there was an agreement  between
\ntwo  or more persons to commit an offence.  There must be  a
\nmeeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the
\nconspirators  regarding\t the  commission of an\toffence\t and
\nwhere the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from
\ncircumstances,\t the  prosecution  has\tto  show  that\t the
\ncircumstances  giving  rise to a conclusive or\tirresistible
\ninference of an agreement between the two or more persons to
\ncommit\tan offence.  As in all other criminal offences,\t the
\nprosecution  has  to discharge its onus of proving the\tcase
\nagainst\t  the\taccused\t beyond\t  reasonable   doubt.\t The
\ncircumstances  in a case, when taken together on their\tface
\nvalue,\tshould indicate the meeting of the minds between the
\nconspirators  for  the\tintended  object  of  committing  an
\nillegal\t act  or  an act which is not  illegal,\t by  illegal
\nmeans.\t A  few bits here and a few bits there on which\t the
\nprosecution  relies  cannot  be\t held  to  be  adequate\t for
\nconnecting  the accused with the commission of the crime  of
\ncriminal  conspiracy.\tIt  has to be shown that  all  means
\nadopted\t and  illegal acts done were in furtherance  of\t the
\nobject\tof conspiracy hatched.\tThe circumstances relied for
\nthe purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in time
\nthan  the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of
\nthe alleged conspiracy.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tKehar  Singh  vs.  State [AIR 1988 SC 1883]  it\t was
\nnoticed\t that Section 120A and Section 120B IPC have brought
\nthe  Law of Conspiracy in India in line with English Law  by
\nmaking\tan  overt act inessential when the conspiracy is  to
\ncommit\t any  punishable  offence.    The   most   important
\ningredient of the offence being the agreement between two or
\nmore  persons to do an illegal act.  In case where  criminal
\nconspiracy  is\talleged, the court must enquire whether\t the
\ntwo  persons are independently pursuing the same end or they
\nhave  come  together  to pursue the  unlawful  object.\t The
\nformer\tdoes  not  render them conspirators but\t the  latter
\ndoes.\tFor the offence of conspiracy some kind of  physical
\nmanifestation  of  agreement is required to be\testablished.
\nThe  express agreement need not to be proved.  The  evidence
\nas  to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act
\nis  not\t sufficient.  A conspiracy is a\t continuing  offence
\nwhich  continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded
\nor   frustrated\t  by  choice  of  necessity.\tDuring\t its
\nsubsistence whenever any one of the conspirators does an act
\nor  series  of acts, he would be held guilty  under  Section
\n120B of the Indian Penal Code.\n<\/p>\n
    After  referring to some judgments of the United  States
\nSupreme Court and of this Court in Yash Pal Mittal v.  State
\nof  Punjab<\/a>[1977\t (4) SCC 540];\tAjay Aggarwal vs.  Union  of
\nIndia [AIR 1993 SCW 1866], the Court in State of Maharashtra
\nv.   Som  Nath\tThapa<\/a>  [AIR 1996  SC  1744]  summarised\t the
\nposition of law and the requirements to establish the charge
\nof conspiracy, as under:\n<\/p>\n
    “The  aforesaid decisions, weighty as they are, lead  us
\nto  conclude  that  to\testablish  a  charge  of  conspiracy
\nknowledge  about  indulgence in either an illegal act  or  a
\nlegal  act  by illegal means is necessary.  In\tsome  cases,
\nintent\tof unlawful use being made of the goods of  services
\nin question may be inferred from the knowledge itself.\tThis
\napart,\tthe  prosecution  has  not   to\t establish  that   a
\nparticular  unlawful use was intended, so long as the  goods
\nor  service in question could not be put to any lawful\tuse.
\nFinally,  when\tthe ultimate offence consists of a chain  of
\nactions,  it  would not be necessary for the prosecution  to
\nestablish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each
\nof   the  conspirators\thad  the   knowledge  of  what\t the
\ncollaborator  would  do so, so long as it is known that\t the
\ncollaborator  would put the goods or service to an  unlawful
\nuse.”\n<\/p>\n
    In\tthe  backdrop of the legal position relating to\t the
\noffence\t of  criminal  conspiracy, it has to be seen  as  to@@
\n\t     JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nwhether\t the  prosecution  proved beyond doubt that  A2\t had@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nagreed\twith A1 to cause the death of deceased Soman in\t the
\nmanner\talleged\t in  the  charge-sheet.\t  The  circumstances
\nrelied\tupon  by the prosecution to prove the  existence  of
\nconspiracy  were  enumerated  by the Trial Court  as  under:\n<\/p>\n
    “(1)  The  accused\t1 and 2 had a revengeful  motive  to
\nmurder.\n<\/p>\n
    (2)\t Soman was last seen in the company of accused 1 and\n<\/p>\n
\t 2.<\/p>\n
    (3)\t The dead body of the deceased was removed from\t the
\nquarters  of  the first accused to the M.L.  Pattam boat  on
\nthe  night  of\t20.7.1987 and the body was  dismembered\t and
\nthrown into the rivers.\n<\/p>\n
    (4)\t The hairs collected from the quarters and the\tboat
\nwere  found to be similar with the scalp hairs collected  at
\nthe   time  of\tpost-mortem   examination,   on\t  scientific
\nexamination.\n<\/p>\n
    (5)\t The  deceased was made to write two inland  letters
\npostdating them so as to make it appear that Soman was alive
\non the date of those letters.\n<\/p>\n
    (6)\t Recovery  of  MO3 on the basis of  the\t information
\nfurnished by the first accused”.\n<\/p>\n
    To\tprove the first circumstance, the prosecution relied
\nupon  the  testimony of PWs 4, 15, 16, and 49.\tPW4  is\t the@@
\n\t   JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nelder  sister  of the deceased, PW15 is a clerk in  the\t New@@
\nJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
\nBank  of  India, PW16 is a clerk in the Pathiyoor Branch  of
\nCanara\tBank and PW49 is the Circle Inspector of  Kayamkulam
\nwho  was  a  classmate of the deceased\tSoman.\t From  their
\nstatements  it\tcould  be  gathered that  Soman\t was  having
\nintimacy with A2 for some time in his student days and their
\nrelationship  broke  down after his marriage.\tSome  months
\nprior  to the incident, he came across A2 and made  attempts
\nto  revive the old intimacy.  Such an evidence would not, in
\nany  way,  prove  that A1 was aware of the  revival  of\t the
\nintimacy  between  erstwhile  lovers.\tNo  motive  for\t the
\ncommission  of\tthe offence of murder could,  therefore,  be
\ninferred  from the existence of such a circumstance which is
\nin no way directly related to be the occasion of death.\t The
\nmere  fact  that Soman had told PW49 that Krishna Kumari  A2
\nhad invited him to her house on 18th July, 1987 cannot be so
\nstretched to hold that such invitation was in furtherance of
\nthe  alleged conspiracy hatched between A1 and A2.  There is
\nno  evidence worth any value to show or suggest that A2\t was
\naverse\tto the revival of intimacy with the deceased or that
\nshe had shared the secret of her love affair and its revival
\nby  the\t deceased, with A1 with whom she was living  as\t his
\nwife,  though  without\tmarriage.    The  Trial\t Court\twas,
\ntherefore, not justified in holding that the prosecution had
\nproved that A1 was aware of the revival of intimacy with the
\ndeceased  and  A2.  Even if he had known about the  intimacy
\nthere  was no cause or occasion for A2 to agree with him  to
\ncommit\tthe  crime  of murder.\tThe termination\t of  earlier
\nrelationship between A2 and the deceased could also not be a
\ncause  for her to share a common intention of committing the
\ncrime  particularly when she was happily living with A1\t and
\nout of illicit relationship they had, a son was born who was
\nliving\tat  the time of the occurrence.\t  The  circumstances
\nthat  Soman was seen in the company of A1 and A2 would\tonly
\nprove  the  death  of  the deceased when  he  was  with\t the
\naforesaid  two\taccused persons but that by itself  was\t not
\nsufficient  to\thold that A1 and A2 had agreed to  kill\t him
\nbefore he came at their residence on 19th July, 1987.  There
\nwas  commotion\tin the quarters of A1 on the night  of\t19th
\nJuly,  1987  is a fact established along with the fact\tthat
\nthere  were screaming of some woman at that very time.\t The
\nscreaming  of the woman not only suggest the presence of  A2
\nbut her reluctance to share the common intention to kill the
\ndeceased  or  on seeing him being killed, to  be  horrified.
\nSimilarly,  statements\tof PWs12, 13 and 17 can be taken  to
\nhave  proved the presence of Soman at the Haripad bus  stand
\non  18th  morning, but not sufficient to hold that A2 was  a
\nconspirator with A1.  The factum of the deceased having been
\nmade  to  write two post-dated inland letters has  not\tbeen
\nproved on facts.  The Trial Court itself noticed, “no doubt,
\nthere  is no material on record to show that Exhibit D-2 was
\na  letter  written under compulsion”.  Exhibit D-2 and\tD-11
\nwere  not  proved  in the Trial Court.\tExhibit D-2  is\t not
\nwritten on an inland letter.  Such a weak circumstance, much
\nless  proved on facts, could not be held to be sufficient to
\ninfer  the agreement between A1 and A2 to commit the  murder
\nof deceased Soman.  The alleged circumstances relied to show
\nthe  existence\tof conspiracy are such circumstances,  which
\neven  when  believed, cannot be held to have proved,  beyond
\nreasonable doubt, involvement of A2 in the commission of the
\ncrime  of  murder.   The  High Court, while  giving  A2\t the
\nbenefit of doubt rightly held as under:\n<\/p>\n
    “Now  we will proceed to consider whether there was\t any
\nconspiracy  between  accused  1 and 2 for causing  death  of
\nSoman.\t The mere fact that Soman was persuaded to go to the
\nquarters  is not sufficient to show that 2nd accused had any
\nintention   to\tfinish\ther   paramour\toff.   PW49  (Circle
\nInspector of Police) was a friend of Soman.  He deposed that
\nSoman had told him once that 1st accused is in possession of
\nthe  letters and photos sent by Soman and that Krishnakumari
\nwould  get  them from 1st accused and the krishnakumari\t had
\ninvited Soman to visit her on 18.7.1987.  This night, at the
\nmost,  show that Krishnakumari would have really intended to
\nrevive\ther  old connection with Soman.\t Learned  Additional
\nPublic Prosecutor contended that as 2nd accused had ventured
\nsubsequent  to\tthe  death  of Soman, to  post\tthe  letters
\nwritten\t by  Soman,  the  conduct is reflective\t of  a\tplot
\nhatched\t by her and 1st accused together.  The said  conduct
\nneed  not  necessarily be reflective of that.  In  the\tsame
\nmanner\tas 1st accused drafted PW1 and 3rd accused he  would
\nhave  secured the services of 2nd accused subsequent to\t the
\nmurder.\n<\/p>\n
    One\t circumstance in the above context is relevant as it
\nhas  a\ttendency to absolve 2nd accused from the  charge  of
\ncriminal  conspiracy.\tWhen some of the neighbours heard  a
\ncommotion  on  the  night of 19.7.1987, they rushed  to\t the
\npolice\tquarters.  PW23 said that it was a female sound\t and
\nthe  word  overheard  indicated that the female\t was  crying
\naloud.\t It is indicative of 2nd accused witnessing some act
\nwhich 1st accused would have perpetrated on the deceased and
\non  seeing  it she would have cried aloud.  Then  again\t PW1
\nsaid  that while he was taking 2nd accused to Changanacherry
\nher countenance had a grieving look.\n<\/p>\n
    We\t are   inclined\t to   think,  from   the   aforesaid
\ncircumstances,\tthat  she was only a victim of\tintimidation
\nand  coercion in doing what 1st accused would have commanded
\nher  to do.  We are, therefore, giving her benefit of  doubt
\nin regard to the charge of criminal conspiracy.”\n<\/p>\n
    After  perusing the whole record, scanning the  evidence
\nof  the prosecution witnesses and hearing lengthy  arguments
\nfrom  both  sides, we are satisfied that the High Court\t was
\nright  in holding that charge of criminal conspiracy against
\nA2  had\t not been proved beyond doubt.\tShe was,  therefore,
\nrightly\t acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with
\nSection\t 120B of the IPC.  However, as she was found to have
\nactively  participated in causing disappearance of the\tdead
\nbody  of  the deceased knowing and having reason to  believe
\nthat  his murder has been committed by A1, was convicted and
\nsentenced under Section 201 of the IPC.\n<\/p>\n
    Shri C.N.  Sree Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for A1
\nin  Criminal Appeal No.785 of 1994 submitted that conviction
\nand  sentence of appellant being essentially based upon\t the
\ntestimony  of PW1 was not legal and valid.  According to him
\nPW1  was  not a reliable witness and that there\t were  major
\ndiscrepancies  in his deposition.  We are not impressed with
\nthis  argument.\t Prasannan PW1 has been proved to have\tbeen
\nvalidly\t granted the pardon under Section 306 of the Code of
\nCriminal   Procedure  and   the\t accused-appellant  afforded
\nsufficient  opportunity\t of cross-examining him both in\t the
\ncommittal as well as in the Sessions Case.  He has withstood
\nthe  cross-examination and proved the factum of the death of
\nthe  deceased  by A1 and the destruction of his body by\t all
\nthe  accused-persons.  An accomplice is a competent  witness
\nand  a\tconviction can be based upon his testimony if it  is
\notherwise  corroborated\t in material particulars.  Both\t the
\nTrial  Court  as well as the High Court have found on  facts
\nthat  the death of Soman was a case of homicide for which A1
\nwas  responsible.   PW1\t was the driver of a boat  in  which
\npersonnel  of  Ramankiri  Police  used\tto  undertake  their
\njourney.  On the date of occurrence a young man accompanying
\nA2  came to the room of A1.  Despite there being defects  in
\nthe boat, the witness was asked by A1 to arrive at 12o Clock
\nin  the night on the west side of NSS School and  threatened
\nthat if he did not come A1 will finish him.  He was inquired
\nas  to\twhether\t there was a knife in the boat to  which  he
\nreplied\t in the affirmative.  A1 told the witness to sharpen
\nthe knife.  At about 12o Clock in the night he took the boat
\nto  the\t place\tearlier notified by A1.\t  Accused  No.3\t was
\naccompanying  him.   Accused No.3 slept in the boat and\t the
\nwitness\t went to inform A1 who was sitting on the side\twall
\nof  his\t quarter,  along with A2.  The young  man  whom\t the
\nwitness had seen a day earlier was lying dead there with one
\narmless baniyan and underwear.\tA1 told the witness to carry
\ndead body.  The witness, A1 and A2 together carried the dead
\nbody  to the half wall.\t The witness was told by A1 to go to
\nthe boat and bring Mohanan Accused No.3.  The witness and A1
\nkept  the dead body inside the fence.  The witness,  Accused
\nNo.3  along  with A1 kept the dead body on the platform\t and
\nkept  it upside.  The dead body was kept in the boat and the
\nwitness\t asked\tto start it.  After reaching  one  kilometer
\ndistance A1 told the PW1 to stop the boat.  A1 got the knife
\nfrom  PW1.   He held the head by hairs of the  deceased\t and
\nstarted\t cutting  his  throat  neck  by\t his  knife.   After
\nchopping  off the head A1 threw it in the river.  Thereafter
\nhe  started cutting the stomach of the dead body and  pushed
\naway  it into the river.  The knife was also thrown into the
\nriver.\t In this process A1 was also injured and he got\t his
\nleg  injury dressed next day in Lurd Hospital.\tAfter  being
\ntold  by  some\tpeople that a headless human body  was\tseen
\nfloating  in  the river, PW1 went to the quarters of  A1  to
\nenquire\t about it.  He was told not to worry and not to tell
\nanybody\t whatever had happened.\t The whole of the deposition
\nof  PW1 is the vivid explanation of the manner in which\t the
\noffence\t was  committed by A1 in the presence of A2 and\t A3.
\nThere  is  no  reason to disbelieve the\t statement  of\tPW1.
\nBesides\t  his\tocular\ttestimony    there   is\t  sufficient
\ncorrorborative\t evidence  which  connects   A1\t  with\t the
\ncommission  of\tthe crime of murder of the  deceased  Soman.
\nLearned\t counsel  appearing  for A1 could not refer  to\t any
\nalleged\t weak  link to the circumstances relied upon by\t the
\ncourts below to show that the testimony of PW1, an approver,
\nhad  not been corroborated.  The High Court was,  therefore,
\nright in observing:\n<\/p>\n
    “While  considering PW1’s evidence, one broad aspect has
\nto  be borne in mind.  In a waterlogged area like  Ramankari
\ntransportation\tis  possible  only by boat or canoe.   If  a
\ncrime  was  committed  by a Sub Inspector, the\tmost  likely
\nmeans  of  conveyance which he might hackney is a boat.\t  If
\nthere was any boat attached to the Police Station available,
\nits  crew would be the likeliest persons on whom the culprit
\nmay  resort for help for disposing of the dead body.   There
\nis  no\tdispute that “M.L.  Pattom” boat was so attached  to
\nRamankari  Police  Station.  PW.38 is the owner of the\tboat
\nand  he\t said PW1 was the driver of the boat.  So, there  is
\nvery  strong  possibility  that PW1’s boat would  have\tbeen
\nutilised  for  disposing of the body if 1st accused was\t the
\nculprit.”\n<\/p>\n
    We\tare not satisfied with the submission of the learned
\ncounsel\t for the appellant that the conviction of his client
\nis  solely  based upon the testimony of witness PW1 and\t his
\ndeposition is not corroborated in material particulars.\t The
\ncircumstantial\tevidence produced in the case is  sufficient
\nto connect the accused with the commission of the crime.  It
\ndoes  not  lead to any other inference than the one  of\t his
\ninvolvement  in\t the  crime.  We do not feel any  reason  to
\ndisagree with the findings of the Trial Court as well as the
\nHigh  Court in so far as involvement of A1 in the commission
\nof crime of murder is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
    There  are\tno  merits  in both the\t appeals  which\t are
\naccordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000 Author: Sethi Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, R.P. Sethi. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 784 of 1994 Appeal (crl.) 785 of 1994 PETITIONER: STATE OF KERALA Vs. RESPONDENT: P. SUGATHAN & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/09\/2000 BENCH: D.P. Mohapatra & R.P. Sethi. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150927","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-19T12:16:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-19T12:16:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000\"},\"wordCount\":5097,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000\",\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-19T12:16:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-19T12:16:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000","datePublished":"2000-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-19T12:16:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000"},"wordCount":5097,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000","name":"State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-19T12:16:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-kerala-vs-p-sugathan-anr-on-26-september-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Kerala vs P. Sugathan & Anr on 26 September, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150927","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150927"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150927\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}