{"id":203018,"date":"2010-03-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-17T08:50:20","modified_gmt":"2017-10-17T03:20:20","slug":"raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Raman vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Raman vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCRL.A.No. 1092 of 2006()\n\n\n1. RAMAN, AGED 77, S\/O.VELAYUDHAN, NANGOOR\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. PUSHPAN, AGED 42, S\/O.RAMAN,\n3. VASU @ VASUDEVAN, AGED 35, S\/O.RAMAN,\n4. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 30 YEARS,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. STATE OF KERALA,  THROUGH THE STATION\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.RAJEEV\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT\nThe Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI\n\n Dated :08\/03\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ\n                      ------------------------------------\n                Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006\n                      -------------------------------------\n               Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
BASANT, J.\n<\/p>\n
      i)   Is there satisfactory evidence to prove that the<\/p>\n
deceased suffered injuries at the hands of the 1st accused?<\/p>\n
      ii)  Is there satisfactory evidence to prove that the 1st<\/p>\n
accused had inflicted the stab injury on the deceased in<\/p>\n
prosecution of a conspiracy between accused 1 to 5?<\/p>\n
      iii) Is the 1st accused or accused 2 to 5 entitled to the<\/p>\n
benefit of doubt on the above questions?\n<\/p>\n
      iv)  Is the plea of the learned counsel for the 1st accused<\/p>\n
that the 1st accused is, at any rate, entitled to protection of the<\/p>\n
first exception under Section 300 I.P.C acceptable?<\/p>\n
      2.   These questions arise for consideration in these<\/p>\n
appeals preferred by the 1st accused (Crl.A.No.1738\/2006) and<\/p>\n
accused 2 to 5 (Crl.A.No.1092\/2006). The appellants\/accused 1<\/p>\n
to 5 have been found guilty, convicted and sentenced for<\/p>\n
offences punishable under Section 120 B and 302 I.P.C. The 1st<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  2<\/p>\n
accused is convicted principally for the offence under Section<\/p>\n
302 I.P.C; whereas accused 2 to 5 are found guilty, convicted<\/p>\n
and sentenced under Section 120 B r\/w 302 I.P.C.<\/p>\n
      3.    They face a sentence of imprisonment for life. There<\/p>\n
is a further direction that they must pay fine of Rs.50,000\/- each.<\/p>\n
Default sentence is also prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
      4.    The prosecution alleged that accused 1 to 5, who are<\/p>\n
the brother in law (A1), father (A2) and brothers (A3 to A5) of<\/p>\n
the deceased, had animosity against the deceased.             They<\/p>\n
allegedly entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder the<\/p>\n
deceased. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, the 1st accused<\/p>\n
allegedly went to the house of the deceased. He allegedly took<\/p>\n
objection against the conduct of the deceased in filing police<\/p>\n
complaints against accused 2 to 5. There was an exchange of<\/p>\n
words.    The 1st accused got out from the house and walked<\/p>\n
towards the gate in front. The deceased followed his brother in<\/p>\n
law to light the torch and show him the way. Near the gate in<\/p>\n
the courtyard of the house of the deceased, the 1st accused<\/p>\n
allegedly stabbed the deceased with M.O1. The deceased was<\/p>\n
shifted to the hospital immediately.      He succumbed to the<\/p>\n
injuries on the same night. The prosecution alleged that the 1st<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  3<\/p>\n
accused had committed the offence in furtherance of the<\/p>\n
conspiracy which he had entered into with accused 2 to 5.<\/p>\n
      5.    Investigation commenced with Ext.P1 F.I statement<\/p>\n
lodged by PW1, the brother in law (wife’s brother) of the<\/p>\n
deceased. On the basis of Ext.P1 F.I statement of PW1, Ext.P1(a)<\/p>\n
F.I.R was registered by PW8. Investigation was completed and<\/p>\n
final report was filed by PW22. Allegations were raised against<\/p>\n
the 5 accused persons under Sections 447, 120 B and 302 I.P.C.<\/p>\n
      6.    The case was duly committed to the Court of Session.<\/p>\n
The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offences.<\/p>\n
Charges were framed against the appellants\/accused 1 to 5.<\/p>\n
They denied the charges levelled against them. Thereupon the<\/p>\n
prosecution was directed to adduce evidence in support of its<\/p>\n
case.\n<\/p>\n
      7.    The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 25 and proved<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 to P23. M.Os 1 to 3 were also marked on the side of the<\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
      8.    In the course of cross examination and in the 313<\/p>\n
examination, the accused persons took up a defence of total<\/p>\n
denial.    According to the 1st accused, he was not present<\/p>\n
anywhere near the scene of the crime. He came to know of the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  4<\/p>\n
death of the deceased – his brother in law, only on the next<\/p>\n
morning when police personnel came to his house and took him<\/p>\n
into custody. Accused 2 to 5 took up the stand that there was no<\/p>\n
conspiracy whatsoever between them and accused 1.<\/p>\n
      9.    The court below on an anxious consideration of all the<\/p>\n
relevant inputs sailed to the conclusion that the overt act of the<\/p>\n
1st accused against the deceased has been satisfactorily<\/p>\n
established. Relying on various other circumstances, the court<\/p>\n
below came to the conclusion that the 1st accused had committed<\/p>\n
the offence only in prosecution of the criminal conspiracy<\/p>\n
between accused 1 to 5. Accordingly the court below proceeded<\/p>\n
to pass the impugned judgment. The charge under Section 447<\/p>\n
I.P.C was held to be not proved.\n<\/p>\n
      10. Before us, the learned counsel for the 1st accused –<\/p>\n
Sri.K.A.Srijith, the learned counsel for accused 2 to 5 –<\/p>\n
Sri.N.K.Unnikrishnan and the learned Public Prosecutor –<\/p>\n
Sri.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, have advanced their arguments.<\/p>\n
      11. An appellate judgment is, and must be read as, a<\/p>\n
continuation of the judgment of the trial court. The trial court in<\/p>\n
its judgment has narrated the oral and documentary evidence<\/p>\n
adduced on the side of the prosecution as also the documents<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006   5<\/p>\n
relied on by the defence. The defence did not adduce any oral<\/p>\n
evidence. Reliance was placed on Exts.D1 to D14. We are not<\/p>\n
hence in this judgment proceeding to re-narrate all the pieces of<\/p>\n
oral and documentary evidence as also the other materials which<\/p>\n
are available in this case. Suffice it to say that we have been<\/p>\n
taken exhaustively through all such oral and documentary<\/p>\n
evidences and other materials relied on by the rival contestants.<\/p>\n
Wherever necessary, in the course of our discussions, we shall<\/p>\n
specifically advert to the relevant pieces of evidence.<\/p>\n
      12. The learned counsel for the appellants assail the<\/p>\n
impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence on the<\/p>\n
following grounds:\n<\/p>\n
      i)    The court below grossly erred in coming to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that the deceased had suffered injuries at the hands<\/p>\n
of the 1st accused;\n<\/p>\n
      ii)   At any rate, the court below ought to have conceded<\/p>\n
the benefit of doubt to the 1st accused;\n<\/p>\n
      iii)  The conviction of the 1st accused under Section 302<\/p>\n
I.P.C is not in any view of the matter justified;<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  6<\/p>\n
      iv)   The court below must have held that there is no<\/p>\n
semblance of evidence to drive home the charge of conspiracy<\/p>\n
against the appellants\/accused 2 to 5 in Crl.A.No.1092 of 2006.<\/p>\n
      13. Contentions (i) to (iii) are urged by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the appellant\/1st accused; whereas contention (iv) is<\/p>\n
advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants\/accused 2 to<\/p>\n
5. We shall initially consider the contentions advanced by the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant\/1st accused.<\/p>\n
      14. The prosecution placed heavy reliance on the oral<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs 2 and 3. They are the occurrence witnesses.<\/p>\n
They are the wife and minor son of the deceased. They along<\/p>\n
with the deceased were occupying the house. The 2nd accused,<\/p>\n
as stated earlier, is the father of the deceased. Accused 3 to 5<\/p>\n
are his brothers. 1st accused is the husband of the youngest<\/p>\n
sister of the deceased. According to the prosecution, there was<\/p>\n
motive    for the commission of the offence.     The prosecution<\/p>\n
relied on the evidence of PW17 and other witnesses to prove its<\/p>\n
case of motive against the deceased. The oral evidence of PWs 2<\/p>\n
and 3 was sought to be supported by the version given in Ext.P1<\/p>\n
by PW1, the brother of PW2 after collecting the relevant<\/p>\n
information from PW2. The prosecution further relied on the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  7<\/p>\n
oral evidence of neighbours, who had come to the scene and who<\/p>\n
had played their part in taking the deceased to the hospital,<\/p>\n
about the dying declaration made by the deceased that he had<\/p>\n
suffered injuries at the hands of the 1st accused.<\/p>\n
      15. The crucial question is whether the oral evidence of<\/p>\n
PWs 2 and 3 can be believed. PW2 is the wife of the deceased<\/p>\n
and PW3, the son of the deceased. The incident had taken place<\/p>\n
at about 8.45 p.m. In fact, we find no serious dispute on the<\/p>\n
question that the deceased had suffered injuries at about 8.45<\/p>\n
p.m on 03.07.2001 in the courtyard in front of the house of the<\/p>\n
deceased. PWs 2 and 3, the wife and son of the deceased, claim<\/p>\n
to be the eye witnesses. They are the most natural and probable<\/p>\n
witnesses who could have been present at the scene of the<\/p>\n
crime.    They have narrated in detail the sequence of events<\/p>\n
which culminated with the planting of the stab injury on the<\/p>\n
abdomen of the deceased by the 1st accused with M.O1.<\/p>\n
Inherently and on broad probabilities we find absolutely no<\/p>\n
reason to approach the testimony of PWs 2 and 3, eye witnesses<\/p>\n
with any amount of doubt, distrust or suspicion.       The oral<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs 2 and 3 show, and the totality of circumstances<\/p>\n
convincingly point to the acceptability of that version, that<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  8<\/p>\n
primarily the disagreement was between the deceased son and<\/p>\n
the 2nd accused father. The 1st accused and accused 3 to 5 were<\/p>\n
even allegedly not having any motive directly against the<\/p>\n
deceased. It was the 2nd accused who had grievance about the<\/p>\n
deceased. The dispute was essentially and basically between the<\/p>\n
2nd accused and the deceased. What we intend to note is that if,<\/p>\n
as contended by, the appellant\/the 1st accused, he were not there<\/p>\n
at all and the deceased had suffered at the hands of some others,<\/p>\n
the probability of PWs 2 and 3 raising false allegations, not<\/p>\n
against the 2nd accused, but against the 1st accused, is not found<\/p>\n
to be probable or reasonable at all. In fact, we find no reason<\/p>\n
whatsoever to reject the oral evidence of PWs 2 and 3.          Of<\/p>\n
course, there was strain in the relationship between the<\/p>\n
deceased on the one hand and accused 2 (and consequently<\/p>\n
accused Nos.1 and 3 to 5) on the other.        This strain in the<\/p>\n
relationship between the 1st accused and PWs 2 and 3 does not,<\/p>\n
at any rate, persuade us to approach the evidence of PWs 2 and<\/p>\n
3 with any amount of distrust.\n<\/p>\n
      16. The incident had taken place at about 8.45 p.m. On<\/p>\n
that very same night at 11.30 p.m, Ext.P1 F.I statement had been<\/p>\n
lodged by PW1 before PW8 and Ext.P1(a) F.I.R was registered.<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  9<\/p>\n
The contents of Ext.P1 F.I statement given by PW1 (after<\/p>\n
collecting information from PW2) convincingly afford assurance<\/p>\n
to the court for the oral evidence of PWs 2 and 3. The nature of<\/p>\n
the injury suffered by the deceased described in Ext.P6 wound<\/p>\n
certificate by PW18 and later in Ext.P12 postmortem certificate<\/p>\n
by PW23 also affords convincing assurance for the oral evidence<\/p>\n
of PWs 2 and 3 about the manner in which the deceased had<\/p>\n
suffered the injuries. Nay it will be apposite straight away to<\/p>\n
note that even in Ext.P6 wound certificate, we find the version<\/p>\n
narrated to PW18 recorded, which version was given by one of<\/p>\n
the persons who accompanied the deceased to the hospital at<\/p>\n
9.15 p.m, that the deceased has suffered the injuries at the<\/p>\n
hands of Prakashan, his brother in law , ie. the 1st accused. This<\/p>\n
earliest version given to the doctor recorded in Ext.P6 within a<\/p>\n
period of 30 minutes from the time of occurrence affords the<\/p>\n
final assurance to the court for the oral evidence of PWs 2 and 3.<\/p>\n
      17. We have also the oral evidence of PWs 5, 7 , 10 and 11<\/p>\n
that the deceased, who was absolutely conscious while he was<\/p>\n
shifted to the jeep from the scene of the crime had lost<\/p>\n
consciousness at some point enroute to the hospital, had stated<\/p>\n
to them that he had suffered the injuries at the hands of the 1st<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006 10<\/p>\n
accused.    This dying declaration made by the deceased also<\/p>\n
supports the oral evidence of PWs 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
      18. The evidence of PW6 further indicates that the 1st<\/p>\n
accused was available near the scene of the crime at about the<\/p>\n
time of occurrence. This piece of evidence also supports the oral<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs 2 and 3.\n<\/p>\n
      19. We do also have the evidence of recovery of M.Os1 to<\/p>\n
3 under Exts.P4 and P5 mahazars after arrest of the 1st accused<\/p>\n
on the basis of the confession statements given by him to PW25.<\/p>\n
That evidence tendered by PW25 and the recovery of blood<\/p>\n
stained M.Os 1 to 3 on the basis of such confession statement<\/p>\n
does also go a long way to afford assurance for the version of<\/p>\n
PWs 2 and 3 about the complicity of the 1st accused. The medical<\/p>\n
evidence shows that the fatal injury could have been inflicted<\/p>\n
with a weapon like M.O1. We find no reason to doubt or discard<\/p>\n
this evidence of recovery. To sum up, we entertain not a scintilla<\/p>\n
of doubt about the acceptability of the oral evidence of PWs 2<\/p>\n
and 3 about the manner in which the deceased suffered the fatal<\/p>\n
injury found on his person.\n<\/p>\n
      20. The learned counsel for the appellant\/1st accused has<\/p>\n
advanced various contentions. He submits that sufficient light<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006 11<\/p>\n
may not have been available at the scene. The scene mahazar as<\/p>\n
well as the evidence of witnesses clearly show the distance<\/p>\n
between the house, where a kerosene lamp was placed, and the<\/p>\n
scene of the crime to indicate convincingly that light from that<\/p>\n
source must have been available at the scene of the crime.<\/p>\n
There is also the evidence that the deceased was carrying a<\/p>\n
torch light when he accompanied his brother in law\/1st accused<\/p>\n
up to the scene where he suffered the injuries. Light from that<\/p>\n
source was available for PWs 2 and 3 to see the incident clearly.<\/p>\n
      21. The learned counsel for the 1st accused contends that<\/p>\n
at any rate, the entire version has not been spoken before the<\/p>\n
court by PWs 2 and 3 honestly.      He submits that something<\/p>\n
untoward must have taken place at the scene where the<\/p>\n
deceased must have suffered the injuries. Going by the version<\/p>\n
of PWs 2 and 3 a sudden attack at the scene of the crime by the<\/p>\n
1st accused against the deceased appears to be highly<\/p>\n
improbable, argues the counsel.       The argument that it is<\/p>\n
extremely improbable that the 1st accused who did not indulge in<\/p>\n
any overt act till he reached the spot of occurrence, suddenly<\/p>\n
and without any provocation attacked the deceased does not<\/p>\n
appeal to us at all. We find no merit in this contention. We are<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  12<\/p>\n
unable to pin point and state whether the 1st accused may have<\/p>\n
come to the scene of the crime with prior deliberation and was<\/p>\n
waiting for an opportune moment to inflict the injury on the<\/p>\n
deceased. At any rate, the available indications do not at all<\/p>\n
suggest any overt act or provocation on the part of the deceased<\/p>\n
to justify the conduct of the 1st accused either for claiming<\/p>\n
absolution from liability or mitigation.\n<\/p>\n
      22. We thus come to the safe conclusion that the deceased<\/p>\n
had suffered the injuries at the hands of the appellant\/1st accused<\/p>\n
with M.O1 at the scene of the crime identified in Ext.P3 scene<\/p>\n
mahazar. That injury, the evidence of PWs 18 and 23 show, was<\/p>\n
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. There<\/p>\n
cannot be any doubt that it was an intentional infliction of injury.<\/p>\n
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the intention was not<\/p>\n
to inflict the injury that was actually suffered. The offence is<\/p>\n
hence culpable homicide defined under Section 299 I.P.C and<\/p>\n
the same gets exalted to the offence of murder defined under<\/p>\n
Section 300 I.P.C by the play of the third clause of Section 300<\/p>\n
I.P.C. Though a contention is raised that the offence can slide<\/p>\n
back again to the offence defined under Section 299 I.P.C by the<\/p>\n
play of the first exception to Section 300 I.P.C, we find absolutely<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006 13<\/p>\n
no material which can help the 1st accused to bring the case back<\/p>\n
to Section 299 I.P.C for seeking protection of the first exception<\/p>\n
to Section 300 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      23. We do, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion<\/p>\n
that the verdict of guilty and conviction of the appellant\/1st<\/p>\n
accused under Section 302 I.P.C is absolutely justified.      The<\/p>\n
lesser alternative sentence permissible under law – a sentence of<\/p>\n
imprisonment for life alone, has been imposed for that offence.<\/p>\n
The sentence also, we are satisfied, does not warrant<\/p>\n
interference.\n<\/p>\n
      24. Having so confirmed the complicity of the 1st accused<\/p>\n
for the principal offence of murder under Section 302 I.P.C<\/p>\n
committed by him directly, we are now proceeding to consider<\/p>\n
the challenge against the verdict of guilty, conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence imposed on appellants\/accused under Section 120 B<\/p>\n
r\/w 302 I.P.C.     We have heard the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail<\/p>\n
on this aspect.\n<\/p>\n
      25. At the very outset, we must note that direct evidence<\/p>\n
about conspiracy cannot be expected by any prudent mind<\/p>\n
ordinarily. A criminal conspiracy by its very nature is hatched in<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006 14<\/p>\n
secrecy and absolute confidentiality.    If the evidence of an<\/p>\n
accomplice or approver is not secured, the prosecution will not<\/p>\n
normally be able to place evidence before the court of such<\/p>\n
conspiracy between the criminals. While it is true that such<\/p>\n
direct evidence of conspiracy cannot be expected ordinarily, it is<\/p>\n
equally trite that the court must be really careful and cautious<\/p>\n
before swallowing the allegations of conspiracy against the<\/p>\n
indictees. Satisfactory evidence of existence of conspiracy must<\/p>\n
certainly be placed before court to persuade a court to come to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that the offence of criminal conspiracy has been<\/p>\n
committed.\n<\/p>\n
      26. We have been taken through the entire evidence. We<\/p>\n
must say that we are totally dissatisfied about the evidence of<\/p>\n
the alleged conspiracy.      We therefore requested the learned<\/p>\n
Public Prosecutor to explain to us the specific circumstances on<\/p>\n
which the prosecution wants to rely, to drive home its contention<\/p>\n
that the 1st accused had committed the overt act against the<\/p>\n
deceased or must have committed the overt act against the<\/p>\n
deceased not on his own but because of a conspiracy hatched by<\/p>\n
accused 1 to 5.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  15<\/p>\n
      27. We cannot also afford to ignore the fact that the<\/p>\n
dispute after all was between the deceased and the 2nd accused,<\/p>\n
his father. His other brothers accused 3, 4 and 5 and his brother<\/p>\n
in law, the first accused, were also taking sides with the father in<\/p>\n
the dispute between the 2nd accused and the deceased.             A<\/p>\n
convenient and ready inference of conspiracy between such<\/p>\n
close relatives cannot, according to us, be readily drawn in the<\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of this case. After all, a father and 3<\/p>\n
brothers are alleged to have conspired with a brother in law to<\/p>\n
commit     the    murder     of the   deceased,   who     is  their<\/p>\n
son\/brother\/brother in law.     We are in agreement with the<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellants\/accused 2 to 5 that evidence<\/p>\n
will have to be carefully and cautiously evaluated before sailing<\/p>\n
to a conclusion that the 1st accused must have acted in<\/p>\n
furtherance of a conspiracy hatched by accused 1 to 5 to do away<\/p>\n
with the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
      28. What are the circumstances?         The learned Public<\/p>\n
Prosecutor relies on the following circumstances to drive home<\/p>\n
the case of criminal conspiracy advanced by the prosecution.<\/p>\n
      i)    Motive – That there was strain in the relationship<\/p>\n
between the deceased on the one hand and the 2nd accused, his<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  16<\/p>\n
father, on the other. Accused 1 and 3 to 5 were obviously taking<\/p>\n
sides with the father, the 2nd accused.\n<\/p>\n
      ii)   The 1st accused did not have any such compelling<\/p>\n
motive against the deceased to perpetrate the overt act on his<\/p>\n
own against the deceased.       The 1st accused must have been<\/p>\n
instigated by some others and those others could not have been<\/p>\n
anyone other than accused 2 to 5.\n<\/p>\n
      iii)  Accused 2 and 3 had told witnesses like PWs 2, 5 and<\/p>\n
7 that arrangements have been made for final resolution of all<\/p>\n
conflicts and that all such conflicts will be over within a short<\/p>\n
period of time.\n<\/p>\n
      iv)   PWs 5 and 10 were told by the 2nd accused that he had<\/p>\n
given his youngest daughter in marriage to the 1st accused to<\/p>\n
meet the challenge of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
      v)    PW6, a neighbour, had earlier on that night at about 8<\/p>\n
to 8.30 p.m seen the 1st accused moving to the house of the 2nd<\/p>\n
accused.\n<\/p>\n
      vi)   Even though there was a commotion after the<\/p>\n
deceased suffered injuries and many local inhabitants had come<\/p>\n
to the scene, no one from the houses of accused 2 to 5 which are<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  17<\/p>\n
situated close to the scene of the crime had come to see the<\/p>\n
deceased.\n<\/p>\n
      vii) Accused 2 to 5 had not gone to the hospital nor had<\/p>\n
they attended the funeral of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
      29. Thus according to the prosecution this is a case where<\/p>\n
the charge of conspiracy is attempted to be established by<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence.      No direct evidence of conspiracy is<\/p>\n
available.   The learned counsel for the appellants wants to<\/p>\n
remind this Court about the axiomatic principles relating to<\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence in a case resting on circumstantial<\/p>\n
evidence. It is not necessary for us to advert to precedents on<\/p>\n
this point. The law is well established and trite that in a case of<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence, the burden rests heavily on the<\/p>\n
prosecution to establish all circumstances satisfactorily by<\/p>\n
cogent evidence. Such circumstances must be strong links and<\/p>\n
together they must constitute a strong chain. Such strong chain<\/p>\n
of circumstances must unerringly point to the guilt of the<\/p>\n
accused and must rule out satisfactorily any hypothesis of<\/p>\n
innocence of the accused. This burden on the prosecution must<\/p>\n
be discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily before a finding<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006 18<\/p>\n
adverse to an indictee can be entered on the basis of<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence.\n<\/p>\n
      30. We now proceed to consider the circumstances. The<\/p>\n
first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the motive. It<\/p>\n
is true that we have evidence to show that accused No.2 had<\/p>\n
disputes with the deceased. This dispute related to cutting down<\/p>\n
of trees standing in a property which the 2nd accused had given<\/p>\n
to the deceased. It is also indicated that the deceased had a<\/p>\n
grievance that his youngest child had suffered disablement on<\/p>\n
account of some overt act committed by the 2nd accused. It is<\/p>\n
further alleged that the deceased had leased out land to PW17 to<\/p>\n
carry out bitter guard cultivation in that property. Earlier it was<\/p>\n
PW17 who had cut down the trees as authorised by the<\/p>\n
deceased. The prosecution has a further case, though that case<\/p>\n
is not substantiated by any documentary evidence summoned<\/p>\n
from the police station that on the complaint of PW17, accused 2<\/p>\n
to 5 were compelled to report before the police station on every<\/p>\n
day.    All these together can only establish a strain in the<\/p>\n
relationship between the deceased and the 2nd accused and<\/p>\n
consequently between the deceased and accused 1 and 3 to 5.<\/p>\n
But at any rate, we are of the opinion that such strain in the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006 19<\/p>\n
relation between the deceased on the one hand and accused 1 to<\/p>\n
5 on the other cannot by any stretch of imagination be held to be<\/p>\n
a sufficient and convincing proof to conclude that there was<\/p>\n
criminal conspiracy between such close relatives to do away with<\/p>\n
the deceased. Motive is established. But we must say that such<\/p>\n
motive as to justify a ready inference of criminal conspiracy<\/p>\n
between such close relatives to murder such a close relative is<\/p>\n
lacking.\n<\/p>\n
      31. The prosecution relied on the circumstance that the<\/p>\n
1st accused did not have any motive against the deceased. On a<\/p>\n
plain reading of Ext.P1, this assertion cannot be readily<\/p>\n
accepted. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, a<\/p>\n
specific deviation from and transformation of the prosecution has<\/p>\n
taken place after Ext.P1 to make it appear that the 1st accused<\/p>\n
had no motive against the deceased. This is contrary to the<\/p>\n
specific assertion in Ext.P1.    The prosecution now wants to<\/p>\n
contend that the 1st accused had no motive and that the overt act<\/p>\n
of the 1st accused must have been committed by him only at the<\/p>\n
instigation of accused 2 to 5.     The learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant\/accused 2 to 5 contends that this theory of absence of<\/p>\n
motive for the 1st accused is not justified by Ext.P1. In any view<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006 20<\/p>\n
of the matter, the theory that the 1st accused did not have any<\/p>\n
motive at all and that consequently he must have acted at the<\/p>\n
instance of accused 2 to 5 against the deceased cannot also be<\/p>\n
readily swallowed. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 suggests that<\/p>\n
the appellant\/1st accused had gone to the house of the deceased<\/p>\n
in an attempt to broker peace between the deceased on the one<\/p>\n
hand and accused 2 to 5 on the other. The behaviour of the<\/p>\n
deceased was not very encouraging to that mission of the 1st<\/p>\n
accused. If on that score the 1st accused entertained a grudge<\/p>\n
against the deceased, there is nothing artificial or unnatural<\/p>\n
about it. The ready inference drawn by the prosecution, on the<\/p>\n
basis of the alleged absence of motive for the 1st accused, does<\/p>\n
not in these circumstances appear to us to be reasonable or<\/p>\n
acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
      32. The third and the fourth circumstances relate to the<\/p>\n
alleged statements made by accused 2 and 3 to certain<\/p>\n
witnesses. The statement is only that the dispute shall be settled<\/p>\n
within a short period of time. The other alleged statement is by<\/p>\n
the 2nd accused that he had given his youngest daughter in<\/p>\n
marriage to the 1st accused only to make use of him against the<\/p>\n
deceased. The marriage of the 1st accused took place long prior<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  21<\/p>\n
to the incident – 5 to 6 years earlier, according to PW5 and 2 1\/2<\/p>\n
years earlier, according to PW2. Whatever that be, the case of<\/p>\n
the prosecution that the 2nd accused gave his youngest daughter<\/p>\n
in marriage to the 1st accused, only for the purpose of wreaking<\/p>\n
vengeance on his son, the deceased, about 2\/6 years prior to the<\/p>\n
incident, is again something which does not appeal to us as<\/p>\n
worthy of credence and instant acceptance. When one son on<\/p>\n
the one hand and the father along with other sons on the other<\/p>\n
are engaged in a bitter dispute and well meaning neighbours<\/p>\n
enquire about it, it is only reasonable for the righteous<\/p>\n
disputants to assure such well meaning neighbours\/relatives that<\/p>\n
all the disputes will be settled shortly. It would be perverse,<\/p>\n
from such statement to assume that the accused had given<\/p>\n
expression of their intention to liquidate the deceased by<\/p>\n
entering into a criminal conspiracy.        The third and fourth<\/p>\n
circumstances also do not appeal to us as sufficient, satisfactory<\/p>\n
or convincing.\n<\/p>\n
      33. The fifth circumstance relied on by the prosecution is<\/p>\n
that PW6 had seen the 1st accused proceeding to the house of the<\/p>\n
2nd accused. There is dispute as to whether PW6 had originally<\/p>\n
said only that the 1st accused was seen moving northwards;<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  22<\/p>\n
moving in the direction of the house of the 2nd accused or moving<\/p>\n
to the house of the 2nd accused. Whatever that be, we find no<\/p>\n
crucial significance to that conduct as it is the admitted case at<\/p>\n
all hands that the wife of the 1st accused had given birth to their<\/p>\n
second child and she was available in the house of the 2nd<\/p>\n
accused. Even if it be accepted that the 1st accused had gone to<\/p>\n
the house of the 2nd accused on that evening, that cannot, by any<\/p>\n
stretch of imagination, be reckoned as a crucial and vital<\/p>\n
indication of the alleged criminal conspiracy between accused 1<\/p>\n
to 5 to do away with the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
      34. We now come to circumstances 6 and 7. They can be<\/p>\n
dealt with together. After the incident, the persons from the<\/p>\n
house of accused 2 and 3 did not go to the deceased to attend on<\/p>\n
him.    They did not participate in the functions relating to<\/p>\n
cremation. This is the crux of the allegation. The 2nd accused<\/p>\n
along with accused 4 and 5 resides in one house and the 3rd<\/p>\n
accused along with his family resides in another house nearby.<\/p>\n
The location of their houses can be understood clearly from<\/p>\n
Ext.P7 sketch and Ext.P3 scene mahazar. The grievance is that<\/p>\n
no one from the house of accused 2 and 3 went to attend on the<\/p>\n
deceased when he was known to have suffered the injuries at the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006 23<\/p>\n
hands of the 1st accused. The learned counsel for the appellant<\/p>\n
argues, and we find merit in that argument, that significantly<\/p>\n
there is no evidence to show that accused 2, 3, 4 and 5 were<\/p>\n
present in either of these two houses at the relevant time. No<\/p>\n
witness significantly makes such an assertion at all. Who were<\/p>\n
the others available in the house of accused 2 and 5? There is no<\/p>\n
contention that the other family occupants of the houses were<\/p>\n
also the conspirators.      The mother of the deceased was also<\/p>\n
available in the house of the 2nd accused, it is asserted. She had<\/p>\n
also not gone to the scene of the crime, it is stated. In the facts<\/p>\n
scenario available in this case a ready inference that it was<\/p>\n
because of the contumaciousness that none from the house of<\/p>\n
accused 2 and 3 went to the scene of the crime, cannot also<\/p>\n
readily be swallowed.\n<\/p>\n
      35. We must also note that there was strain in the<\/p>\n
relationship between the deceased and the other members of the<\/p>\n
family. They may not have anticipated that the injury would turn<\/p>\n
out to be fatal. To draw an inference of conspiracy from that<\/p>\n
circumstance, according to us, would be too artificial, unreal and<\/p>\n
puerile.\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  24<\/p>\n
      36. Similar is the grievance about accused 2 to 5 not<\/p>\n
attending the funeral of the deceased. We have evidence to<\/p>\n
show that after the incident, there was an attack on the house of<\/p>\n
the 2nd accused. Bad blood had been created considerably. The<\/p>\n
relatives of PW2 along with some others had allegedly attacked<\/p>\n
the house of the 2nd accused as is evidenced from the oral<\/p>\n
evidence of PWs 1 and 2. At least there was such an allegation.<\/p>\n
The conduct of accused 2 to 5 and the other close relatives<\/p>\n
keeping away from the house of the deceased must be<\/p>\n
understood realistically in this admitted context. The 1st accused<\/p>\n
had caused the injuries. There was strain in the relationship of<\/p>\n
the deceased and his father\/brothers.       The 1st accused was<\/p>\n
friendly with accused 2 to 5. Rightly or wrongly there was a<\/p>\n
perception that the 1st accused was instigated by accused 2 to 5.<\/p>\n
The house of accused 2, 4 and 5 was attacked shortly after the<\/p>\n
incident allegedly by the men\/relatives of the deceased. It is in<\/p>\n
this context that the failure of accused 2 to 5 to attend the<\/p>\n
funeral has to be considered.      We are of the opinion that<\/p>\n
circumstances 6 and 7 cannot also in the facts scenario of this<\/p>\n
case lead to a ready inference of complicity of accused 1 to 5 for<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006  25<\/p>\n
the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120<\/p>\n
B I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
      37. The 7 circumstances relied on by the prosecution have<\/p>\n
not been established satisfactorily. Those circumstances, even if<\/p>\n
they are held to be proved, cannot be held to justify a safe<\/p>\n
inference of culpability for the offence of criminal conspiracy to<\/p>\n
cause the death of the deceased. In this view of the matter, we<\/p>\n
are satisfied that the appellants\/accused 1 to 5 are entitled to the<\/p>\n
benefit of doubt on the allegation of criminal conspiracy raised<\/p>\n
against them.      The challenge raised by the counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellants\/accused 2 to 5          must hence succeed.          We<\/p>\n
unhesitatingly concede to accused 2 to 5 the benefit of doubt.<\/p>\n
       38. In the result:\n<\/p>\n
      A)    i)   Crl.A.No.1738 of 2006 is allowed in part;<\/p>\n
            ii)  The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
      imposed on the appellant\/1st accused for the offence of<\/p>\n
      criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120 B r\/w<\/p>\n
      302 I.P.C is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
            iii)  His conviction for the principal offence of<\/p>\n
      murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and the<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006   26<\/p>\n
      sentence of imprisonment for life         imposed on him<\/p>\n
      thereunder are upheld;\n<\/p>\n
      B)    i)   Crl.A.No.1092 of 2006 is allowed;\n<\/p>\n
            ii)  Accused 2 to 5 are found entitled to the benefit<\/p>\n
      of doubt for all charges levelled against them. They are<\/p>\n
      consequently found not guilty and acquitted of all the<\/p>\n
      charges levelled against them;\n<\/p>\n
            iii)  The 2nd accused is stated to be on bail already.<\/p>\n
      If the further detention of accused 3 to 5 is not necessary<\/p>\n
      in connection with any other case, they shall forthwith be<\/p>\n
      released from custody.\n<\/p>\n
      39. The     Registry    shall communicate    this  direction<\/p>\n
forthwith to the court below as also the prison authorities.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                       (R.BASANT, JUDGE)\n\n\n\n\n                                     (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)\n\nrtr\/\n\nCrl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006         27\n\n\n\n\n                  R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ\n                       ------------------------------------\n                 Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006\n<\/pre>\n
                       ————————————-
\n                Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010<\/p>\n
                     GIST OF THE JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n
      In the result:\n<\/p>\n
      a)    i)   Crl.A.No.1738 of 2006 is allowed in part;<\/p>\n
            ii)  The verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence<\/p>\n
      imposed on the appellant\/1st accused for the offence of<\/p>\n
      criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120 B r\/w<\/p>\n
      302 I.P.C is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
            iii)  His conviction for the principal offence under<\/p>\n
      Section 302 I.P.C and the sentence of imprisonment for life<\/p>\n
      imposed on him thereunder are upheld;\n<\/p>\n
      b)    i)   Crl.A.No.1092 of 2006 is allowed;\n<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006 28<\/p>\n
            ii)  Accused 2 to 5 are found entitled to the benefit<\/p>\n
      of doubt of all charges levelled against them. They are<\/p>\n
      consequently found not guilty and acquitted of all the<\/p>\n
      charges levelled against them;\n<\/p>\n
            iii)  The 2nd accused is stated to be on bail already.<\/p>\n
      If the further detention of accused 3 to 5 is not necessary<\/p>\n
      in connection with any other case, they shall forthwith be<\/p>\n
      released from custody.\n<\/p>\n
      The Registry shall communicate this direction to the court<\/p>\n
below as also the prison authorities.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       (R.BASANT, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
                                     (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)<\/p>\n
rtr\/<\/p>\n
Crl.A.Nos.1092 and 1738 of 2006 29<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Raman vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM CRL.A.No. 1092 of 2006() 1. RAMAN, AGED 77, S\/O.VELAYUDHAN, NANGOOR … Petitioner 2. PUSHPAN, AGED 42, S\/O.RAMAN, 3. VASU @ VASUDEVAN, AGED 35, S\/O.RAMAN, 4. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 30 YEARS, Vs 1. STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-203018","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRaman vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2010 - 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\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raman vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-17T03:20:20+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=\"28 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raman vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-17T03:20:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":5578,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Raman vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-17T03:20:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raman vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Raman vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2010 - 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\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raman vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-17T03:20:20+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raman vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-17T03:20:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010"},"wordCount":5578,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010","name":"Raman vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-17T03:20:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raman-vs-state-of-kerala-on-8-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raman vs State Of Kerala on 8 March, 2010"}]},{"@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\/203018","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=203018"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203018\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203018"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203018"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203018"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}