A Bengal native’s appeal against his conviction for the murder of his live-in spouse, another migrant worker, and her small kid was denied by the Kerala High Court on Tuesday. While upholding his conviction, a Division Bench of Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice Ziyad Rahman A A stated,
“Far from their homes and family, the plight of migrant workers is an endless narrative, often meaningless in form and sad in content. The prosecution alleges the murder of a mother and child by the former’s live-in partner; all of them migrated from the east of India to its southern tip for eking out a mere subsistence.”
According to the prosecution, both the convict and the victim, along with her child, had travelled to Kerala from West Bengal to make a living. When the dead bodies were discovered, the accused, who was living with the wife and child, was conspicuously missing. The appellant was represented by Advocate Renjith B.Marar, and the State was represented by Special Government Pleader S. Ambika Devi.
The appellant argued that the accused was not linked to the crime by a chain of circumstances. Furthermore, it was claimed that no motivation had been shown and that the accused had a legitimate reason for being absent from work.
He was then apprehended in West Bengal and brought back to Kerala to face charges. He allegedly murdered the wife and her kid for the money she had secreted away, according to the prosecution. In his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, the appellant further denied any association with the victims. Several witnesses, including the convict’s employer and the victim, testified that the two were in a live-in relationship and that he was last seen with the victims on the day of the incident, according to the prosecution. The Court stated in dismissing the appeal, after hearing arguments from both the appellant and the prosecution, that
“His presence with the deceased, his flight to his native place at a time proximate to the time of death, the lack of an explanation and the false statement in Sec.313 establishes the guilt of the accused. The hypothesis of innocence, based on the shed being accessible to any person is far-fetched and lacks credence. The plea that he left the locality for reason of his grandmother’s illness also fails to impress. We hence find the appeal to be devoid of merit and dismiss the same affirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court.”