This is a criminal case.it was appealed in supreme court.the case is r.

shaji vs
state of kerala and the judgement for this case is given by Mr Chauhan.

in this ap1 shaji &ap2 vinu are accused for murdering praveen. A1 has been
working as DSP in malapuram. His wife was living in pulurithti. She was using a
vehicle which was driven by Praveen and Praveen is also relative of shaji(that is
A1).

Aji is manager of appealant1. He witnessed appelants1s wife and Praveen

interacting in a compromising position. HE informed appelant1 about this and
appellant resolved this matter with his relations and warned Praveen not to set
foot in his house again. Praveen joined as a driver in Ittumannur. `
sahadevan (p.w 2s father ) informed pavithran via telephone of danger to
Praveens life because vijay amma found about the illicit relationship that
praveen had with appellant1s wife. Praveen had a furious negotiation with the
appellant1 and sort employment in trivandram . vinu (Appellant 2) was seen
picking up Praveen in a bike by his neighbour towards kottayam. They were
seen eating at a petti shop. The petti shop workers saw appellant1 coming in a
maruti car with few other people and the appellant and Praveen left the city at
the midnight. Praveen and appellant 2 left the petti shop at the midnight the
maruti van followed them. 2 rickshaw drivers witnessed the pavilion rider
taken into the maruti car parked at the side of the road. On 16.2.2005 an FIR
was registered that a pair of human legs were seen floating on Vembannadu
Lake and Praveen was reported missing by his father on the same day.
19.2.2005 Torso in a plastic bag was seen floating. Pravithran identified it to be
that of his son. And a pair of hands were seen floating on the lake. A1 and A2
were arrested. In 24.2.2005 head in a plastic bag was found on the lake. The
maruthi van and the chopper which was alleged to have been used to said
crime was recovered from the A1s house.

Arguments
Appellant counsel argued that there was absence of motive since the issue was
already resolved with the presence of appellants relatives. The incomplete
chain of circumstances was also a question. No TI parade was conducted. Non
examination of important people like VIjayamma , AJi and the Appellants wife
No DNA presence were there in the chopper. The Petti Shop workers identified
Praveen only from passport size photos and the auto rickshaw drivers saw
Praveen only for a fleeting movement in dark.

Arguments Counsel for state

The counsel of the state stated that the circumstances pointed the guilt of
appellant and there was no reason to discredit the evidence of the petti shop
because both the courts accepted it. There was sufficient light on the road for
the auto Rickshaw driver to see.

Ratio:
The ratio of the case is even though the motive wasnt proved by the
prosecution the appellant was convicted because the circumstantial evidence
proves that he has committed the crime which is why the judge stated that
motive may be insisted only when there are not enough evidence unlike this
case.

ipc
302-punishment for murder
120b-punishment for criminal conspiracy
364-kidnaping in order to murder
201-causing disappearance of evidence of offence
crpc
207-supply to the assuse of copy of police report and other documents.
164-recording of confession and statement.
302-permission to conduct prosecution.