KOLLAM: The Kollam Additional Sessions Court 4 on Monday sentenced nine men to life imprisonment for the murder of former RSS activist Kadavoor Jayan, alias Rajesh. In addition to the jail term, the accused were also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs 1 lakh each.
The accused, who had absconded while on bail, surrendered at the Anchalummoodu police station on Monday morning on Monday.
Additional Sessions Court 4 Judge S Krishnakumar had convicted them in the murder case on February 1 but reserved the pronouncement of the quantum of punishment since the accused were not present. The judge sentenced them after they were presented in the court on Monday.
The convicted are RSS activists G Vinod, 42, of Kadavoor; G Gopakumar, 36 of Kottamkara; Subramanyan, 39, of Kadavoor; Pranav, 29, of Parappathu Junction; S Arun, 34, of Kizhakadathu; Rajineesh, 31, of Mathilil; Dhinaraj, 31, of Lalivilla; and Shiju, 36, of Gopalasadanam, Thrikkaruva -- all in Kollam district -- and Priyaraj, 39, of Vaikkom. On February 7, 2012, Rajesh was hacked to death by the nine RSS workers near a temple in Kadavoor. He was killed as an act of revenge for filing a complaint against the accused alleging that they had taken part in arms training on the premises of a temple, police said.
The prosecution submitted 23 witness statements, 38 pieces of evidence and exhibits. Special public prosecutor Prathapchandran Pillai, public prosecutor KB Mahendra and advocate Vibhu appeared for the prosecution.
Road to justice
The prosecution submitted before the court that Kadavoor Jayan’s body had 64 cut wounds, most of them 14 cm long and 7cm deep.
The High Court had rejected the request made by Fourth Additional Sessions Judge S Krishnakumar that the trial be moved to another court. Now the same court has convicted the accused.
The accused had filed as many as three petitions before the High Court to stay the trial.
First accused Vinod filed a petition against the trial court. But the High Court dismissed the plea.
The main allegation in the petition was that the trial court was biased and did not comply with High Court directive to hear the version of the accused.