Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of Santhakumari alias Santha in a case involving the brutal murder and robbery of an 88-year-old woman, finding that the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was complete and convincing.

A division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar dismissed the criminal appeal (CRL.A No. 718/2020) filed by the accused, Santhakumari , challenging the judgment of the Additional District & Sessions Court – I, Manjeri.

Case Background

The case stemmed from Crime No. 122/2013 of Valanchery Police Station, Malappuram. The prosecution alleged that on March 4, 2013, between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m., Santhakumari (then aged 61) trespassed into the house of the deceased, Kunjilakshmi Amma (then aged 88), with the intention to rob her gold ornaments. Using a chopper (MO-1), the accused allegedly inflicted 28 injuries on the victim, causing her death, and stole 4.5 sovereigns of gold. The prosecution further contended that the accused sold the ornaments, used the proceeds to clear her debts, and hid the weapon to conceal evidence.

The trial court, after a full-fledged trial, convicted Santhakumari under Sections 449, 302, 394, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to life imprisonment for the murder, along with other sentences.

Arguments on Appeal

Challenging the conviction, the appellant's counsel, Adv. Manju Antoney , argued that the prosecution failed to prove the motive in this case of purely circumstantial evidence. It was contended that the alleged recoveries (weapon, gold ingot, currency) were manipulated or improperly conducted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and scientific evidence was unreliable or lacked proper connection to the accused. The defence also questioned the probability of a 61-year-old woman committing such a violent act alone and clearing substantial debts immediately, suggesting false implication.

The learned Public Prosecutor, Adv. T.V. Neema, countered that the prosecution had proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that the chain of circumstances was complete, pointing solely to the guilt of the accused. The prosecution emphasized the motive of robbery to discharge financial liabilities, the accused's presence near the scene, the prompt sale of ornaments matching the stolen items, immediate debt repayment, and the recovery of the weapon, gold ingot, and clothes.

Court's Findings

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence presented by the prosecution.

On the motive , the court noted evidence from PWs 1, 9, 12, and 19-22 establishing the accused's financial difficulties and her actions of immediately discharging debts (Rs 2,500, Rs 14,000, and Rs 20,000 remitted to a bank account) on the day of the incident or soon after, using proceeds from the sale of gold. Citing Vijaysankar v. State of Haryana , the court reiterated that while proof of motive adds weight to evidence, it is not always indispensable, especially when other circumstances strongly point to guilt.

Regarding recoveries , the court acknowledged procedural lapses in the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, particularly the non-production of the full recovery mahazars as per the procedure laid down in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh . However, the court held that the fact of recovery of material objects such as the chopper, blood-stained saree, and currency notes at the instance of the accused was still relevant as subsequent conduct under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act .

Crucially, the court relied on other compelling circumstantial evidence:

* Presence at the scene: PW17 testified seeing the accused jump over a mud ridge and enter the deceased's house just before the incident. Other witnesses also placed her near the location (PW4, 15, 16).

* Sale of ornaments: The testimony of PW7 (jeweller) and PW12 (old gold dealer) was found consistent. PW12 specifically identified the accused as the person who sold him 34 grams of gold ornaments (Thara and Dhalapathy chains and bangles) matching the description of the stolen items, just hours after the murder.

* Utilisation of proceeds: Evidence from bank manager (PW22), chitty collector (PW19), and money lender (PW20) corroborated the accused's immediate debt repayment using the sale proceeds.

* Scientific evidence: PW28's evidence indicated a chance fingerprint (V5) found at the crime scene matched the accused's left index finger. The FSL report (PW32) confirmed the presence of human blood (Group B, same as deceased) on the MO-1 chopper and MO-11 yellow saree worn by the accused.

* Conduct: PW1 and PW9 stated the accused tried to flee when police came to arrest her, sustaining a fracture noted by PW27. PW11 testified the accused made suspicious comments about police investigations after the incident.

Addressing the defence argument about the improbability of a 61-year-old committing such a crime, the court found the evidence, including the 28 injuries noted by the autopsy doctor (PW26) caused by a weapon like MO-1, did not make the prosecution case improbable under Section 11 of the Evidence Act when considered alongside the other circumstances. The court also dismissed the argument that witnesses being relatives of the deceased rendered their testimony unreliable, citing Baban Shankar Daphal v. State of Maharashtra , which holds that relative witnesses are credible if their evidence inspires confidence.

Conclusion

Applying the principles governing circumstantial evidence cases as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sardar v. State of Maharashtra and Baiju Kumar Soni and Another v. State of Jharkhand , the court concluded that "the chain of circumstantial evidence in this case is complete, which would lead to only one hypothesis as to the guilt of the accused." The court found no reasonable ground left for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and held that the act must have been done by her in all human probability.

Finding no grounds to interfere with the trial court's findings on conviction and sentence, the High Court dismissed the appeal.