Back
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN
Babu
Versus
State of Kerala
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 104 of 2009
Decided on : 11-08-2010
AIR 1974 SC 2165; AIR 1991 SC 315; AIR 2003 SC 1104; (2004) 10 SCC 699; AIR 2006 SC 2500; AIR 2007 SC 3075; AIR 2008 SC 2066; (2009) 10 SCC 206; (2009) 16 SCC 98; (2010) 2 SCC 445; AIR 1934 PC 227; AIR 1954 SC 1; AIR 1957 SC 216; AIR 1963 SC 200; AIR 1970 SC 66; (1998) 5 SCC 412; (2002) 4 SCC 85; (2007) 3 SCC 755; (2007) 4 SCC 415; (2008) 10 SCC 450; (2009) 9 SCC 368; (2009) 4 SCC 271; (2009) 10 SCC 401; AIR 1984 SC 1805; 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 312; AIR 1994 SC 1341; AIR 2001 SC 386; (2009) 10 SCC 636; AIR 1999 SC 677 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal trial – Conviction – Circumstantial evidence – Principles restated. (Para 18 to 21)
(2008) 15 SCC 430; AIR 1984 SC 1622; (2005) 3 SCC 114; (2009) 15 SCC 259; (2009) 14 SCC 415 – Relied upon
(c) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Motive – Absence of motive in a case based on circumstantial evidence – Will weigh in favour of accused. (Para 22, 23)
(2008) 16 SCC 73; (2009) 9 SCC 152 – Relied upon
(d) Criminal trial – Burden of proof – In certain statutes accused is required to prove his innocence – Normally the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt of the accused. (Para 24)
(2001) 6 SCC 16; AIR 2004 SC 3249; AIR 2007 SC 451; (2008) 16 SCC 417; AIR 2008 SC 1325 – Relied upon
(e) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution case based on alleged three phone calls of appellant to deceased – Prosecution failing to establish the same – Prosecution also failing to establish any motive – High Court wrongly putting burden on the appellant to prove his innocence – It was for the prosecution to prove the guilt. (Para 29, 34, 36, 37)
Facts of the case;
This is a most unfortunate case, in which, a young, B.Com 2nd year student, Sweety died under mysterious circumstances within 15 days of her marriage in her parent’s house at Chalakudy. The appellant, Babu, is post-graduate and at relevant time had been employed in the Gulf in a firm, namely, Alukkas Jewellery dealing with golden Jewellery. The couple, after marriage on 15.5.2000, stayed for two days with the brother of the appellant at Ollur and they came back to Chalakudy on 17.5.2000, as the parents of Sweety had arranged a reception for them at their house. The couple stayed there for two days and left for Kozhikode on 19.5.2000 and stayed in the house of Benny (PW.10), a friend of the appellant. The couple came back on 22.5.2000 to Chalakudy, the family house of the deceased, Sweety. The couple again went to Kozhikode on 30.5.2000 to attend the marriage of Benny (PW.10) with one Seethal and returned to Chalakudy, at 4.00 p.m. on 1.6.2000. The appellant left Sweety at her parent’s house and went to Amala Hospital to meet his sister and mother as his mother had undergone an operation for cancer and was convalescing. The appellant returned to Sweety’s house at about 10.30 p.m. and found that door of her room was bolted from inside and there was no response on calling to her. The door was broke opened by the appellant and Sweety’s father. Sweety was found unconscious lying on the floor. She was taken to the Government Hospital, Chalakudy, where she was declared dead by the doctors.
Poulose (PW.1), father of the deceased lodged an F.I.R..
The Trial Court acquitted the appellant.
The High Court reversed the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result:
Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses the standards and circumstances for appellate interference with acquittals, including perverse findings and compelling circumstances (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Judgment :
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 5.8.2008, passed by the High Court of Kerala, at Ernakulam, in Criminal Appeal No.908 of 2004, reversing the judgment of acquittal dated 8.4.2003 recorded by the Sessions Court, Thrissur in Sessions Case No. 242 of 2001, wherein the appellant was charge sheeted for murdering his wife, Sweety, by giving her Sodium Cyanide.
2. This is a most unfortunate case, in which, a young, B.Com 2nd year student, Sweety died under mysterious circumstances within 15 days of her marriage in her parent's house at Chalakudy. The appellant, Babu, is post-graduate and at relevant time had been employed in the Gulf in a firm, namely, Alukkas Jewellery dealing with golden Jewellery. The couple, after marriage on 15.5.2000, stayed for two days with the brother of the appellant at Ollur and they came back to Chalakudy on 17.5.2000, as the parents of Sweety had arranged a reception for them at their house. The couple stayed there for two days and left for Kozhikode on 19.5.2000 and stayed in the house of Benny (PW.10), a friend of the appellant. The couple came back on 22.5.2000 to Chalakudy, the family house of the deceased, Sweety. The couple again went to Kozhikode on 30.5.2000 to attend the marriage of Benny (PW.10) with one Seethal, which was scheduled to be held on 31.5.2000 and returned to Chalakudy, at 4.00 p.m. on 1.6.2000. The appellant left Sweety at her parent's house and went to Amala Hospital to meet his sister and mother as his mother had undergone an operation for cancer and was convalescing. The appellant returned to Sweety's house at about 10.30 p.m. and found that door of her room was bolted from inside and there was no response on calling to her. The door was broke opened by the appellant and Sweety's father. Sweety was found unconscious lying on the floor. She was taken to the Government Hospital, Chalakudy, where she was declared dead by the doctors. Poulose (PW.1), father of the deceased lodged an F.I.R. on 2.6.2000 at 7.00 a.m. and it was registered as Crime No. 242 of 2000. The inquest was conducted on the same day and post mortem was conducted on 3.6.2000, and the deceased was buried thereafter. Paily (PW.21), the Deputy Superintendent of Police while conducting the investigation of the case received information that just few days prior to the incident the appellant had procured Cyanide, thus, he was arrested on 26.6.2000. An alleged confessional statement was made by the appellant that he had purchased Sodium Cyanide from the shop of Xavior (PW.7), who was dealing with jewellery as well as Sodium Cyanide. Xavior, PW.7 made a statement that the appellant had procured 1 Kg. Sodium Cyanide from him between 25.5.2000 and 27.5.2000. The post mortem report revealed that Sweety died of Cyanide poisoning. As per the statement of Omana Poulose (PW.9), mother of the deceased Sweety, the poison was given to Sweety by the appellant under the guise of giving her an ayurvedic contraceptive medicine. Paily (PW.21), the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called as `IPC'). The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses in support of its case. Appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as `Cr.P.C.') stated that he was innocent and there was a possibility of the involvement of Benny (PW.10), who had misbehaved with Sweety and had sexual intercourse with her on 31.05.2000 when the couple was staying with him. More so, Sweety might have committed suicide because of feelings of guilt for that reason. The Trial Court dis-believed the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the appellant vide judgment and order dated 8.4.2003.
3. The High Court considered the submissions made by the p
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
