IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – Proof of motive only adds to weight and value of evidence adduced by prosecution.
(2) Evidence of a witness ought not be rejected only on the ground that he is a relative of injured/deceased, if it inspires confidence of Court.
(3) Recovery of weapons, clothes, currency notes and ingots is relevant as subsequent conduct under Section 8 of Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

K.V. Jayakumar, J.—This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge, Manjeri in S.C. No.409 of 2013.

2. The appellant/accused, Santha Kumari @ Santha, is the sole accused in this case. The offences alleged against the appellant/accused were under Sections 449, 302, 394 and 201 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, as per the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the accused to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell is that, on 04.03.2013, in between 1 p.m and 2 p.m, the accused, Santhakumari, trespassed into the house of the deceased Kunjilakshmi Amma, with the criminal intention to rob gold ornaments worn by her, inflicted 28 injuries using MO-1, a chopper, murdered Kunjilakshmi Amma and robbed 4.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is alleged that the accused had sold the aforesaid gold ornaments and discharged her debts and other liabilities. It is further alleged that the appellant/accused washed MO-1 chopper and hid it, so as to cause the disappearance of evidence.

4. On the basis of the FIS lodged by PW1, the Valancheri police registered Crime No.122/2013. After the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur. Later, the case was committed to Sessions Court, Manjeri, which made over the case to the Additional Sessions Court for trial and disposal.

Proceedings in the trial court

5. The accused entered appearance before the trial court, and when the charge was read over and explained to her, she denied the same and pleaded not guilty.

6. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 33 and marked Exts.P1 to P50. MOs. 1 to 12 were also identified and marked.

7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances put to her and maintained her stand of innocence.

8. On the side of the defence, DWs.1 and 2 were examined, and Exts.D1 to D5 were marked. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after a full-fledged trial, found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 201 and 449 of IPC. The appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The trial court also imposed sentence for different terms under the other Sections.

9. Impugning the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused, Santhakumari, preferred this appeal.

10. We have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and also, that of the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

Contentions of the appellant

11. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused, Adv.Manju Antoney, assailed the judgment of the trial court, urging several grounds. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the alleged crime. Adv.Manju Antoney submitted that, this is a case, wherein there is no direct evidence. In a case of this nature, which is solely based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the motive for the commission of the crime.

12. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the weapon, currency notes, ingot etc. The recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was a manipulated one, which does not have any connection with the appellant.

13. The scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution is not at all reliable and credible. The evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to the discharge of financial liabilities by the accused appears to be false. The learned counsel argued that the trial court has overlooked vital contradictions and omissions in the prosecution story. It is also argued that the prosecution story is false and highly improbable. It is very difficult to