Back
1989 Supreme(Ker) 44
Judges : PADMANABHAN,SHAMSUDDIN
JOY - Appellant
Versus
C.I.OF POLICE - Respondent
Case No : Crl. A. No. 236, 237 of 1986
Decided On : 02/01/1989
Advocates Appeared :
G. Krishnakumari; For Appellants M.M. Mathew; For Respondent
The judgment underscores the requirement for a complete and conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
Circumstantial Evidence - Murder - S.302, S.201, S.34 IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two accused charged with offences under S.302 and S.201 with the aid of S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, suspicious conduct of the accused, and recovery of incriminating objects.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case was based on the assumption of the date of death, which was contradicted by medical and inquest evidence. The court criticized the investigation's shortcomings and concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of circumstantial evidence, the date of death, and the conduct of the investigating officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a complete and conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt. It highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence and criticized the misuse of S.27 of the Evidence Act. The court also stressed the distinction between moral conviction and legal evidence.
Final Decision: Both the criminal appeals were allowed, and the convictions and sentences were set aside. Both appellants were acquitted and ordered to be set at liberty.
1. Two accused were tried for offences punishable under S.302 and 201 with the aid of S.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both were convicted under each section and sentenced to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively, permitting the sentences to be suffered concurrently. Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1986 was filed by the first accused and the other by the second accused.
2. Second accused Rosama is the widow of deceased Unni alias Devassia. They have a son (PW 2) and a daughter (CW 4). First accused joy alias job was assisting the deceased in his work and residing along with him and his family in a house having only one room. Illicit intimacy developed between accused 1 and 2. Deceased was found a hindrance. Therefore, in furtherance of the common intention of both the accused, at about midnight on 3-7-1984 when the children were fast asleep, first accused murdered Unni by cutting his chest just below the neck with MO 3 axe inside the residential building at Malom Village and buried the dead body in the paramba itself with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment by causing disappearance of evidence regarding commission of murder. This is the prosecution case. Second accused is said to have directed and assisted the first accused.
3. Case was registered under the caption "man missing" on 27-7-1984 when Ext. P1 complaint filed by PW 1, brother of the deceased. Same day, PW 14 Assistant Sub Inspector questioned both the accused and came to know that Unni was murdered and the body buried in the compound itself. The next day, PW 15 Circle Inspector took up investigation and laid the charge for the above offences.
4. The case depends purely on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are:
a) The deceased was last seen in the company of the accused sleeping at their residence and thereafter nobody saw him alive and the accused have no explanation at all;
b) The suspicious conduct of accused 1 and 2 after the disappearance of Unni;
c) The information given by accused 1 and 2 to PW 14 which led to the recovery of the incriminating objects namely, the dead body, dress, mat, weapon used for murder and implement used for burial of the dead body; and
d) The motive for doing away with Unni.
After an elaborate discussion of the evidence, the Sessions Judge accepted these circumstances as conclusive.
5. Before convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to ensure that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and conclusive without even a missing link. The effect of all the links separately and of the chain cumulatively should lead only to the guilt and not in any way to the innocence. No circumstance should be capable of any explanation on any hypothesis other than the guilt. In such cases, guilt being an inference from proved circumstances, there should not be anything consistent with the innocence and the inference of guilt must be conclusive. Moral conviction however strong cannot be accepted as a substitute for legal evidence.
6. In this case the very edifice of the prosecution story regarding the last seen theory and the conduct of the accused was on the assumption that Unni died on the night of 3-7-1984. If that theory is shaken, the entire evidence based on it must go. The evidence of all the relevant witnesses examined by the prosecution is that from 4-7-1984 onwards Unni was never seen and there after his dead body alone was found on exhumation on 28-7-1984. The evidence of PW 2, the son of Unni and the second accused, is that after Unni slept with them on the night of 3-7-1984 he was never seen from the morning of 4-7-1984 onwards. The alleged murder was during midnight on 3-7-1984.
7. But all the witnesses, including the official witnesses who were present at the time of exhumation of the body, unanimously said that except peeling of the skin and hair here and there and missing of one eye, the body was other
