Back
1977 Supreme(Ker) 114
Judges : P.JANAKI AMMA,S.K.KADER
Vazhambalakkal Thomachan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1976
Decided On : 06/15/1977
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant: B. Raman Pillai, Advocate. For the Respondent: State Prosecutor.
The judgment underscores the requirement for conclusive evidence in murder cases based on circumstantial evidence and the necessity of specific charges for related offences.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code, Section 302
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Thomas. The case relied on circumstantial evidence as there were no eye-witnesses to the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of the purse and currency notes, as well as the appellant's financial circumstances, were not deemed conclusive evidence of his involvement in the murder.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the identification of the recovered items, and the absence of a specific charge for robbery or theft.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for conclusive evidence to establish guilt in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence. It also highlighted the importance of specific charges and the elements of minor offences in relation to the main offence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
KADER J.
The appellant has been convicted by the Court of Session Kozhikode, for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. The incident was on the night of November, 23, 1975 sometime between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m., at a place, on the northern corner of the property of one Thomas, within the limits of Kuttiadi Police Station. Thomas, the deceased in this case, aged 50, was a farmer residing with his wife Rosa (P.W. 3) and son Jose (P.W. 2) in Maruthonkara in Badagara Taluk. Pocken (P.W. 1), Luis (P.W. 4), Kuttappan alias Chacko (P.W. 5) and the appellant herein are said to be neighbours of the deceased residing in the same locality. Luis was running a provision shop at Mullankunnu Bazaar. On the date of occurrence at about 7.30 p.m. P.W. 4, P.W. 5, Thomas (the deceased) and the appellant had been to a nearby arrack shop and all of them consumed arrack. All the four then together left the arrack shop and were returning to their respective houses. On reaching near his house. P.W. 4 parted their company and went to his house. P.W. 5, the deceased and the appellant proceeded further till they reached near the house of the appellant, when the appellant took leave of P.W. 5 and the deceased and went to his house. Thereafter P.W. 5 alone was in the company of the deceased. After covering some distance and when they reached near a lane proceeding in the direction of the house of P.W. 5, P.W. 5 went to his house while the deceased proceeded along the pathway northwards. P.W. 1 with a lighted country torch in his hand was going in search of his son who did not return from the place of his work even after 8 p.m. On the way, he saw the body of Thomas lying on the bank of a small canal (thodu known as Cheedithode) at about 9 p.m. on the same night. After conveying information of this to the paternal uncle of the deceased, P.W. 1 went to Kuttiadi Police Station on the same night and laid the first information statement (Ex. P1), before P.W. 12, Head Constable, who registered a case on that basis. The next day, the Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W. 13) visited the place of occurrence, held inquest over the dead body, prepared inquest report (Ex. P14) and questioned witnesses. P.W. 6, doctor, Tutor in Forensic Medicine Medical College, Calicut, held autopsy over the dead body and issued the post-mortem certificate (Ex. P4). The appellant was arrested by P.W. 14, Detective Inspector (C.B.I., C.I.D.) and on the basis of the information given by the appellant, P.W. 14 recovered M.O.I. purse with M.O. 7 (series) currency notes to the value of Rs. 1000/- under mahazar, Ex. P9, attested by P.W. 9 Raman Nair and P.W. 10, Village Assistant.
3. The plea of the appellant was one of complete denial.
4. The learned Sessions Judge relying on the recovery of M.O.I. and the currency notes convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.
5. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are strongly assailed by the counsel appearing for the appellant. It was contended that the evidence regarding the recovery of M.O.I. and M.O. 7 series is quite unsatisfactory and that there is no evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged commission of the offence of murder.
6. There are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the case entirely depends upon circumstantial evidence. The factum of the death of Thomas as a result of certain injuries sustained by him on the night of occurrence due to strangulation is not disputed. This fact has also been conclusively proved by the medical evidence in the case. P.W. 6, doctor, who held autopsy over the dead body is of the opinion that Thomas died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation.
7. The following are the circumstances relied on by the prosecution to sustain the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant :
(1) The medical evidence showing that Thomas died of asphyxia due to strangulation.
(2) The appellant was financially
