Back
2015 Supreme(Ker) 502
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.K. Mohanan and Raja Vijayaraghavan V., JJ.
Francis - Appellant
Vs.
State of Kerala - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 832 of 2010
Decided On : 08.06.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sajeev T.P., K. Rajani and R.V. Sujit Kumar, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Praicy Joseph, Spl. Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - SECTION 302 IPC - CONVICTION - APPEAL - REVERSAL OF CONVICTION - SECTION 313 CRPC - STATEMENT OF ACCUSED - SECTION 20(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION - RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION - DYING DECLARATION - SECTION 118 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - EVIDENCE OF CHILD WITNESS - SECTION 11 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT - RELEVANCE OF FACTS AFFECTING PROBABILITY OF CASE - SECTION 253 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE - FILING OF DOCUMENTS IN COURT - SECTION 304B OF THE IPC - BURDEN OF PROVING INNOCENCE - ARTICLE 20(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION - NO PERSON ACCUSED OF ANY OFFENSE SHALL BE COMPELLED TO BE A WITNESS AGAINST HIMSELF.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for causing the death of his wife by pouring kerosene over her body and setting her on fire. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the testimony of the victim's daughter, dying declarations made by the victim to various witnesses, and the conduct of the accused after the incident. The appellant denied his involvement in the crime and claimed that his wife had committed suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence against the appellant was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had caused the death of his wife. The court held that the testimony of the victim's daughter was unreliable, that the dying declarations were not credible, and that the conduct of the accused after the incident was not incriminating. The court also found that the prosecution had failed to establish a motive for the crime.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had caused the death of his wife. 2. Whether the evidence of the victim's daughter was reliable. 3. Whether the dying declarations were credible. 4. Whether the conduct of the accused after the incident was incriminating. 5. Whether the prosecution had established a motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had caused the death of his wife. The court found that the evidence against the appellant was circumstantial and that the circumstances did not conclusively establish his guilt. 2. The court held that the testimony of the victim's daughter was unreliable. The court found that the witness was young and impressionable, that she had been tutored by her relatives, and that her testimony was inconsistent with other evidence in the case. 3. The court held that the dying declarations were not credible. The court found that the declarations were made in the presence of relatives and friends of the victim, that they were not recorded in a timely manner, and that they were inconsistent with other evidence in the case. 4. The court held that the conduct of the accused after the incident was not incriminating. The court found that the accused had gone to the hospital to see his wife, that he had been threatened by her relatives, and that he had left the hospital out of fear. 5. The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a motive for the crime. The court found that there was no evidence of any animosity between the appellant and his wife, and that there was no evidence that the appellant had any reason to kill her.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant.
Raja Vijayaraghavan V., J.
1. The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 66 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram. He stands convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
2. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the appellant, the case of the prosecution can be briefly stated as follows:
"2(i). The deceased Santha is the daughter of PW1, Mary. Santha had fallen in love with the appellant and they were living together without entering into any form of marriage. Out of the said wedlock, two girls were born to the couple, the eldest being Salini who was residing in a poor home at Cheruvarakonam near Parassala and the younger one being Malini who was staying with Santha.
2(ii). The appellant was a Cable layer by profession and was an infrequent visitor to the house. He is an alcoholic and there used to be frequent fights with Santha when she refused to part with money which he required for satisfying his drinking habits. While so, on 21.07.2006, when PW2-Malini had come back from School, she had occasion to see the appellant and the deceased Santha quarreling with each other. Malini went for tuition and when she came back, she found her mother crying. Malini had her supper and went to bed. She had fallen asleep and was woken up by the screams of her mother. She found her mother standing in the kitchen engulfed in fire. Santha was seen pouring water on her body. The accused was also present in the kitchen and he rushed out through the front door and fled towards Pampukala. Aghast at seeing her mother in flames, PW2 rushed to the house of her grandmother, Mary, who was residing nearby. She, along with Mary, returned back to the home and on their way, they saw the deceased Santha running towards them and falling down near the electric post in front of the house of Appu Nadar. The clothes of the deceased were burnt and her hair was charred. There was smell of kerosene emanating from her body.
2(iii). A car was summoned and the deceased was taken to the Taluk hospital, Neyyattinkara, where she was examined by PW8, the Casualty Medical Officer. The deceased Santha was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. While undergoing treatment at the Medical College Hospital, Santha succumbed to her injuries on 20.08.2006 at 10.10 am. Thereafter, PW1 went to the Kanjiramkulam police station and gave a statement to PW14, the Sub Inspector of Police, at 5.30 pm on 20.08.2006 based on which Ext. P1(a) FIR was registered. The same Officer proceeded to the Medical College Hospital mortuary and prepared Ext. P2 inquest over the dead body of the deceased Santha. The clothes worn by the deceased were seized. He obtained the treatment certificate of Santha from the Medical College hospital and thereafter, gave Ext. P15 report incorporating Section 302 of the IPC.
2(iv). Later investigation was taken over by PW13, the Circle Inspector of Police, Poovar police station, on 23.08.2006. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ext. P9 scene mahazar and seized MO1 can containing kerosene found in the kitchen of the house. He arrested the accused on 30.08.2006 at 9.15 pm. The accused was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Neyyattinkara and he was remanded to judicial custody. Later investigation was handed over to PW15, the Circle Inspector of Police, Poovar, who, on completion of Investigation, laid the final report before Court."
3. The learned Magistrate before whom the final report was laid initiated committal proceedings as CP number 50/07 and committed the case to the Court of Sessions Thiruvanthapuram. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the prosecution and the accused, framed charge against the accused for the offense punishable under section 302 of the IPC. When the charge was read over to the accused he pleaded not guilty and hence trial was proceeded with.
4. In order t
