Important points:
• S.106 of the Evidence Act casts a burden on the appellant to explain how the fibres on his dress came in the cellophane pressings collected from the hands of the victim
• The cellophane pressings and the scientific evidence noticing the fibres of the dress of the accused and the chilly powder were material piece of evidence which connects the chain of events leading to the culpability of the accused

JUDGMENT :

Shaffique, J.

This appeal by the sole accused challenges the verdict 4th passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thrissur dated 26/02/2014 in S.C. No. 687 of 2006 arising out of Crime No. 111 of 2006 by which the appellant was found guilty under Sections 450, 302, 392 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with a default stipulation of rigorous imprisonment of 10 months for offence under Section 302 of IPC, further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) in default of which to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 450 of IPC, again sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) on failure, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five months for offence under Section 392 of IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) with a default stipulation of two months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 201 of IPC. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Prosecution alleges the following case against the appellant:-

The deceased Suseela was about 74 years at the time of her death and she was residing alone at her house bearing door number XIII/410 (XII/406) of Mattathore Panchayath situated at a place called Ombathunkal. The appellant herein was acquainted with the deceased as he fixed photos of deities for her. Appellant who was in need of money had, on 06/06/2006, with the intention to kill and rob Suseela, after sufficient preparation by keeping a packet of chilli powder and a metal cutter, committed trespass into her house sometime in between 5.00 P.M. and 06.45 P.M. The appellant held her by covering her nose and mouth with his hands and smothered her to death. He removed her two gold bangles using the cutter which he had brought and also a pair of ear studs worn by her which together weigh 21/4 sovereigns. Thereafter, he sprinkled chilli powder over her body and surroundings with a view to cause disappearance of evidence against him and to distract others from tracking him. He escaped from the house with the robbed gold ornaments.

3. Prosecution examined PW1 to PW35 as witnesses, marked Exts.P1 to P25 documents and identified material objects MO1 to MO7. Exts.D1 to D7 contradictions were brought out in evidence during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. During 313 examination, the appellant denied all evidence appearing against him and he pleaded innocence. No defence evidence was adduced.

4. Learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant Smt.M.R.Jayalatha argued that the appellant is innocent. He is falsely implicated in the crime by the investigating agency. There is no legal evidence to implicate the appellant to the crime. Case rests on circumstantial evidence alone. Prosecution did not bring any legal evidence to prove the involvement of the appellant in the crime. Alleged last seen together theory is not proved. Recovery of so-called ornaments of the deceased, allegedly at the instance of the appellant, is a planted one. There is evidence to the effect that there was some issues between the deceased and other relatives regarding sharing of property. Admittedly, another young man, a relative, was a frequent visitor to the deceased. No investigation is done in that direction. Finger print evidence is fabricated as the materials collected from the place of occurrence were sent to Court only after the arrest of the appellant, after much delay. From which article, the finger prints were collected is not brought specifically in evidence. Court below could have convinced itself easily that the case is a concocted one. Trial Court went wrong in its present conclusion of finding the appellant guilty and hence