Point of law :Circumstantial evidence - prosecution must prove all the circumstances connecting unbroken chain of links leading to only one inference that the accused committed the crime. If any other reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused can be inferred from the proved circumstances, the accused would be entitled to the benefit.

JUDGMENT :

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

1. Apathy on all fronts conspires to derail the investigation and prosecution when the victim is unattached, unconnected and unaligned. An indigent spinster was smothered to death, tied in a sack and thrown into the backwaters. An equally unattached, unconnected and unaligned person was booked for the crime and thrown behind bars as a result of an indifferent investigation and inefficient prosecution. No ripples caused, no publicity, no public trial, no twilight vigil and no protest at all. A poor soul is choked to death and another sent to prison to assuage whatever feelings of whomsoever.

2. The case set up by the prosecution is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. A corpse was found floating in the backwaters, which was identified and investigation commenced. The prosecution case was that the deceased lady was living with the accused in a rented room in one OK Hall Complex and that on 13.11.2014, at around 7.45 p.m. they had a quarrel concerning the proceeds of the sale of lotteries, which business they were engaged in together. The deceased is said to have slapped the accused on the face and in a rage he smothered her. The corpse was then bundled into a sack, tied with a cloth (torn from a dhoti), and thrown into the backwaters. PW-1, a Security Guard, gave the FIS (Ext.P1) on seeing the corpse floating. The body, retrieved with the help of PW-2 was, partly decomposed, wearing earrings (MO2), clad in a two-piece green chudidar (MO3 and 4) and its hands and feet were tied with a shawl (MO1). The sack was marked as MO5.

3. Investigation was conducted and a charge-sheet laid against the accused under S.302 of the Indian Penal Code. Before the trial Court, PWs. 1 to 38 were examined and Exts.P1 to P47 were marked. Material objects were marked as MO1 to MO27. The accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months.

4. Sri. P.K. Varghese, appearing for the appellant-accused, contended that there was absolutely no evidence to convict the accused under S.302 and this is a classic case, where there has been a travesty of justice. It is pointed out that none of the witnesses identified the accused in Court, as is required under the law. There is not even one circumstance connecting the accused with the crime, leave alone a chain of circumstances with unbroken links. The scientific evidence does not provide any link to the accused as claimed, even if the recovery is proved. The prosecution has not produced or marked the property list, by which MO27, the cloth piece used to tie the sack with the corpse and MO20, the dhoti were produced before Court. PW-4, though was close with the deceased, had absolutely no prior acquaintance with the accused. There is nothing to show that the accused and deceased were living together or at least seen together just before the time of death, as has come out in medical evidence. There is no valid proof as to the accused having taken out a room on rent and there is far less proof as to both the accused and deceased staying in that room. The Investigating Officer [I.O.] was not confronted with many of the material objects by the prosecution and even when the seizure mahazars were proved, the exact date of seizure has not been disclosed. The call details produced by the prosecution in evidence do not connect the accused, deceased and PW-4. The trial Court had misdirected itself completely and has relied on very sketchy evidence to convict the accused and sentence him to life imprisonment. The so-called extrajudicial confession cannot at all be relied on.

5. Sri. S.U. Nazar, learned Senior Public Prosecutor, on behalf of the State, argues that there are 19 circumstances listed out by the trial Court, which clearly proves the death having been caused by the accused and that too, by smothering. The learned PP relies on [Sarad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. State of Maharasht