The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and the court may rely on circumstantial evidence to reach a decision.

JUDGMENT :

A.M. Shaffique, J.

1. Appellant Sunil Kumar @ Sunil is the sole accused in the case. He is before us in appeal challenging the verdict passed against him by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mavelikkara in S.C. No. 645 of 2013 dated 29/11/2014 by which he was found guilty for offences under Section 302 and Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for committing offence under Section 392 of I.P.C. Fine amount, if realized, was directed to be paid to P.W. 3 Pookunju as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). Substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution is as follows:

Accused had developed intimacy over a long period with the deceased Rasheeda through contact over mobile phone. He intended to rob the gold ornaments of Rasheeda after having sexual intercourse with her in her house. To fulfill his desire and execute his plan, he collected sleeping pills from Maanu Memorial Hospital, Manjeri on 04/07/2010 and left Manjeri at 05.45 a.m. on 11/07/2010. On the same day, by about 04.00 p.m., he reached KSRTC bus stand, Kayamkulam. From there, he hired an autorickshaw and reached Irshad Manzil in Ward No. 23 of Kayamkulam Municipality at Cheravally Muri and Kayamkulam Village, wherein Rasheeda is residing with her family. Then, on the bedroom on the southern side of the kitchen, he engaged in sexual intercourse with Rasheeda twice. Thereafter, he began to sleep beneath the cot. During night, when husband of Rasheeda was asleep, by about 10.30 p.m., he again engaged in sexual intercourse with Rasheeda. Then the appellant gave the sleeping pills stating that it is for sexual rejuvenation and made her to consume the same. When Rasheeda became drowsy due to the administration of sleeping pills, accused strangulated her and also hit her head against the floor and the vortex region on the legs of the cot. Due to strangulation and forceful hit, Rasheeda died. Thereafter, the appellant herein removed two gold chains, three bangles and one ring worn by Rasheeda and also took away her mobile phone. Appellant was charged with the above-mentioned offences and was convicted and sentenced as detailed above.

3. To prove the case against the appellant, prosecution relied on oral testimonies of P.W. 1 to P.W. 39, documentary evidence Exts. P1 to P43 and material objects MO1 to MO17. After closing the evidence of the prosecution, appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with a view to enable him to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him. In addition to his oral replies, he filed detailed statement also which, in brief, is as follows:-

4. The appellant was taken to the house of Rasheeda after her death. He saw P.W. 11 and P.W. 13 for the first time in Court. On every posting date, at the time of trial, P.W. 13 was seen present in the Court. When money was demanded by P.W. 13, appellant did not give. Appellant used to go to Maanu Memorial Hospital which is near his workshop. He never went to the said hospital complaining lack of sleep. He worked in the workshop run by Sasikumar, Eldos and Hamsa. He belongs to Palakkad. The owners of the workshop had rented a house near the workshop at Cherani junction. It is true that he was taken to the said house after his arrest, but he was not allowed to get down from the jeep. Besides him, the brother of Sasikumar is also working in the workshop. Appellant had often seen the said person talking to women over phone. It is true that the workshop functioned from 09.00 a.m. to about 06.00 p.m. On 11/07/2010 and the following day, appellant was in Manjeri itself. It