SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ker) 94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JJ.
Muhammed Yousaf @ Sajid, S/o.Saidalavi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.A No. 1041, 1022 of 2016
Decided on : 14-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.RENJITH B.MARAR, LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL, SINDHU K.S.,BALASUBRAMANIAM R., ARAVIND S.P,SRILAKSHMI NAIR R, ARUN POOMULLI, BIJU VIGNESWAR, MEERA M.,SURABHI SANTHOSH
For the Respondent: SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE, SHRI.P.NARAYANAN, Adv

Point of Law : Motive assumes great significance where a conviction is sought to be predicated on circumstantial evidence alone and its absence can tilt scales in favour of the accused where all the links are not avowedly present.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 120B, 201 ,307 and 34 - Offence of Criminal conspiracy – Attempt to commit murder - Act done by several persons – Charged - Business man aged 53 years, was brutally hacked to death and his wife aged 55 years, was seriously injured by a midnight blitz at their rented house at Valancherry - Shocking incident came to light on the next day morning at 9.00 a.m when their immediate neighbour and house owner (PW4) found with injuries lying in a pool of blood at hall of house - Frightened, she ran out of the house and informed the incident to PW8, an employee of deceased, who came there to clear the bushes. He immediately went to his workplace and informed incident to PW1 and PW5, other employees of deceased - All of them rushed to scene house - Whether available evidence lead only to conclusion of guilt and exclude all contrary hypothesis.

Finding of the Court:

Court come to conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove any acceptable chain of circumstantial evidence which points compellingly and conclusively to the guilt of accused - All circumstances relied on by prosecution have not been established by prosecution by clear and cogent evidence - As stated at the inception, in order to sustain conviction, circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than guilt of accused - Such evidence should not only be consistent with guilt of accused but inconsistent with their innocence - Evidence does not justify hypothesis of guilt of accused, on contrary, evidence justifies the hypothesis of innocence of the accused - Court hold that prosecution failed to prove its case against appellants/accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT :

Kauser Edappagath, J.

One Mr.Vinod Kumar, a business man aged 53 years, was brutally hacked to death and his wife Mrs.Jaseentha George @ Jyothi, aged 55 years, was seriously injured by a midnight blitz at their rented house at Valancherry, Thrissur. The shocking incident came to light on the next day morning (09/10/2015) at 9.00 a.m when their immediate neighbour and house owner Mrs. Leelavathy (PW4) found Mrs.Jaseentha @ Jyothi with injuries lying in a pool of blood at the hall of the house. Frightened, she ran out of the house and informed the incident to PW8, an employee of the deceased, who came there to clear the bushes. He immediately went to his workplace and informed the incident to PW1 and PW5, the other employees of the deceased. All of them rushed to the scene house. They saw Mrs.Jaseentha @ Jyothi with bleeding injuries in the hall and her husband lying dead in the bed room. They immediately took her to nearby Nadakkavil Hospital, Valancherry from where she was referred to KIMS Alshifa Super Speciality Hospital, Perinthalmanna for expert management. At 9.30 a.m., PW1 went to Valancherry Police Station and gave Ext. P1 FI statement to PW50, the Senior Civil Police Officer. He registered Ext. P53 FIR against unknown persons for offences under Ss. 302 and 307 of IPC on the premises that Mr.Vinod Kumar was murdered and his wife was attempted to be murdered by someone. PW52, the CI of Police Valancherry, took up the investigation at 10.00 a.m. on the same day. On questioning the witnesses (especially PWs10 and 11) and verifying the call details of Mrs.Jaseentha @ Jyothi, the investigation agency formed an opinion that Mr.Vinod Kumar was hacked to death by none other than his own wife Mrs.Jaseentha @ Jyothi with the help and connivance of his aide Mr.Muhammed Yousaf @ Sajid (accused No.2) and the injury found on her body was a self inflicted one in order to erase the evidence. Accordingly, Mrs.Jaseentha George @ Jyothi and Mr.Muhammed Yousaf @ Sajid were arrayed as the accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively and Ss. 120B, 201 and 34 of IPC were incorporated, deleting S.307 of IPC. Exts. P54, 55 and 63 reports were filed to that effect at the court. The accused No.2 was arrested on 10/10/2015 at his house and the accused No.1 was arrested on 14/10/2015 on her discharge from the hospital.

2. A synoptical resume of the prosecution version which hinged on circumstances, is this: The accused No.1 was a native of Pandikkad, Malappuram. She was a Christian by birth. She was adopted by an Italian couple and taken to Italy. She was brought up at Italy and was working there as a nurse. She was having Italian citizenship. The deceased was also at Italy. They met at Italy, fell in love and married. The deceased was a Hindu by birth. After the marriage, the accused No.1 converted as a Hindu and adopted the name Jyothi. A child (PW12) was born in their wedlock at Italy. He was also an Italian citizen. Later, the deceased and the accused No.1 came back to India. They were residing at an apartment owned by them at Ernakulam. In the year 2010, the deceased started a gas agency under the name and style Rahul Gas Agency at Alinchode, Valancherry. The deceased took a house owned by the son of PW4 on rent at Valancherry where the incident was taken place. Since then, the deceased and the accused No.1 used to reside both at Valancherry and at Ernakulam. While they were living together, the deceased developed intimacy with another lady namely Mrs. Raji (PW6) and married her discreetly on 9/2/2012. A child was also born in the said wedlock. The accused No.1 was not at all aware of any such developments. She came to know of it in December 2013. Thereafter she became inimical towards the deceased and their relationship strained. Since then, the accused No.1 was residing at her apartment at Ernakulam and the deceased was residing with his second wife at an apartment at Guruvayoor and also occasionally at the house at Valancherry.

3. The accused No

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top