IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ.
Santhosh, S/o.Madhavan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.Appeal Nos.507, 600, 607 & 958 of 2020 and 263 & 752 of 2021
Decided on : 20-10-2023
Code of Criminal of Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2), 313(1)(b) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 201, 302, 397, 34, 118 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 7A, 2(12) - Juvenile Justice Rules, 2007 - Rule 12, (3), (3)(b) - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 10, 65B, 30 – Criminal conspiracy – Murder offence – Appeal against conviction - Sri.Raghu @ Kannan was a taxi driver - His dead body was found in a River – Evidence of PW59 regarding confession made to him by 5th accused can therefore be acted upon, subject to its reliability. (Para 51)
Finding of the Court :
Evidence tendered by him before court cannot be termed as a confession of a co-accused attracting limitations under Section 30 of Indian Evidence Act - Evidence of PW59 regarding confession made to him by 5th accused can therefore be acted upon, subject to its reliability - Other evidence corroborates version of PW59 relating to revelation of 5th accused about conspiracy - He was with accused Nos.1 to 3 and PW59 on same day prior to hiring car of deceased and fateful act of his murder - Conversion between accused Nos.1 and 5 proved beyond doubt that 5th accused was also a party to conspiracy hatched by them to rob a car and do away with driver - That certainly gets confirmation from confession by 5th accused to PW59 while they were in jail - Conviction of accused Nos.2 and 3 and 5 is liable to be confirmed – Court is of view that sentence imposed on them is commensurate to offence they have committed.
Result: Crl.Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
These appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal of Procedure, 1973. The Sessions Court, Palakkad tried accused Nos.1 to 9 in S.C.No.382 of 2014. Pending trial, accused Nos.4 turned an approver. On the conclusion of the trial, accused Nos.1 to 3 were convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 302 and 397 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Accused Nos.5 and 8 were convicted and sentenced under Sections 118 and 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accused Nos.6 and 7 were convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 118 of the IPC. The 9th accused was acquitted. The 1st accused did not prefer any appeal.
2. On 27.05.2020 accused Nos. 1 to 8 were found guilty and convicted. Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 were sentenced on the same day. Since accused Nos. 3, 5 and 6 absconded, their sentencing was postponed and the case against them was refiled as Sessions Case No.351 of 2020. On procuring their presence, accused Nos.6, 3 and 5 were sentenced, respectively, on 06.08.2020, 11.08.2020 and 24.08.2020.
3. Following are the details of the appeals filed by each of the accused:
| Case No. | Filed by whom | Sessions Case number |
| Crl.A.No.507 of 2020 | Santhosh Accused No.7 | S.C.No.382 of 2014 |
| Crl.A.No.600 of 2020 | Rajendran Accused No.8 | S.C.No.382 of 2014 |
| Crl.A.No.607 of 2020 | Rajeesh @ Unnimon Accused No.6 | S.C.No.351 of 2020 |
| Crl.A.No.958 of 2020 | Abu Thahir Accused No.3 | S.C.No.351 of 2020 |
| Crl.A.No.263 of 2021 | Muhammedali @ Mulla Accused No.2 | S.C.No.382 of 2014 |
| Crl.A.No.752 of 2021 | Krishnadas Accused No.5 | S.C.No.351 of 2020 |
4. Sri.Raghu @ Kannan was a taxi driver at Chelakkara. His dead body was found in a mutilated state in Thirunellayi River, Palakkad on the morning of 06.12.2012. A crime was registered from Palakkad Town South Police Station based on that information which was passed on by PW1. In the ensued investigation, PW61 who was the Inspector of Police, Town South Police Station unraveled the conspiracy and consequent murder of Sri.Raghu resulting in submission of a final report before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Palakkad.
5. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is: Accused Nos.1 to 8 hatched a conspiracy to rob a luxury car and using the same stanch off smuggled gold from the persons transporting it unauthorisedly. Accused Nos.1 to 3 came to Chelakkara in an Alto Car bearing Reg.No.KL-49-B-8523 on 06.12.2012 and accused Nos.4 and 5 joined them there. On the initiative of the 2nd accused, the Tavera Car bearing Reg.No.KL-48-D-9429 owned and driven by Sri.Raghu was hired. Accused Nos.1 to 4 boarded that car on the pretext of going on a trip to Ooty. Enroute, at about 11.50 p.m., after having stopped the car at Kongottupadom, the 1st accused attempted to inject cyanide, obtained from the 8th accused, using a syringe, which failed. Immediately, he with the help of accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 prevailed over Sri.Raghu and the 1st accused using a knife stabbed at his neck causing a fatal injury. The 2nd accused using that knife slashed his neck. Accused Nos.3 and 4 hit him using a stone. Thereby, they ensured death of Sri.Raghu and they thereafter left the body in Thiruvennayi River. They also tore off the abdomen of the dead body with an intention to avoid the body being floated on the water. Accused Nos.5 to 8, having known about the plot to commit such a criminal act, facilitated the act by concealing the same. The 9th accused harboured the 1st accused despite knowing about the offence he has committed.
6. On committal by the learned Magistrate, the Sessions Court took cognizance of the offences. The charges framed against the accused were duly denied by them. At the trial, PWs.1 to 61 were examined and Exts.P1 to P94 were marked on the
Asar Mohammad and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) 12 SCC 253
Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 1184
Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) 7 SCC 263
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 159
Madan Mohan Singh and others v. Rajni Kant and another (2010) 9 SCC 209
Maju v. State of Kerala 2020 (3) KLT 373
Mrinal Das and others v. State of Tripura AIR 2011 SC 3753
Mahadeo v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 14 SCC 637
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P.
Thadiyantevida Nazeer and others v. State of Kerala and another 2022 (1) KLT 685
Yuvaprakash P. v. State rep. by Inspector of Police 2023 (4) KLT 563(SC)
Circumstantial evidence can support convictions for conspiracy and murder, even if witnesses turn hostile, provided the overall evidence points consistently to the guilt of the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that circumstantial evidence must firmly establish the guilt of the accused, and in the absence of such firm establishment, the benefit of reasonab....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on sufficient evidence while acquitting co-accused due to failure to establish a conspiracy, citing legal principles on corroborative witness testimon....
Point of Law : Prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons by facilitating worthwhile evidence. [Para 236]
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in capital cases.
Convictions for conspiracy, abduction, and murder upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt when last seen theory is corroborated with the absence of satisfa....
(1) While appreciating evidence in criminal cases, there cannot be a strait-jacket formula. Evidence must be appreciated from perception of a prudent common man.(2) Conduct of a stranger eyewitness t....
Circumstantial evidence must be cogent and complete to establish guilt; the evidence of an approver requires careful scrutiny and corroboration.
The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence linking the accused to the murder, leading to the reversal of their conviction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.