IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JJ.
K.Babu, S/o.Kunjukuttan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.A.No.136 of 2018
Decided on : 26-10-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 383, 449, 397, 392, 201 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 313, 232 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27, 25 and 26 – Murder offence - House-trespass - Appeal against conviction - Accused impugns conviction and sentence awarded to him by trial court which found him guilty of offences – Prosecution has not succeeded in establishing that evidence. (Para 21)
Finding of the Court :
Court find that practice of wholesale acceptance of confession statements of accused persons, albeit for introduction of relevant statement under Section 27 of Evidence Act, continues even today, notwithstanding plethora of judgments of High Courts and Supreme Court since 1960's that have deprecated the practice, Court feel that perhaps time has now come to hold that admission into evidence, of such confessional statements of accused as are hit by Sections 25 and 26 of Evidence Act, and not saved by provisions of Section 27 of Act, would, without anything more, vitiate trial against accused and entitle him/her to an acquittal – Prosecution to have failed in proving any acceptable chain of circumstantial evidence which points compellingly and conclusively to guilt of appellant who, admittedly does not have any criminal antecedents – Court therefore, allow this appeal by setting aside conviction and sentence passed against appellant accused, and acquit him of all charges brought against him.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The accused in S.C.No.425/2009 before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam (CBI) is the appellant before us in this Criminal Appeal that impugns the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the trial court which found him guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 383, 449, 397, 392, 201 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC].
The case of the prosecution:
2. The prosecution case was that on the night of 5.12.2006 between 18.45 hours and 19.00 hours, the accused trespassed into the residence of Kumaranunni Nair and Anandavally Amma with the intention of killing them. During a scuffle that occurred inside the house, he strangulated Kumaranunni Nair who became unconscious and fell down. When Anandavally Amma arrived at the scene hearing the noise, the accused inflicted multiple injuries on her with a Billhook/Koduval and murdered her. He thereafter murdered Kumaranunni Nair who had regained consciousness in the meanwhile, by inflicting multiple injuries on him as well using the same Koduval. The accused then cut and removed two gold bangles from Anandavally Amma's hands and also took a gun and cash of Rs.550/-that belonged to Kumaranunni Nair. He then sprinkled kerosene and coconut oil on the bed sheets and pillows and lit fire to it after putting it on the dead bodies and also sprinkled the compound of Pepsi Entrine and Phenol all over the area where he had moved so as to destroy any evidence of his presence at the scene.
3. The crime was detected only on the morning of 06.12.2006 and an FIR was registered by the police on the same day. After an initial investigation done by the local police, the investigation was transferred to the CBI. The accused was arrested on 12.05.2009, and produced before the court below that remanded him to custody. The case was committed to the IIIrd Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam (CBI), and was numbered as S.C.No.425/2009. The trial started on 07.01.2010, closed on 21.01.2011 and the sentence was passed on 07.02.2011.
Proceedings before the Trial Court:
4. PW1 to PW34 were examined by the Prosecution and Exts.P1 to P64 documents were marked as were MO's 1 to 36. On the side of the defence, Exts.D1 to D10 were marked. After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the Prosecutor and the defence counsel were heard under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and finding no reason to acquit the accused at that stage, the court below proceeded to consider the evidence of the defence. No witness was however called by the defence.
5. After hearing the prosecution and defence, the court below found the accused guilty of offence under Sections 302, 383, 449, 397, 392, 201 of IPC. In arriving at the said findings, the trial court relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. In particular, it relied on the testimony of PW1 Prasanna Kumari, the daughter of the deceased, PW4 Baby, the maid who worked in the house of the deceased and PW5 Kunjikuttan, the father of the appellant/accused to find that the accused was a person who was well known to the deceased couple and that he had gained their trust over the years, and that he had on many occasions driven them to the bank and to the houses of their relatives in his autorickshaw, and therefore he also knew that the couple had money and gold ornaments kept in their house. The testimony of Kunjikuttan and PW10 Ramesh Kumar, the business partner of the appellant was relied on to establish that the accused was in need of money on account of failed business ventures in the immediate past and that the need for money was the motive for the trespass and murder of the deceased couple and the theft of the money, gold bangles and gun from the house. The testimony of Baby who saw the accused near the house of the deceased couple earlier in the evening of the murder, as also the testimony of the neighbours PW2 E. Narayanan and PW3 Karthiyani w
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. And Others – AIR 1990 SC 79
Pulukuri Kottaya and others v. Emperor - AIR (34) 1947 PC 67
Pakala Narayana Swami v. Emperor – AIR 1939 PC 47
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava – AIR 1992 SC 840
Shibu & Anr. v. State of Kerala - 2010 (4) KHC 62
Shankar Gajanan Kalan v. State of Maharashtra – (1996) 11 SCC 151
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra - AIR 1984 SC 1622
State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal - AIR 1992 SC 2045
State v. Ammini and Others – 1987 (1) KLT 928
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Another – (2007) 3 SCC 755 .
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh – (2000) 1 SCC 471
State of Gujarat v. Anirudhsing AIR 1997 SC 2780
State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra - AIR 1996 SC 2766
Shakila Khader & Others v. Nousheer Cama & Others – (1975) 4 SCC 122
Vilas Pandurang Patil v. State of Maharashtra - (2004) 6 SCC 158
Vithal Eknath Adlinge v. State of Maharashtra - (2009) 11 SCC 637 .
Abubucker Siddique and Another v. State - (2011) 2 SCC 12
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. – AIR 1989 SC 1890
Ammini v. State of Kerala – AIR 1998 SC 260
Bakshish Singh v. The State of Punjab – AIR 1971 SC 2016
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab – AIR 1957 SC 216
Charan Singh v. The State of U.P. – AIR 1967 SC 520
Daya Ram v. The State (Delhi Administration) - AIR 1988 SC 615
Girija Shankar Misra v. State of UP – AIR 1993 SC 2618
Hasib v. State of Bihar – AIR 1972 SC 283
Harendra Narain Singh v. State of Bihar – AIR 1991 SC 1842
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh - AIR 1952 SC 343
Mathew Zacharia v. State of Kerala – 1974 KLT 42 (DB)
Mahabir Mandal and Others v. State of Bihar – (1972) 1 SCC 748
Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan - AIR 2011 SC 2769
Mohammed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra – AIR 1976 SC 483
Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh – AIR 1978 SC 1183
Mahabir v. State of Delhi – AIR 2008 SC 2343
Mohammed v. State of Kerala – 1962 KLT 120
Naresh alias Nehru v. State of Haryana – 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1274
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani and Another – (1978) 2 SCC 424
Motive assumes great significance where a conviction is sought to be predicated on circumstantial evidence alone.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence, including motive, in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the evidence must be cogent, trustworthy, and exclude every possible hypo....
Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain pointing solely to the guilt of the accused; confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of facts.
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of events in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasona....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances and a motive for the crime to secure a conviction.
(1) Where case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, chain of evidence must be so far complete, such that every hypothesis is excluded but one proposed to be proved and such circumstances must s....
The judgment underscores the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, with no reasonable doubt of innocence.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for a complete chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the inadmissibility of confessions, and the need to connect recovered material obje....
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.