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

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1046

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, G.GIRISH, JJ.
Nazeer, S/o.Habeeb Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.A No. 485 of 2019
Decided on : 03-10-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Adv. Padmalayan. P.P.
For the Respondent: SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 392, and 449 - Conviction for murder and robbery - Appellant convicted for murdering his neighbor for gain and sentenced to life imprisonment and fines - Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime. (Paras 49, 50)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Principles - The court emphasized that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused. (Paras 19, 44)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering a 65-year-old woman and robbing her of gold ornaments and cash. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's presence near the crime scene and the recovery of stolen items. (Paras 1-12)

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of evidence linking the appellant to the crime, leading to reasonable doubt regarding his guilt. (Paras 49, 50)

Issues: The main issues included whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict the appellant and whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 19, 44)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required in criminal cases, particularly in circumstantial evidence cases, where the evidence must exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. (Paras 19, 44)

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside, and the appellant acquitted. (Paras 49, 50)

JUDGMENT :

Raja Vijayaraghavan. J.

The appellant in this case, Sri. Nazeer, a fish vendor, was arrayed as the accused in S.C.No.375 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences Against Women and Children (Additional Sessions Judge-I), Thalassery. He has been convicted under Sections 449, 392, and 302 of the IPC for murdering for gain, his neighbour, a 65-year-old spinster. By judgment dated 29.11.2017, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh under Section 302 of the IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh under Section 392 of the IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- under Section 449 of the IPC and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

Background Facts:

2. The deceased was residing alone in the Taravad house, numbered VII/143, situated in Eranholy Panchayat. Ext.P15, the scene mahazar, provides a picture of the location and surroundings of the home of the deceased. The mahazar reveals that the house faces east, with a courtyard on the eastern side. A pathway, measuring 122 cm in width and 14 meters in length, extends eastward from the house, leading to a small water channel. Approximately 12 meters to the west, beyond the western boundary wall, is the residence of Srinivasan, a close relative of the deceased. About 50 meters to the south lies the house of Kunjalu, the mother-in-law of the appellant. The house of Pramod (PW1), the nephew of the deceased, is also nearby.

3. For 15 years prior to her death, it was the practice of the deceased to live in her house during the daytime and spend the night in the house of Pramod (PW1), the son of her sister, located nearby. Pramod, Jisha P. (PW2), and PW1’s mother would keep her company. As usual, on the morning of 31.10.2010, at approximately 7:00 a.m., the deceased left PW1's residence.

4. The prosecution alleges that between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on the same day, K.K. Sasi (PW6), a newly elected member of the VII Ward of Eranholy Grama Panchayat, along with Babu (CW10), visited Nalini’s house to invite her to the swearing-in ceremony scheduled for the following day. Despite calling Nalini’s name repeatedly, there was no response, though the front door was lying open. They then proceeded to the house of PW1, located nearby, and informed him that Nalini had not answered.

5. At around 12:30 p.m., PW1 went to Nalini’s house to check on her.

To his shock, he discovered Nalini lying face down on the floor. Immediately, he called Sasi and Babu by phone. He also alerted his relatives, including his wife Jisha, Kamala (PW20), and Premaja, who all rushed to Nalini’s house. They found that her clothes were soaked with urine. As Nalini had been suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure, they initially believed she had fallen unconscious due to her medical conditions. They lifted her, changed her clothes, and requested PW6 to summon a doctor.

6. While trying to remove her blouse, they noticed that Nalini’s gold chain was missing. Within ten minutes, Dr. Viswanathan (PW16), the Medical Officer, “Sreyas Hospital”, arrived at the scene. After examining Nalini, he opined that it was likely that she had died four hours before his examination. The relatives also noticed that a bangle weighing approximately one sovereign and Rs.2,000/- in cash were missing.

Registration of Crime and Investigation:

7. The police were promptly notified, and based on the information provided by PW1, Ext.P19 FIR was registered as Crime No.1253 of 2010 at Tellicherry Police Station by PW27, the Sub Inspector of Police, for offences under Sections 302 and 392 of the IPC.

8. The investigation was taken over by PW28, the Circle Inspector of Police, Thalassery. He arrived at the scene, conducted th

          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