IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish a conclusive chain of circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant who is the accused in S.C.No.495/2010 on the file of the Court of Session, Palakkad, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC.

2. The prosecution case is as follows:- Divya, the deceased, is the daughter of the accused. The accused had dissuaded and had issued strict instructions to his daughter not to visit the house of PW5, his first wife. Divya without heeding to his directions, continued to visit the house of PW5. On 25/03/2009 when the accused returned home, he called Divya several times. But Divya without responding to his calls continued playing in the cradle made with saree tied inside the house. Enraged by this, the accused on the said day at 18:30 p.m. strangulated Divya with the saree that was used for tying the cradle. Hence, as per the final report, the accused was alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

3. On the basis of Ext.P1 FIS statement given by PW1, a cousin of the accused on 26/03/2009 at 09:00 a.m., crime no. 108/2009, Kollengode police station was registered by PW20, the Sub Inspector of police under Section 174 Cr.P.C. During the course of the investigation, the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was made out and hence a report for altering the Section was submitted. Investigation was taken over by PW22, the Circle Inspector of Police, who completed the investigation and submitted the final report before the jurisdictional magistrate alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC by the accused.

4. The jurisdictional magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities contemplated under Section 209 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Session, Palakkad. The case was taken on file as S.C.No. 495/2010 and thereafter made over to the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Palakkad for trial and disposal. On 03/12/2013, a charge under Section 302 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW22 were examined and Exts.P1 to P33 and M.O.1 to M.O.5 were got marked in support of the case. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied all those circumstances and maintained his innocence.

6. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support of the same. DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked on behalf of the accused. DW1, the Secretary, Muthalamada panchayath, Chittur was examined to prove that the house in which the incident is alleged to have occurred does not stand in the name of the accused and that the sibling of the accused was also occupying the house at the relevant time.

7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and proceeded to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-and in default to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under Section 304 Part-I IPC. Aggrieved, the accused has come up in appeal.

8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the conviction entered and sentence passed against the accused by the trial court are sustainable or not.

9. Heard both sides.

10. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the accused/appellant that the evidence on record is totally unsatisfactory to establish the offence alleged against him. There is no direct evidence. The prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, which is in no way satisfactory. In support of the argument, refe