Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 1452
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. Suresh Kumar, Johnson John, JJ.
Sarada - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
CRL.A No. 749 of 2021
Decided On : 05-01-2024
For the Petitioner:Advocates, Manju Antoney, P. Mamatha, R. Anas Muhammed Shamnad, R. Avinash, P. Dhanya
For the Respondent:Advocates, Advocate General Office Kerala Smt. Ambika Devi S., SPL. G.P., Smt. Sheeba Thomas, Public Prosecutor
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must conclusively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Conviction for murder and concealment of evidence - The accused was convicted for murdering her 13-day-old child and concealing the body - The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, which the court found insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - The court emphasized that suspicion alone is not enough for conviction. (Paras 21 and 22)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The court reiterated the principles governing circumstantial evidence, stating that all circumstances must point to guilt and exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. (Paras 9, 10, and 11)
Facts of the case:
The accused was charged with murdering her infant and burying the body. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, which the court found inadequate to sustain a conviction.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The main issue was whether the conviction was legally sustainable based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence did not conclusively establish the guilt of the accused, emphasizing the need for a higher standard of proof in serious charges.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence are set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Johnson John, J.
The appellant, who is the accused in S.C. No. 288 of 2017 on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of Offences against Children (Additional Sessions Court-I), Manjeri, filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on her for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC as per the judgment dated 06.03.2019
2. The prosecution case is that the accused committed murder of her 13 days old girl child on 12.06.2016 at about 5 am., in her house at Nayadampoyil ST Colony and thereafter buried the dead body near to her house and thereby, committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
3. Exhibit P10(a) FIR was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C on 13.06.2016 on the basis of Exhibit P1 First Information Statement of PW2 Panchayat Ward Member. PW23, Circle Inspector of Police, Nilambur, completed the investigation and filed the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur. After committal, the case was numbered as S.C. No. 288 of 2017 and on production of the accused before the trial court, charge was framed for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and when the accused pleaded not guilty, PWs 1 to 23 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P25 and Mos 1 and 2 were marked on the side of prosecution to prove the charge against the accused. No evidence was adduced from the side of the accused.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Manjeri, by the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2019, convicted the accused and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
5. Heard Sri. C.C. Anoop, the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the appellant on record and Smt. Sheeba Thomas, learned Special Public Prosecutor.
6. The point that requires consideration is whether the conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellant as per the impugned judgment is legally sustainable.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the court below rendered a finding against the accused based on the circumstances revealed from the evidence of PW6 and PWs 12 to 14 without properly appreciating the circumstances narrated by the accused at the time of 313 questioning, and if the facts and circumstances brought out in evidence are taken cumulatively, it cannot be held that those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and that the same is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.
8. But, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that it is not in dispute that the accused is the mother of the 13 days old infant and that she attempted to conceal her pregnancy for the reason that she conceived illegitimately after the death of her husband and the said facts are revealed from the evidence of PWs 11 and 12 and it is also revealed from the evidence of PW12 that the accused quarrelled with PW12 on the allegation that PW12 has disclosed about the pregnancy of the accused to others and therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the motive and further the accused delivered the child on 30.05.2016 and she was discharged from the hospital on 10.06.2016 and thereafter, the child was always in the custody of the accused and since the child was found missing from the custody of the accused and she has not filed any complaint in this regard, the circumstances proved by the prosecution has a conclusive nature and tendency unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused and excluding every hypothesis inconsistent with her innocence.
9. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1990 SC 79, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that:-
"When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the followin
