IMPORTANT POINT
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain linking the accused to the crime, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, for a conviction under Section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

This appeal is filed by the sole accused in SC No.1900/2013, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed against him under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Court–VI, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The prosecution case is that, on 4/11/2011 at about 10.30 am, the accused hacked his wife Esther using a chopper inflicting multiple injuries on her neck and head, inside their house situated in Neduvila and murdered her.

3. In the trial court, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW21 and marked Exhibits P1 to P26 documents and MO1 to MO10. On examining accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence. From the side of the accused, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2 Lakhs under Section 302 IPC. In case of default in payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year.

4. Heard Adv.D.Ajithkumar (State Brief) appearing for the appellant and Adv.Neema.I.V., learned senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that, on the basis of the evidence let in by the prosecution, the conviction against the accused cannot be sustained. He argued that the prosecution has not established the entire chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime. He submitted that the prosecution has not proved convincingly that the accused was last seen with the victim since the evidence of PW2 and PW4 are not credible. He also argued that the chain of circumstances allegedly proved by the prosecution is not consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and definitely gives room for an inference that some other person can also be involved in the crime.

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances which conclusively point out the guilt of the accused. She argued that the evidence let in by the prosecution would show that a fight had occurred between the deceased and accused on the morning of the fateful day and that thereafter, it was the accused alone who was present with the deceased, till the recovery of the body. She contended that the evidence of PW2 to PW4 would show that the accused had left the place of occurrence immediately after the incident and the evidence of PW12 would show that he had directly gone to the police station. She also argued that the scientific evidence let in by the prosecution confirms the presence of the accused with the deceased at the relevant time and the accused has not offered any explanation as to how his wife sustained fatal injuries. Hence, she argued that the said fact itself is an incriminating circumstance against the accused providing an additional link in the chain of circumstances against him.

7. Before evaluating the evidence, we would first discuss the material evidence let in by the prosecution. PW1 is the brother of the deceased Esther. He deposed that Esther was residing with her husband and son near their house, which is situated about 10 feet away. On 4/11/2011, while he was in the Church, his neighbour Murali came and called him. They went to the house of his sister and through a window, saw his sister lying with injuries on her neck, over an induction cooker kept on a stool. He went back to the Church and after prayers, got out and saw the accused and policemen coming out of the deceased house. The police entered the house and took his sister in an ambulance to Neyyattinkara hospital where she was declared dead. Thereafter, he gave Ext.P1 FIS to the police. He also identified the lungi and blouse worn by the deceased at that time as MO1 and MO2. In his cr