IMPORTANT POINT
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and if the accused believed the victim to be lifeless, it may negate culpable homicide.

JUDGMENT :

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

The sole accused in S.C.No.367 of 2009 on the files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Mavelikara is the appellant in the appeal. He stands convicted and sentenced for having committed the murder of his wife, Remadevi.

2. The accused was a tailor by profession. He was residing with his wife and younger son, Varun. The elder son of the appellant, Vipin was residing with one of his maternal aunts for the convenience of his education. Remadevi was not present in the house when Varun woke up on 10.09.2005. When Varun enquired with the accused, the latter informed him that she had gone for a wedding. Remadevi did not return home on 10.09.2005. The accused also did not return home after his work on the said day. The disappearance of Remadevi raised suspicion among her relatives, and on a search made by them, her body was found in an unused septic tank in the courtyard of her house itself.

3. On the basis of the information furnished by the brother of the deceased, Rajeev Kumar, Mannar Police registered a crime on 11.09.2005 in connection with the death of Remadevi. The investigation in the case revealed that the accused, on account of his suspicion on the chastity of Remadevi, struck on the back of her head with an iron rod while she was sitting on a chair and thereupon pushed her body into an unused septic tank in their house which is filled with water and thereby caused her death. The final report was accordingly filed in the case against the accused alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).

4. On the appellant being committed to trial, the Court of Session framed charges against him in terms of the final report to which he pleaded not guilty. The evidence in the case consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 28 and Exts.P1 to P22 proved through them. MO1 to MO12 are the material objects identified by the witnesses. Exts.D1 to D6 series are the case diary statements of some of the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution. The accused was thereupon questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) as regards the incriminating evidence brought out by the prosecution. The accused denied the same. The explanation offered by him at that stage was that Remadevi left for attending a wedding at Kayamkulam on 10.09.2005 and that he has not seen her thereafter. It was also his explanation that he was arrested by the police when he went to his house on coming to know of the death of his wife. As the Court of Session did not find the case to be one fit for acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the accused was called upon to enter on his defence. The accused examined a witness on his side at that stage as DW1. Thereafter, on an appreciation of the evidence, the Court of Session found the accused guilty of the charges and sentenced him, among others, to imprisonment for life. The accused is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, hence this appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

6. The issue that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant, are sustainable in law.

7. As there is no direct evidence to the occurrence alleged by the prosecution, the attempt of the prosecution was to prove the same through circumstantial evidence. One of the contentions seriously pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing was that the circumstances proved in the case do not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the light of the said contention, it is necessary to delve deep into the evidence let in by the prosecution.

8. PW1 is the brother of Remadevi who lodged the First Information Statement. PW1 was a Police Constable at the rel