IMPORTANT POINT
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading to the accused's guilt, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence, to sustain a conviction under Section 302 IPC.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The sole accused in S.C. No.823/2015, on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

The accused and Mahmooda, the deceased in this case, hailing from Assam were residing together as husband and wife in a rented house belonging to CW1. They had a minor child born on 25.02.2015. During their cohabitation, the accused developed relationships with several women through phone calls. Upon knowing about the same, Mahmooda reprimanded the accused. Enraged by the same and to avoid Mahmooda and his child from his life as well as to continue the relationships with other women without any hindrance, the accused with an intention to kill Mahmooda and his child, took them from the above-said rented house to an uninhabited rubber estate after deceiving Mahmooda that he was taking them to their native place at Assam. Thereafter, the accused committed the murder of Mahmooda and his child by slitting their throats with a knife at 1.00 a.m. on 22.05.2015 inside the said rubber estate belonged to one Ibrahim and disposed of the dead bodies in the adjacent paddy field. Thus, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

3. On completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavur. Being satisfied that the case was one triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate after complying with all the necessary formalities committed the case to the Sessions Court, Ernakulam under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After taking cognizance, the learned Sessions Judge made over the case for trial and disposal to Additional Sessions Court-I, Muvattupuzha.

4. On production of the accused before the court, the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., and perusal of records, framed a written charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in its bid to prove the charge levelled against the accused has altogether examined 25 witnesses as PW1 to PW25. P1 to P48 are the documents exhibited and marked. After completion of prosecution evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating materials brought out against him in evidence. Since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was directed to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence, he may have in support thereof. But no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced from the side of the accused.

6. After trial, the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and convicted and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for committing murder of Mahmooda. Moreover, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for committing the murder of his minor child. The substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is under challenge in this appeal.

7. The law was set in motion in this case on the strength of the FIS given by one Assinar, who claimed to have seen the dead bodies of Mahmooda and her minor child first. When the first informant was examined as PW1, he deposed that he was a rubber tapper. According to PW1, on 22.05.2015, in the mornin