Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 693
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.Suresh Kumar, Jobin Sebastian, JJ.
Shailaja @ Shaila – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor - Respondent
CRL.A No. 777 of 2020
Decided On : 25-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. Ajai Babu AHAMMED FAISAL P.S.(K/1252/2019)
For the Respondent: BY ADV SMT. BINDU O.V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of guilt, excluding reasonable hypotheses of innocence; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 209, 227, 232, 313 - Appeal against conviction for murder of a minor - Accused alleged to have killed her relative's daughter due to animosity - Court examined circumstantial evidence and principles governing its evaluation - No direct evidence of guilt found; prosecution failed to establish strong motive or consistent circumstantial links to the accused - Appeal allowed and conviction set aside. (Paras 1 , 19 , 39 )
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Requirements for conviction - The circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, and exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence - A complete chain of evidence is essential. (Paras 18 , 21 )
(C) Motive - While motive is relevant, it must be robust and cannot solely establish guilt - The alleged motive in this case was deemed weak. (Paras 30 , 39 )
Facts of the case:
The accused, nurturing animosity towards the family of the victim, was alleged to have killed the 4-year-old girl by throwing her into a river. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's presence near the river and alleged threats made to the victim's family.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a strong motive or a reliable chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime. The accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The main issues included whether the death was accidental or homicidal, the strength of the motive, and the reliability of circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain leading to guilt, and that mere suspicion is not sufficient for conviction.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Jobin Sebastian, J.
The sole accused in S.C. No.158/2017 on the file of Sessions Court, Thrissur, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against her for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code .
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
The deceased in this case was a 4-year-old minor girl named Meba and her maternal grandfather’s sister is the accused. The accused was nurturing animosity towards the mother of Meba (CW5) and other family members of CW5 as CW5 and her mother (CW10) stated that it was the accused who had earlier stolen Meba's waistlet when it was lost. Furthermore, the accused believed that it was at the instigation of CW5 and CW10, that the family members of the accused asked her not to visit the family house after the accused was booked in a case registered under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956. Due to the said animosity towards CW5 and her family members the accused with an intention to kill Meba, the daughter of CW5, on 13.10.2016, between 1.30 p.m. and 2 p.m., took Meba to the banks of “Manalipuzha” and then threw Meba into the said river and thereby killed her. Hence the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable underSection 302 of IPC .
3. On completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. 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 Court of Session, Thrissur under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code . The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offences and issued process to the accused. After hearing both sides under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., and perusal of records, the learned Sessions Judge, framed a written charge against the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution thereupon examined the witnesses on their side as PW1 to PW25 and marked Exts.P1 to P28 documents. MO1 to MO10 series were the material objects identified by the prosecution witnesses and marked in evidence. After completion of prosecution evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., she denied all the incriminating materials brought out against her 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 her defence. From the side of the accused two documents were marked as Ext.D1 and D2.
5. After trial, the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and she was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). In default of payment of fine the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.
6. The matter involved in this case was brought to light when the body of a minor girl aged 4 years was found lying in a river under suspicious circumstances. The law was set in motion in this case by the father of the minor girl who lodged an FIS before the SHO, Pudukkad Police Station. Originally, the FIR was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. as unnatural death. Thereafter, on the basis of some leads allegedly received from the postmortem examination and the witnesses’ statements, a report was filed by the investigating officer before the jurisdictional magistrate deleting Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and adding Section 302 of the IPC and arraying the deceased’s maternal grandfather’s sister as the accused.
7. The father of the deceased minor girl who lodged the FIS was examined as PW1 through video conferencing as he was abroad at the time of his examination. On examination before the court, PW1 deposed in the following lines
