Back
2025 Supreme(KER) 1028
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B.SURESH KUMAROBIN SEBASTIAN, JJ
Devarajan @ Ponnappaswamy S/o.soundarraj - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
CRL.A NO. 619 OF 2019
Decided On : 12-02-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADV LAILA I S
For the Respondent: BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.BINDU O.V.
Circumstantial evidence can sustain a murder conviction if it is consistent with guilt and excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder conviction - The appellant was convicted for the murder of Ponnamma, a priestess, based on circumstantial evidence, including inconsistent statements and presence at the crime scene - The court emphasized the necessity of the accused to explain the circumstances of the death under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. (Paras 3, 6, 14, 15, 16)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Principles governing acceptance - The court outlined the principles for circumstantial evidence, requiring that the circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and exclude every possible hypothesis of innocence. (Paras 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering Ponnamma, who was found dead in her home. Evidence indicated the appellant was present at the time of death and provided inconsistent accounts of the incident. (Paras 2, 6, 15)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly noting his inconsistent statements and actions following the death. (Paras 15, 16)
Issues: The main issue was whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant for murder. (Paras 5, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant's failure to provide a credible explanation for the death, combined with the circumstantial evidence, justified the conviction under Section 302 IPC. (Paras 15, 16)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.
The sole accused in S.C.No.453 of 2015 on the files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thodupuzha, is the appellant. He stands convicted and sentenced for having committed the murder of one Ponnamma.
2. A temple was under the ownership of Ponnamma and she was also the priestess of the said temple. Ponnamma, though married, was widowed and thereafter, was residing in the house adjoining the temple premises. The appellant was a person who provided assistance to Ponnamma in the temple and he was also residing in the same house. On 24.08.2011, Mohanan, one of the brothers of Ponnamma informed Nedumkandam police that Ponnamma is lying dead in the bedroom of her house with some injuries on her body. A case was registered based on the said information and the investigation in the case revealed that at about 4.00 p.m. on 23.08.2011, when Ponnamma collapsed in her house on account of some ailment, the appellant smothered her to death using a folded saffron coloured dhoti. Final report was accordingly filed in the case.
3. On the appellant being committed to trial after his arrest, the Court of Session framed charge against him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, the prosecution let in evidence on its side. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 19 and Exts.P1 to P26 proved through them. Exts.D1 to D5 are the portions of the case diary statements of the witnesses. MOs 1 to 21 are the material objects identified by the witnesses. After complying with the procedure prescribed, the Court of Session found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, convicted him and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence in the case, hence this appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. The point that falls for consideration is whether the conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed against him, are sustainable in law.
6. There is no direct evidence in the case. The prosecution, therefore, attempted to prove the occurrence through various circumstances brought out in the evidence of the witnesses. The first witness examined for the said purpose is PW1. He is the brother of the Ponnamma. As noted, it was at the instance of PW1 that the case was registered. According to PW1, he was informed about the death by one Hari and when PW1 proceeded to the house of Ponnamma along with one Shibu and Susheelan upon receiving the information, they found the body of Ponnamma lying on her back on the floor of the house with some injuries on her body. It was deposed by PW1 that the appellant was present in the house of Ponnamma at the time when they reached and when they enquired with the appellant as to what happened to Ponnamma, the appellant informed them that she fell down while coming from the bathroom. It was deposed by PW1 that by about 9.00 p.m. on that day, the appellant was found missing from the house of Ponnamma.
7. PW4 is Hari, referred to by PW1 in his evidence. According to PW4, at about 4.45 p.m. on 23.08.2011, the appellant informed him over telephone that Ponnamma is severely ill and sought the help of PW4 to take Ponnamma to the hospital. It was the version of PW4 that he immediately went to the house of Ponnamma and when he knocked at the window of her house which was seen closed from the nearby by-lane, the appellant opened the window and informed him that Ponnamma attained “samadhi” and it is not necessary therefore to take her to the hospital. It was deposed by PW4 that even though he left the house of Ponnamma then, when he returned after sometime, he saw Advocate Babu Mohan near the gate of the temple. According to PW4, he then entered inside the compound of the temple along with Advocate Babu Mohan and they then found that the main door of the house was lying open. It was the version of P
