Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Raja Vijayaraghavan V, K. V. Jayakumar, JJ.
Viswanathan – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 532 OF 2020
Decided On : 17-06-2025
Parties and Outcome
- Appellant (1st accused/Viswanathan) acquitted of charges under Sections 376D and 302 r/w 34 IPC; conviction and life sentence set aside by Sessions Court reversed. (!) (!) (!)
- Prosecution case rested on accomplice (PW2, former 2nd accused) testimony and circumstantial evidence (recovery of chopper MO5, clothes, blood on items); held insufficient beyond reasonable doubt. (!) (!)
Facts of the Case
- Deceased Sabitha Maji (32, estate worker) went missing on 01.01.2017 (Sunday); body found midnight in forested bushy area near Kuttikanam Estate, concealed under leaves, with 56 antemortem injuries (cut/chop wounds, fractures, contusions, abrasions). (!) (!) (!) (!)
- PW1 (husband) worked that day, returned 5 PM, searched with neighbors/Estate Manager (PW4); no initial suspect. FIR lodged 02.01.2017 u/s 302 IPC. (!) (!) (!)
- Prosecution allegation: Accused shared common intention; PW2 signaled appellant who struck deceased (carrying firewood) on head (blunt chopper side), raped her (held by PW2), then 2nd accused raped; inflicted wrist cut, multiple facial cuts causing death; disposed body. (!) [3]
- Appellant arrested 03.01.2017; disclosures led to chopper (MO5 under bed), clothes (MO16-19); blood/human blood on watch/ring/sandal/chopper; vaginal swab had spermatozoa/semen. (!) (!) [1] (!) (!)
- PW2 turned approver post-charge (S.307 CrPC application, granted 22.12.2018); claimed signaled appellant, held deceased during rape (only appellant raped per his testimony), helped dispose body; motivated by alcohol/money/resentment toward deceased. [5] (!) (!) (!)
Prosecution Evidence Issues
- Homicide confirmed (multiple injuries inconsistent with single chopper MO5 alone). (!) (!) [11]
- No DNA on vaginal spermatozoa (despite blood samples from accused); could belong to PW1 (intercourse 4-5 days prior), appellant, PW2, or third party; fatal lapse. (!) (!) [59]
- Bloodstains in PW2 room (PW10); report not produced; IO claimed chicken slaughter (implausible). (!) (!) [23]
- Tooth seized 18.96m from body; no follow-up/forensic report; not linked to deceased/accused. [23] (!)
- Minor injuries on accused (abrasions/scratches); no vaginal trauma noted (old hymen tears). [26]
- PW5/PW7/PW12 saw appellant cutting bamboo ~1-2 PM near scene (not at Layam); PW12 saw PW2 following deceased. (!) [16][17][19][55]
- PW1 alleged appellant ogled wife; PW2 had quarrels/resentment (complaints to Manager). (!) [12][54]
Approver (PW2) Testimony Evaluation
- Competent u/s 133 Evidence Act but requires material corroboration (S.114(b) Illustration); unsafe without. (!) (!) [49][50]
- PW2 (18, alcoholic, married, recent employee) minimized role (no rape/injuries by him, unlike charge); exculpatory vs. charge; discrepancies with Ext.D1 pardon petition (no signal/money/rape admission). (!) (!) (!) [32][33] (!)
- Implausible: Assisted senior appellant despite own animosity; washed blood off half-pant yet room bloodstains; post-crime casually bought biscuits/saw parents. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Pardon grant: Equal/major role in charge; self-exculpatory petition; no S.306(4) statement recorded (though not fatal u/s 307 stage). (!) [34] (!) (!) [43]
- Unreliable overall; no independent corroboration (recovery flawed, medical/circumstantial gaps). (!) [66]
Recovery Evidence (S.27 Evidence Act)
- MO5 chopper/clothes/watch/ring/sandal: Human blood detected but no blood group match to deceased; chain of custody weak (court receipt delay); disclosure vague, no witnesses to statement, doesn't prove authorship/concealment. (!) (!) [62][64]
- Dog squad led to PW2; no evidence adduced. (!) (!)
- Insufficient alone for conviction. [65]
Sessions Court Errors
- Relied heavily on PW2 as credible; medical/recovery as corroboration; ignored gaps (no DNA, inconsistent injuries, PW2 role). (!) [7] (!)
Ratio/Holdings
- Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; accomplice testimony admissible but prudence demands corroboration in material particulars (independent, not vague). (!) [49][50][51]
- Investigative lapses (no DNA, suppressed reports, unchallenged anomalies) create doubt. (!) (!) (!)
- Appeal allowed; acquittal as case not proved. (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishment of factual background surrounding the crime. (Para 2) |
| 2. outline of the charges and legal proceedings. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. presentation of evidence by the prosecution. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. arguments presented by both the appellant and the prosecutor. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court's analysis of evidence and witness testimonies. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. evaluation of the prosecution's case and its credibility. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. discussion on the reliability of the approver's testimony. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. legal principles regarding accomplice testimony. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 9. final conclusion and acquittal of the appellant. (Para 66) |
JUDGMENT :
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
This appeal is preferred by the 1st accused in S.C.No. 199 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, challenging the finding of guilt, conviction, and sentence arrived at against him. By the impugned judgment, the appellant was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 20 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, with a default clause for the offence under Section 376D of the Indian Penal Code , and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a find of Rs.50,000/-, with a default clause for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC .
Brief Statement of Facts:
2. Sabitha Maji, wife of Kundan Maji (PW1), was a 32-year-old woman and the mother of a child. A native of Odisha, she was employed along with her husband in the “Kallivayal Estate” at Kuttikanam. The couple resided in a line building “Layam” allotted to estate workers by the management. On 01.01.2017, being a Sunday, there was no scheduled work at the estate. However, PW1 opted to work that day and left for work at around 7:00 a.m., accompanied by ten other workers. At the time, Sabitha Maji was washing clothes outside their quarters. The appellant resided in the adjacent room, while other neighbouring rooms were occupied by PW2 and a woman named Sumathi.
2.1 PW1 returned from work at approximately 5:00 p.m., only to find that his wife was missing. He enquired with the neighbours and conducted a search in the locality but his wife could not be located.
2.2 Later that night, the Estate Manager and more employees joined the search efforts. At midnight, the body of Sabitha Maji was discovered in a bushy, forested area, concealed under dry leaves with multiple cut injuries all over her body. PW1 then approached the police and lodged a complaint, based on which, Crime No.6 of 2017 of Peerumedu Police Station was registered at 7:00 a.m. on 02.01.2017 under Section 302 IPC .
2.3. At the time of lodging the First Information Statement, none of the estate employees had any knowledge of the identity of the perpetrators.
2.4 The investigation was taken over by PW13, the Circle Inspector of Police, Peerumedu. He conducted the inquest over the body of the deceased (Ext.P2) and seized the clothes, bangles, a tooth and other items found near the body. The assistance of Forensic experts, a Scientific Assistant, and Dog Squad was secured. Translators and interpreters were also engaged to communicate with estate workers.
2.5 On 03.01.2017, the 1st and 2nd accused were arrested as per Ext.P20 and Ext. P23 arrest memos. Their personal belongings were seized. On 04.01.2017, an address verification report (Ext.P24) was submitted to the court, containing the details of the accused. Subsequently, Ext.P25 was forwarded, incorporating Section 376 r/w. Section 34 IPC , in addition to Section 302 of the IPC .
2.6. A scene mahazar (Ext.P4) was prepared in the presence of witnesses. Based on a disclosure statement (Ext.P5(a)) made by the 1st accused, MO5 (chopper), allegedly used as the weapon in the crime, was recovered from beneath the bed in his residence. The clothing worn by the 1st accused during the commission of the offence was also seized (Ext. P6).
2.7 Both accused
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when relying on an accomplice's testimony, which requires corroboration.
special category sentence can only be imposed by the High Courts or the Supreme Court and not by the Sessions Court.
Point of Law : Approver is a competent witness but position in law is fairly well settled that on uncorroborated testimony of approver, it would be risky to base conviction, particularly, in respect ....
Circumstantial evidence must be cogent and complete to establish guilt; the evidence of an approver requires careful scrutiny and corroboration.
The reliability of witness testimony is critical, especially in murder cases; inadmissible evidence and procedural lapses can lead to wrongful convictions.
The testimony of an approver must be corroborated by reliable evidence to sustain a conviction; uncorroborated evidence is insufficient for a guilty verdict.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of corroborative evidence in relation to the material particulars of the testimony of an approver and the principle that the accuse....
(1) Accused is presumed to be innocent till proved guilty and this presumption gets doubled with acquittal by Trial Court.(2) Before testimony of Approver may be used as evidence to record conviction....
A conviction in a murder case cannot be sustained on unreliable eyewitness testimony, and the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
