Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Smt.V.K.Hema (State Brief)
For the Respondent: Smt.Neema T.V., Senior Public Prosecutor

Case Summary: CRL.A NO. 532 OF 2020 (High Court of Kerala)

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. (!) (!)