Back
2024 Supreme(Ker) 1664
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.B. SURESH KUMAR, JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
Sarada W/o Late Vasu - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 749 of 2021
Decided On : 05-01-2024
For the Appellants : Manju Antoney, P. Mamatha, R. Anas Muhammed Shamnad, R. Avinash, P. Dhanya
For the Respondents: Sheeba Thomas, Ambika Devi S.
The conviction for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence can only stand if it excludes all hypotheses of innocence and proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 235(1) - Appellant convicted of murder of her infant and concealment of corpse - Evidence insufficient to ensure conviction beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution's case rested solely on circumstantial evidence - Conviction set aside. (Paras 1, 4, 21)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - When relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish all circumstances leading unerringly to guilt, the evidence must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, and any other reasonable hypothesis of innocence raises reasonable doubt. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, accused of killing her infant, gave birth on 30.05.2016; the child was reported missing under suspicious circumstances, and the prosecution led circumstantial evidence to link the accused to the crime. (Paras 2, 4, 8)
Findings of Court:
Insufficient evidence to overcome the standard of proof required for conviction in murder cases. The prosecution failed to establish a definitive link between the accused and the infant's death. (Paras 21, 22)
Issues: Whether the conviction and term of sentence were legally sustainable based on the circumstantial evidence presented. (Para 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction; the evidence presented must exclude all other reasonable hypotheses of innocence. (Paras 21, 22)
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused's appeal against conviction and sentence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. consideration of the sustainability of the conviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments pertaining to evidence and motives. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. standards for circumstantial evidence in murder cases. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. witness testimonies related to the event. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. details regarding the recovery of the body and postmortem findings. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. evaluation of the evidence and argument for reasonable doubt. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. conclusion reached regarding guilt. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 9. final judgment and acquittal of the accused. (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT :
JOHNSON JOHN, J.
1. The appellant, who is the accused in S.C. No. 288 of 2017 on the file of the Special Court for the Trial of Offences against Children (Additional Sessions Court-I), Manjeri, filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on her for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC as per the judgment dated 06.03.2019
2. The prosecution case is that the accused committed murder of her 13 days old girl child on 12.06.2016 at about 5 am., in her house at Nayadampoyil ST Colony and thereafter buried the dead body near to her house and thereby, committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
3. Exhibit P10(a) FIR was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C on 13.06.2016 on the basis of Exhibit P1 First Information Statement of PW2 Panchayat Ward Member. PW23, Circle Inspector of Police, Nilambur, completed the investigation and filed the final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur. After committal, the case was numbered as S.C. No. 288 of 2017 and on production of the accused before the trial court, charge was framed for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and when the accused pleaded not guilty, PWs 1 to 23 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P25 and Mos 1 and 2 were marked on the side of prosecution to prove the charge against the accused. No evidence was adduced from the side of the accused.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and after hearing both sides, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Manjeri, by the impugned judgment dated 06.03.2019, convicted the accused and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
5. Heard Sri. C.C. Anoop, the learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the appellant on record and Smt. Sheeba Thomas, learned Special Public Prosecutor.
6. The point that requires consideration is whether the conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellant as per the impugned judgment is legally sustainable.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the court below rendered a finding against the accused based on the circumstances revealed from the evidence of PW6 and PWs 12 to 14 without properly appreciating the circumstances narrated by the accused at the time of 313 questioning, and if the facts and circumstances brought out in evidence are taken cumulatively, it cannot be held that those circumstances are of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and that the same is inconsistent with the innocence of the accused.
8. But, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that it is not in dispute that the accused is the mother of the 13 days old infant and that she attempted to conceal her pregnancy for the reason that she conceived illegitimately after the death of her husband and the said facts are revealed from the evidence of PWs 11 and 12 and it is also revealed from the evidence of PW12 that the accused quarreled with PW12 on the allegation that PW12 has disclosed about the pregnancy of the accused to others and therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the motive and further the accused delivered the child
