Circumstantial evidence, when cohesive and linking the accused to the crime, can sustain convictions for murder despite defense claims, provided that it meets the stringent requirements of evidentiary standards and demonstrates clear motivation.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

1.The sole accused in S.C.No.660 of 2019 before the Sessions Court, Thrissur is the appellant before us aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.11.2020 of the Sessions Judge, Thrissur, convicting him under Sections 440 , 449, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] for the murder of a 21 year old girl who had refused to marry him.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Neethu was staying with her grandmother and uncle at her maternal home at Chiyyaram, Thrissur District. On 04.04.2019 at about 06.45 a.m, the accused trespassed into the bathroom attached to the bedroom of Neethu and murdered her by stabbing her with a knife on her neck, chest and abdomen. After inflicting the fatal stab injuries, he went on to pour petrol on her and set her ablaze. The prosecution states that the accused had made all preparations for a planned murder by purchasing a knife, petrol etc. on the days immediately prior to the date of commission of the crime and the refusal on the part of Neethu to marry the accused is stated to be the motive behind the crime.

3. Ext.P1 FI Statement was given by PW1 Sahadeva Menon, the uncle of the deceased at 09.28 a.m. on 04.04.2019, and on the basis of the said statement, Ext.P45 FIR was registered. The appellant/accused was formally arrested at 03.30 p.m. on 04.04.2019 as evidenced by Ext.P46 arrest memo. On culmination of the investigation that followed, a final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Thrissur in C.P.No.12 of 2019. The learned Magistrate, after furnishing copies of the relevant prosecution records to the appellant/accused, committed the case to the Sessions Court in terms of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C.]. Before the Sessions Court, a further investigation was conducted at the instance of PW1 Sahadeva Menon, who had invoked the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and a further report was filed by the Investigating Officer. In the said report, Section 324 IPC was deleted and Section 440 IPC was added. The copies of the further report and other relevant prosecution records were also furnished to the appellant/accused.

4. The charges under Sections 439, 302, 440 and 324 IPC were framed and read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the said charges. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 38 and marked Ext.P1 to P56 documents. MOs.1 to 31 were also identified. In the Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, the appellant/accused denied all the incriminating circumstances that was brought out in the prosecution evidence against him and filed a written statement as follows:

"He was in love with Neethu, since 2016. Neethu was a frequent visitor at his residence and she was acquainted with all his family members and neighbours. His parents were treating Neethu as their daughter. The family members of Neethu, except her maternal uncle Sahadevan were in favour of their relationship. Neethu used to frequently travel with the accused on his bike to his residence and workplace. Neethu had given him certain hints regarding the conduct of her uncle in approaching her with sexual desire. But, the accused pacified her. On 01.03.2019 and 02.03.2019, Neethu was totally upset as she had to face some filthy experience from her uncle, Sahadevan. She had also communicated the said fact to his mother on 02.03.2019 over phone, after which Sahadevan had threatened himself and his mother over phone. Uncle Sahadevan had continued the illegal act on Neethu. But the accused ha