Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1195
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, P. V. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ
SHAMSUDHEEN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 264/2019
ADV SHARAN SHAHIER, ADV SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SR. PP SMT NEEMA T V
The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, when established beyond reasonable doubt, can lead to a conviction for murder, especially when the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation for the circumstances surrounding the crime.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Conviction of the accused for strangling his wife, Fazeela, established through circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession - The court emphasized the necessity of proving the chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt, as per established legal principles. (Paras 19, 20, 29, 32)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Burden of proof on the accused to explain circumstances within his knowledge - Failure to provide a plausible explanation strengthens the prosecution's case. (Paras 26, 27)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for the murder of his wife, Fazeela, who was found dead in their home. Evidence indicated a history of domestic violence and the accused's presence at the time of death.
Findings of Court:
The court found the accused guilty of murder based on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession, dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Issues: The main issues included the nature of Fazeela's death and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution proved the murder beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the importance of circumstantial evidence and the accused's failure to explain the circumstances of the crime.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This appeal is filed by the sole accused in S.C.No.1082/2015 challenging his conviction and sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Court (Marad Cases) Kozhikode.
Prosecution case
2. The victim Fazeela was married to the accused and was residing in her matrimonial home at Kundaithode. A girl child was also born in that wedlock. The accused, by suspecting the chastity of his wife, used to torture her and they indulged in regular quarrels. The accused also subjected her to cruelty demanding more gold and money. On 26/12/2014, some time between 11am and 12.15 pm, the accused beat Fazeela using a wooden plank and when she fell unconscious, tied a shawl around her neck and strangled her and killed her. Thereafter, the accused hanged her on a bar in the window of the bedroom to make it appear as suicide. Hence, the prosecution alleged that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A IPC . Proceedings in the trial court
3. In order to prove the prosecution case, PW1 to PW25 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P26 and MO1 to MO12 were marked. Exts.D1 and D1(a) contradictions were also marked from the side of the accused. On examining under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and contended that he is innocent. When called upon to enter on his defence, no evidence was adduced by the accused. The trial court on an appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, found the accused guilty of committing the offence under Section 302 IPC .
But, it is also found that the accused is not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and he was acquitted thereof. The trial court sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 302 . In case of default, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year.
Conspectus of the Prosecution evidence
4. PW1 is a neighbour of the accused and he deposed that on the fateful day at about 11 am, he heard the accused and the deceased fighting.
5. PW2 is also another neighbour of the accused. He deposed that on 26/12/2012, at about 12.15 pm, he was informed by two children that the accused was breaking the window pane and he went to his house. At that time, a few neighbours including Shafeer were present there and they entered the house. The bedroom was found locked from the outside and they together broke it open. Then, they saw Fazeela in a sitting posture with her chin placed in the cot. A piece of shawl was tied in her neck and its remaining piece was found tied in the window. The accused removed the knot from the neck of Fazeela and thereafter they took her to the hospital. He also identified the pieces of shawl as MO1 and MO2. He further stated that the accused doubted the chastity of his wife and they quarreled regularly.
6. PW3 is another neighbour of the accused. She deposed that on 26/12/2014, the accused called her from the courtyard of his house and when she went there, she heard the noise of the child from inside the bedroom which was locked. When she went outside and looked through the broken window, she saw Fazeela in a sitting posture with her legs folded, and her head resting upon the leg of the cot. A piece of shawl was seen tied in her neck and the remaining was tied in the window. She also stated that the accused doubted the chastity of his wife and they used to fight regularly.
7. PW 4 is also a neighbour of the accused. She deposed that on 26/12/2014 at about 11am, she saw the accused running towards his house. Thereafter, she heard some noise from the house and at about 12.15 pm., saw the accused talking with PW3. She went to the house of the accused and saw the bedroom door locked and heard the cries of the child. When she came out of the house, a few people had assembled there and PW2 broke open the bedroom door. On entering the
