Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68085
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2024/5TH VAISAKHA, 1946 D.S.R.NO.1 OF 2018 CRIME NO.501/2015 OF MANARCADU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/03/2017 IN SC NO.320 OF 2015 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN C.P.NO.30 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM PETITIONER:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANARCADU POLICE STATION.
BY SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR RESPONDENT:
NARENDRA KUMAR AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.KAILASH CHAND, REHANA, NORTH NEW AMBEDKAR NAGAR, FIROZABAD DISTRICT, UTHAR PRADESH STATE.
BY ADV.SRI.M.P MADHAVANKUTTY BY ADV.SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI(K/000548/2017)
BY ADV.SRI.ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA (K/001032/2016)
THIS D.S.R. HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09.04.2024 ALONG WITH CRL.A.NO.319/2017, THE COURT ON 25.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2024/5TH VAISAKHA, 1946 CRL.A.NO.319 OF 2017 CRIME NO.501/2015 OF MANARCADU POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/03/2017 IN S.C.NO.320 OF 2015 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN C.P.NO.30 OF 2015 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KOTTAYAM APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
NARENDRA KUMAR AGED 28 YEARS S/O. KAILASH CHAND, REHANA, NORTH NEW AMBEDKAR NAGAR, FIROZABAD DISTRICT,UTHAR PRADESH STATE.
BY ADV.SRI.M.P MADHAVANKUTTY BY ADV.SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI(K/000548/2017)
BY ADV.SRI.ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA(K/001032/2016)
BY ADV.SMT.REMYA M. MENON(K/001042/2022)
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 031.
BY SRI.ALEX M. THOMBRA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
09.04.2024 ALONG WITH D.S.R.NO.1/2018, THE COURT ON
25.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
'C.R.'
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence must link all circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt; reliance on last-seen theory and behavior post-crime is critical.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 397, 457, 380, 461 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 366 (1) and Section 428 - Conviction and sentencing of the appellant for the brutal murder of an employer and his parents, while also committing robbery. Court found conviction was solely based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a clear link between the appellant and the crimes charged. (Paras 8-19)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Standard of proof - The court emphasized that in order to convict based on circumstantial evidence, all linked circumstances must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. (Paras 16-18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, employed at a laundry, was convicted for killing his employer and the employer's parents using an axe and knife. The prosecution linked him through circumstantial evidence and recoveries that included stolen items.
Issues: The central issue was whether circumstantial evidence sufficiently established the appellant's guilt. The defense argued that the evidence was inadequate and that recovery procedures were flawed.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the trial court’s findings, determining that the circumstantial evidence—including last-seen witnesses and behavior of the appellant after the crime—solidly indicated culpability.
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence presented met the tests for circumstantial evidence by clearly establishing the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with significant facts linking him to the crime scene.
Result: Conviction upheld, death sentence modified to life imprisonment without remission for 20 years.
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The appellant Narendra Kumar, who hails from Firozabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh, was a young man of 27 years in 2015 when he secured a job as an Assistant at Wash World Laundry that was being run by its proprietor Praveenlal along with his parents, Lalasan and Prasannakumari, and his brother Bipinlal. Two years later, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [hereinafter referred to as the ' IPC '], and sentenced to death, for the brutal murder of his employer Praveenlal, and his parents Lalasan and Prasannakumari. He was also separately convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 397 , 457, 380 and 461 of the . While he has preferred this Appeal challenging his conviction and sentence by the trial court, the Sessions Judge, Kottayam has forwarded the entire case records to this Court for confirmation of the death sentence as provided in Section 366 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.'].
The prosecution case
2. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant Narendra Kumar had secured employment at Wash World Laundry at Vijayapuram Panchayats, Parampuzha, Kottayam by furnishing a false name of “Jaisingh” to the proprietor Praveenlal. Within a couple of months of securing the said employment, and between 11.10 pm on 16.05.2015 and 12.34 am on 17.05.2015, the appellant committed the murder of Praveenlal, his father Lalasan and his mother Prasannakumari, by inflicting injuries on their heads and necks using an axe and a knife respectively. He then committed robbery of a gold chain and ear studs weighing 22.900 gms that was worn by the deceased Prasannakumari, the latter by cutting her ear lobes. He also committed theft of mobile phones and tablet phones owned by Praveenlal and thereafter trespassed into the neighbouring house of the proprietor’s family, broke open a wooden almirah therein and committed theft of gold bangles weighing 24.500 gms and 11.800 gms respectively, a gold ring weighing 3.900 gms, a stone laid ring weighing 1.700 gms, mobile phones, ladies and gents watches, trolley bag, torches, registers, files and Rs.3000/- that was kept on a table there. The appellant was therefore charged with having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 397, 457, 380 and 461 of the IPC .
The investigation
3. The FI Statement (Ext.P1) was recorded by PW52 P.C. John, the SI of Police, Manarcad Police Station, from CW1 Blessen, the nephew of the deceased Lalasan and based on it the crime was registered as Crime No.501/2015 of Manarcad Police Station under Sections 302 and 392 IPC . Ext.P41 is the FIR. Inquests were then conducted on the bodies of the deceased and the inquest reports pertaining to Praveenlal, Lalasan and Prasannakumari are produced as Exts.P6, P7 and P8 respectively. As the appellant was found to have absconded, a team of police officers was deputed to search for him and the appellant was eventually arrested at 3.30 pm on 22.05.2015 from Firozabad. Based on statements obtained from him, the stolen articles were recovered from his house in Firozabad under Ext.P35 seizure mahazar. The appellant was thereafter brought to Kottayam and produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I on 25.05.2015. He was then remanded into police custody. Based on information given by him while in police custody, the police recovered the dhothi that he had worn on the night of the incident from a nearby plot. He was later remanded to judicial custody.
Proceedings before the trial court
4. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. In the trial that followed, the prosecution examined 56 witnesses as PW1 to PW56 and marked Exts.P1 to P60 series of documents. The witnesses also identified MO’s 1 to 42 series. Thereafter the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and also heard under Section 232 Cr.P.C. Not finding him entitled to an acquittal at that stage, the appellan
