Circumstantial evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence for convictions under serious charges.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR & C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, JJ.-----------------------------------------------

Crl.Appeal No.576 of 2023 -----------------------------------------------

Dated this the 6^th day of August, 2024 J U D G M E N T P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

The sole accused in S.C.No.311 of 2018 on the files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge - III, Thalassery, is the appellant. He stands convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).

2. The corpse of a middle aged person was found on 25.08.2017 on the railway track near one of the platforms of Payyannur Railway Station. On the basis of the information received from the Station Master of the Railway Station, a case was registered by the Payyannur Police. The investigation in the case revealed that the body was that of one K.C.Sreedharan and that he was murdered by the accused. Final report was accordingly filed in the case against the accused alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 397 and 398 IPC .

3. The accusation in the final report is that on 25.08.2017 at about 1 a.m., while the deceased was sleeping on a bench in one of the platforms of the Payyanur Railway Station with his bag placed below his head, the accused, with a view to commit robbery of the bag of the deceased, committed murder by hitting on the head of the deceased using an iron pipe and committed robbery of the belongings contained in the bag and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 397 and 398 IPC .

4. On the accused being committed to trial, the Court of Session framed charges against him under Sections 397 and 302 IPC , to which he pleaded not guilty. Thereupon, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses as PWs 1 to 28 and proved through them 39 documents as Exts.P1 to P39. MOs 1 to 23 are the material objects in the case. When the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused in terms of the provisions contained in Section 313 of the Code, he denied the same. The Court of Session, thereupon, on a consideration of the evidence on record, held that the accused is guilty of the offences for which he is charged, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 397 . The accused is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence and hence this appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the accused as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. There was no direct evidence to prove the alleged occurrence. The prosecution, in the circumstances, attempted to prove the occurrence through circumstantial evidence, and it was on a finding that the circumstances proved by the prosecution would establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt that the Court of Session convicted the accused. The point that arises for consideration, therefore, is whether the circumstances proved in the case would establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

7. In order to consider the point formulated for decision, it is necessary to refer to the relevant evidence in the case. PW1 was the Station Master of the Railway Station at the relevant time. PW1 deposed that at about 6.30 a.m. on 25.08.2017, he received information that a dead body was lying on the railway track, and after ensuring the correctness of the said information, he informed the matter to the police in terms of Ext.P1 intimation. PW1 also deposed that during the night hours of 24.08.2017, he received informati