Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 85925
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P. B. Suresh Kumar, C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JJ
SINDHU @ KOCHUTHRESSIA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 1224/2017
SRI.K.V.SABU
In murder cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence pointing to guilt, excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Murder of minor children - Accused convicted for murder of her two children; appeal against conviction - Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, but failed to establish a complete chain of evidence pointing to guilt - Time of death of children inconsistent with prosecution's case - No motive established for the accused to commit the crime - Appeal allowed, conviction set aside. (Paras 1, 7, 69, 71)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Requirements - In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the evidence must point singularly to the guilt of the accused, excluding all other hypotheses - The prosecution failed to prove the place of occurrence and the time of death of the children, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the accused's involvement. (Paras 20, 39, 69)
(C) Last Seen Theory - The prosecution's reliance on the last seen theory was insufficient without corroborating evidence - The absence of satisfactory explanation from the accused regarding the children's whereabouts does not automatically imply guilt. (Paras 23, 68)
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2024
C. Pratheep Kumar, J
A mother, who has been convicted for the murder of her two minor children by throwing them into a river, is the appellant herein.
2. Till 02.12.2015 the appellant Kochuthresia @ Sindhu along with her husband Michael, their minor children Sherin aged 7 years, Antony Shown aged 41/ years, her mother-in-law Elsy and her brother-in-law Francis 2 @ Kuttan were residing happily, in their house at Pizhala in Kadamakudy Village. On 2.12.2015 her husband Michael had to go to Ernakulam for the purpose of taking learner's driving licence. However, he forgot to take his photograph with him, when he went to Ernakulam. After returning home in the evening, he scolded his wife for not giving him the photograph. Elsy, her mother-in-law also scolded her for the above omission on her part. Thereafter, Elsy did not talk to her or dine along with her and also shown her anger towards Sindhu.
3. In the evening on 4.12.2015, when Sindhu along with the children were about to go to Pizhala Church, to attend the festival therein, Elsy threatened that she will consume poison. Then Sindhu along with the children went to the church, attended the Holy mass and thereafter met Micheal near his Chinese fishing net, which was near to the Pizhala- Moolampilly ferry. When Antony Shown demanded ice cream, she requested Micheal for money, which was not available with him. Though Micheal tried to contact Kuttan, the same was not fruitful. Then Sindhu along with the children reached the bridge connecting Kothad and Moolampilly, across the Moolampilly river in the Container Road. Thereafter, since 8 p.m. on 4.12.2015, Sindhu and the children were found missing. Though intensive search was conducted by the fishermen and the police in Moolampilly river and nearby places, they could not be found. At about 8 a.m. on 5.12.2015, Sindhu was found alive, in the river near to the Chinese fishing net of one Johnson. On 6.12.2015, the body of Sherin was found in the river. On 7.12.2015 the body of Antony Shown was also found in the river.
4. On 5.12.2015 at 2.20 p.m. Crime No.1059/2015 of Varapuzha Police Station was registered under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act, alleging that at about 8 p.m. on 4.12.2015, Sindhu jumped from the bridge into Moolampilly river, along with the children and consequently, the children were found missing, while Sindhu escaped. After investigation, final report was filed under Section 302 IPC alleging that Sindhu committed murder of two minor children by throwing them one after the other, from Moolampilly bridge, into the river.
5. The evidence on the side of the prosecution consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 22 and documentary evidence Exhibits P1 to P22. MOs 1 to 4 were identified. On the side of the accused, DW1 was examined.
6. After appreciating the available evidence, as per judgment dated 16.12.2017 in Sessions Case No.430/2016, the Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for murdering Sherin. A similar punishment was awarded for murdering Antony Shown. Aggrieved by the above judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this appeal raising various contentions.
7. Now, the points that arise for consideration are the following:
1) Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed murder of minor children Sherin and Antony Shown as alleged?
2) Whether the trial court was justified in awarding two separate sentences under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of Sherin as well as Antony Shown?
8. Heard both sides.
9. Point No.1: In this case, there is no direct evidence to prove the charge against the accused that she had committed murder of her two minor children and therefore, the prosecution has relied upon circumstantial evidence available in the case. PW1
