Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, G. GIRISH, JJ
NAZEER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 485/2019
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points relevant to the case:
The case involves an accused, Sri. Nazeer, who was initially convicted of murder, robbery, and related offenses, but the conviction was ultimately set aside on appeal due to insufficient evidence (!) (!) .
The death of the deceased, Nalini, was confirmed to be a homicide caused by ligature strangulation, with medical evidence supporting the cause and time of death (!) .
The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including the presence of the accused near the scene, recovery of gold ornaments, a shawl used for strangulation, and cash transactions allegedly linked to the sale of stolen gold (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence regarding the presence of the accused at the relevant time was inconsistent, with discrepancies in the timing of the death and the accused’s whereabouts, creating reasonable doubt about his involvement (!) (!) .
The recovery of gold ornaments from a jewellery shop based on the accused’s disclosure was found to be unreliable due to procedural lapses, lack of independent witnesses, and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses involved in the recovery process (!) (!) (!) .
Scientific evidence, such as fiber analysis, was inconclusive, with fibers only showing similarity rather than identity, which does not definitively link the shawl or other recovered items to the crime (!) (!) .
The evidence of cash seizures from various individuals, including the accused’s wife and others, was marred by discrepancies, lack of supporting documentation, and suspicious delays, reducing their probative value (!) (!) .
The overall chain of evidence was incomplete and not convincing enough to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence, thereby failing to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that suspicion alone cannot substitute for legally admissible proof, and the evidence must be clear, cogent, and complete to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence (!) (!) .
As a result of these deficiencies and doubts, the appellate court acquitted the accused and set aside the conviction and sentence, ordering his immediate release if no other detention is justified (!) (!) .
These points reflect the court’s reasoning that the prosecution’s evidence did not meet the stringent standards required for a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence.
J U D G M E N T
Raja Vijayaraghavan. J.
The appellant in this case, Sri. Nazeer, a fish vendor, was arrayed as the accused in S.C.No.375 of 2011 on the file of the Special Judge for the Trial of Offences Against Women and Children (Additional Sessions Judge-I), Thalassery. He has been convicted under Sections 449 , 392, and 302 of the IPC for murdering for gain, his neighbour, a 65-year-old spinster. By judgment dated 29.11.2017, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh under Section 302 of the and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh under Section 392 of the and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.75,000/- under Section 449 of the and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
Background Facts:
2. The deceased was residing alone in the Taravad house, numbered VII/143, situated in Eranholy Panchayat. Ext.P15, the scene mahazar, provides a picture of the location and surroundings of the home of the deceased. The mahazar reveals that the house faces east, with a courtyard on the eastern side. A pathway, measuring 122 cm in width and 14 meters in length, extends eastward from the house, leading to a small water channel. Approximately 12 meters to the west, beyond the western boundary wall, is the residence of Srinivasan, a close relative of the deceased. About 50 meters to the south lies the house of Kunjalu, the mother-in-law of the appellant. The house of Pramod (PW1), the nephew of the deceased, is also nearby.
3. For 15 years prior to her death, it was the practice of the deceased to live in her house during the daytime and spend the night in the house of Pramod (PW1), the son of her sister, located nearby. Pramod, Jisha P. (PW2), and PW1’s mother would keep her company. As usual, on the morning of 31.10.2010, at approximately 7:00 a.m., the deceased left PW1's residence.
4. The prosecution alleges that between 11:30 a.m. and 12:00 p.m.on the same day, K.K. Sasi (PW6), a newly elected member of the VII Ward of Eranholy Grama Panchayat, along with Babu (CW10), visited Nalini’s house to invite her to the swearing-in ceremony scheduled for the following day. Despite calling Nalini’s name repeatedly, there was no response, though the front door was lying open. They then proceeded to the house of PW1, located nearby, and informed him that Nalini had not answered.
5. At around 12:30 p.m., PW1 went to Nalini’s house to check on her. To his shock, he discovered Nalini lying face down on the floor. Immediately, he called Sasi and Babu by phone. He also alerted his relatives, including his wife Jisha, Kamala (PW20), and Premaja, who all rushed to Nalini’s house. They found that her clothes were soaked with urine. As Nalini had been suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure, they initially believed she had fallen unconscious due to her medical conditions. They lifted her, changed her clothes, and requested PW6 to summon a doctor.
6. While trying to remove her blouse, they noticed that Nalini’s gold chain was missing. Within ten minutes, Dr. Viswanathan (PW16), the Medical Officer, “Sreyas Hospital”, arrived at the scene. After examining Nalini, he opined that it was likely that she had died four hours before his examination. The relatives also noticed that a bangle weighing approximately one sovereign and Rs.2,000/- in cash were missing.
Registration of Crime and Investigation:
7. The police were promptly notified, and based on the information provided by PW1, Ext.P19 FIR was registered as Crime No.1253 of 2010 at Tellicherry Police Station by PW27, the Sub Inspector of Police, for offences under Sections 302 and 392 of the IPC .
8. The investigation was taken over by PW28, the Circle Inspector of Police, Thalassery. He arrived at the scene, conducted t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
