Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain leading conclusively to the accused's guilt for a conviction in a murder case.

J U D G M E N T

D r. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

The accused in S.C.No.425/2009 before the III^rd Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam (CBI) is the appellant before us in this Criminal Appeal that impugns the conviction and sentence awarded to him by the trial court which found him guilty of the offences punishable under Sections

302, 383, 449, 397, 392, 201 of the Indian Penal Code [ IPC ].

The case of the prosecution

2. The prosecution case was that on the night of 5.12.2006 between 18.45 hours and 19.00 hours, the accused trespassed into the residence of Kumaranunni Nair and Anandavally Amma with the intention of killing them. During a scuffle that occurred inside the house, he strangulated Kumaranunni Nair who became unconscious and fell down. When Anandavally Amma arrived at the scene hearing the noise, the accused inflicted multiple injuries on her with a Billhook/Koduval and murdered her. He thereafter murdered Kumaranunni Nair who had regained consciousness in the meanwhile, by inflicting multiple injuries on him as well using the same Koduval. The accused then cut and removed two gold bangles from Anandavally Amma's hands and also took a gun and cash of Rs.550/- that belonged to Kumaranunni Nair. He then sprinkled kerosene and coconut oil on the bed sheets and pillows and lit fire to it after putting it on the dead bodies and also sprinkled the compound of Pepsi Entrine and Phenol all over the area where he had moved so as to destroy any evidence of his presence at the scene.

3. The crime was detected only on the morning of 06.12.2006 and an FIR was registered by the police on the same day. After an initial investigation done by the local police, the investigation was transferred to the CBI. The accused was arrested on 12.05.2009, and produced before the court below that remanded him to custody. The case was committed to the III^rd Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam (CBI), and was numbered as S.C.No.425/2009. The trial started on 07.01.2010, closed on

21.01.2011 and the sentence was passed on 07.02.2011.

Proceedings before the Trial Court:

4. PW1 to PW34 were examined by the Prosecution and Exts.P1 to P64 documents were marked as were MO's 1 to 36. On the side of the defence, Exts.D1 to D10 were marked. After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Both the Prosecutor and the defence counsel were heard under Section 232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and finding no reason to acquit the accused at that stage, the court below proceeded to consider the evidence of the defence. No witness was however called by the defence.

5. After hearing the prosecution and defence, the court below found the accused guilty of offence under Sections 302 , 383, 449, 397, 392, 201 of IPC . In arriving at the said findings, the trial court relied entirely on circumstantial evidence. In particular, it relied on the testimony of PW1 Prasanna Kumari, the daughter of the deceased, PW4 Baby, the maid who worked in the house of the deceased and PW5 Kunjikuttan, the father of the appellant/accused to find that the accused was a person who was well known to the deceased couple and that he had gained their trust over the years, and that he had on many occasions driven them to the bank and to the houses of their relatives in his autorickshaw, and therefore he also knew that the couple had money and gold ornaments kept in their house. The testimony of Kunjikuttan and PW10 Ramesh Kumar, the business partner of the appellant was relied on to establish that the accused was in need of money on account of failed business ventures in the immediate past and that the need for money was the motive for the trespass and murder of the deceased couple and the theft of the money, gold bangles and gun from the house. The testimony of Baby who saw the accused near the house of the deceased couple earlier in the evening of the murder, as also the testimony of the neighbours PW2 E. Narayanan and