Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28402
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K VINOD CHANDRAN, Ziyad Rahman A. A, JJ
NAVAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 806 2015
SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.), SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA
Circumstantial evidence must directly link the accused to the crime; mere recoveries and confessions are inadequate without clear ownership and connection to the crime.
Headnote:
Conviction - Circumstantial Evidence - IPC Sections [Sec. 302, 449, 392, 120(B)] - The court emphasized the necessity of direct evidence to support a conviction, particularly under IPC regarding conspiracy, robbery, and murder, stating recoveries alone do not establish guilt.
Fact of the Case:
A night watchman was murdered during a robbery at a jewellery store. Fourteen accused were involved; some were acquitted while others, including A1, A3, A6, and A8, were tried based on circumstantial evidence and confessions regarding stolen items.
Issues: The core issue was whether the prosecution had established a reliable link between the accused and the crime of robbery and murder based on circumstantial evidence, particularly in light of the recoveries claimed by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that circumstantial evidence must conclusively connect the accused to the crime, which was lacking in this case. Reliance on confessions and recoveries without solid evidence of ownership or connection was insufficient for conviction.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the convictions were overturned, leading to the immediate release of the appellants.
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
The 'night-watchmen' are a lot, generally ill-
equipped and ill-paid, who often stake their lives to offer nothing more than a sense of security to those, whose property they watch over. Little resistance can be offered to a concerted robbery by the sole emaciated man, we often see armed with a smouldering mosquito coil on the veranda of shop rooms; where they spent the night guarding over the effects of a man or woman slumbering in their opulent homes, on soft beds. We have here an incident in which a night watchman, guarding a jewellery, was murdered and his body dumped in a well in the course of a dacoity executed in the night of
05.05.2011 or the wee hours of the sixth.
2. There were fourteen arrayed as accused in the trial, wherein documents were numbered as Exts.P1 to P99 with multiple documents under the same number differentiated by alphabets through 90 witnesses, who also marked 128 material objects with many marked as one series. The defence examined two witnesses and marked ten documents as Exts.D1 to D9 & D9(a). The Court too marked four exhibits. A7, A9 and A10 to A14 stood acquitted. A2 expired before trial and A4 & A5 are still absconding. A1, A3, A6 & A8 are the appellants before us. A3 was convicted under Sec.449, 392, 302 and 120(B) read with 392 of the Indian Penal Code [for brevity, 'the IPC ']. A1, A6 & A8 were found guilty under Sec.120(B) read with Sec.392 . The case set up by the prosecution is entirely hinged on circumstantial evidence. In the present appeals, we are only called upon to decide on the evidence led, to establish the culpability of the appellants herein; one of whom (A3) is convicted for the offence of murder in the course of house trespass, robbery and for conspiracy. The other appellants are convicted for the offence of robbery and the conspiracy leading to the same.
3. Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by learned Counsel Smt. Sanjana Rachel Jose appeared for A1 & A6. Sri. Babu S.Nair, learned Counsel, appeared for A8 and Sri. Pranoy Kottaram, learned Counsel, appeared for A3.
4. Sri. Vijayabhanu argued that there is not even one circumstance proved against any of the accused. The evidence led on conspiracy falls short of proving it and there is nothing connecting the crime to the accused. The only evidence led is of recovery of the thieved ornaments, some of which were alleged to have been converted to gold ingots. There can be no conviction for robbery or murder based solely on recoveries; which in this case are not reliable to even establish possession of stolen property. There is nothing to prove that the recovered ornaments were those thieved from the jewellery. The robbery is alleged to have been made from a jewellery, which has a statutory obligation to maintain a Stock Register. But for the identification made by the owner of the jewellery, there is no proof offered of the possession and ownership of the articles recovered. A manual Stock Register is said to have been handed over to the Investigating Officer [for brevity, 'the I.O'], which was not produced before Court nor were the recovered articles verified and tallied with the stock held by the jewellery as per the register. Though an identifying mark is referred to by certain witnesses, the owners of the jewellery do not speak about it. The prosecution did not attempt to elicit any identifying mark on the articles thieved from the jewellery. On the contrary, the I.O. deposed that no such distinguishing mark was stated by the owners. Each of the recoveries made concerning A1 & A6 were also challenged with reference to the evidence of witnesses examined to prove the same. It is pointed out that A1 has been roped in also on the alleged confession made by A8 concerning the recoveries effected from that accused. The confession itself is inadmissible under Sec.27 of the Evidence Act . The confessions read as, the recovered articles being handed over by one Kuttan; whose identity is no
