Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 22997
K VINOD CHANDRAN, C. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ
GANESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 719 OF 2016 | SC 431/2012 | CP 243/2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.P.Vijaya Bhanu (Sr.), Sri.C.Jayakiran, Smt.Mitha Sudhindran
For the Respondents: Smt.Ambika Devi S, Sri.S.K.Adhithyan, Smt.I.S.Laila, Sri.P.Mohandas, Sri.Muhammed Ibrahim Abdul Samad, Dr.K.P.Satheesan, Sr.Sri.Sabu Pullan, Sri.K.Sudhin Kumar, Sri.S.Vibheeshanan
The prosecution failed to prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable witness testimonies and inconsistent medical evidence regarding the cause of death.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - The conviction of the appellant for murder was challenged on the basis of insufficient evidence and the absence of a clear motive. The prosecution's case relied on uncorroborated testimony from relatives that accused had a financial interest in the victim's property. Key medical testimonies indicated no clear signs of homicide or consistent cause of death. The court identified significant inconsistencies in witness statements, suggesting that the evidence was fabricated by the victim's siblings. The trial court's reliance on these statements was deemed erroneous as they often contradicted their previous police statements. The overarching evidence led to a conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 4-34)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his mother following her death in July 2010, which resulted after a prolonged period of illness and hospitalization. His siblings alleged he had a motive to kill her for financial gain and disputed the nature of their relationship.
Findings of Court:
The medical evidence revealed that the deceased suffered from multiple examinations suggesting complications arising from her ailments rather than homicide. It was determined that strain on the accused was fueled by the deceased's siblings’ desire for control over her assets. The prosecution's reliance on inconsistent and unverified witness statements rendered their case unsustainable.
Issues: The main issues addressed revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies alleging motive and the interpretation of medical evidence surrounding the cause of death.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented did not substantiate the charges of murder beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the unreliability of testimonies from relatives and the absence of solid medical evidence linking the accused to a deliberate act of murder.
Result: The appeal was allowed, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and its background. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenging the murder charge and evidentiary weaknesses. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. witness inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. medical evidence and expert testimonies highlighting uncertainties. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. postmortem findings and causation of death reviewed. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. examination of police investigations and procedural anomalies. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. court analysis on the reliability of evidence and motive. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 8. conclusion: acquittal due to lack of evidence. (Para 34) |
JUDGMENT
Vinod Chandran, J.
A sad tale of a woman divorced from her husband with two children shared between them. The elder son who was with the mother committed suicide which plunged the mother into depression and the younger son provided support and shelter to the unstable ailing mother; which alienated her from her own siblings. Her eventual death after a debilitating illness, visited the younger son with more misfortune, by way of an accusation of murder. The son is before this Court in appeal asserting that his mother succumbed to her various ailments and he has been wrongly accused of murder; by his mother's siblings with an eye on the property and wealth of the mother.
2. The death of the mother occurred on 19.07.2010 and the son, the appellant herein was accused of murder. In the trial the prosecution paraded 25 witnesses and marked 59 documents. The defence marked D1 to D5, the first two of which were contradictions and the other three, documents. The trial Court convicted the accused under S.302 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1 lakh with default sentence. Learned Senior Counsel Sri P. Vijayabhanu instructed by Smt.Mitha Sudhindran appeared for the appellant and Sri.S.Sreejith, the learned Public Prosecutor appeared for the State. An impleading petition was filed by PWs 1 and 7, the two siblings of the deceased for whom arguments were addressed by the learned Senior Counsel Dr.K.P Satheesan.
3. Sri. Vijayabhanu first took us through the charge-sheet and pointed out that a murder, in the fashion it has been described in the charge, is not possible. Strangulating to death, in stages or bit by bit between 14.07.2010 and 19.07.2010 has been medically opined to be impossible by the expert witnesses proffered in the case. The motive also is not validly proved since there was no reason for the son to kill his mother. The allegation of the son having misappropriated the Fixed Deposits in the name of his mother stood disproved. There were two final reports in the above case; the first alleging motive, of the son intending to take the property of the mother sooner than it will be available for his disposal; on her natural death by virtue of a Will. Later, it was revealed that the mother herself had settled the properties in the name of her son, upon which a further investigation was carried out and a motive presumed of the son being anguished with the reservation of life interest made in the Settlement Deed. The prosecution was also ambivalent regarding the cause of death, which was earlier said to be ligature strangulation, then modified to death by piecemeal strangulation over a period of six days.
4. PWs 1,4,5,7 and 9 are witnesses who were close relatives of the deceased and bent upon accusing the son, who was earlier with the father and returned to the divorced mother, only in her last days. They term the son's return, to be purely eyeing the wealth of the mother. The son alleges, otherwise they would have appropriated that. The deposition of the said related witnesses with respect to what the deceased conveyed to them are full of inconsistencies. PW16, the Doctor who treated the deceased in the just prior days specifically spoke of the feeble undecipherable talk of the deceased whose brain had considerably diminished. The
