The court established that circumstantial evidence, including witness reliability and subsequent conduct, is critical in determining culpability, leading to a conviction adjustment from murder to manslaughter.

JUDGMENT

Somarajan, J.

Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Sections 302 and 511 of 376 of the Indian Penal Code in S.C.No.37 of 2009 of the Additional District & Sessions Court (Ad-Hoc) Fast Track Court III, Pathanamthitta, dated 27.3.2012, the sole accused came up with this appeal.

2. The deceased Kali, aged 65, met with a sad death inside a rubber plantation during the odd hours of night of 23.12.2006. Her body was found lying in a pit in a squatting position without any under garments and dresses except brazier and blouse which were found untied. A piece of maroon colour lunki was found tied around her neck. Another piece was found tied on the main stem of a nearby tree. Her body was detected by her son PW1 by about 10.30 a.m. on 24.12.2006. He had given FIS before the police and caused to register Ext.P15 FIR.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused with the intention to commit rape on the age old lady who was residing alone in her house approached her under the guise that her son one Madhu who was undergoing sentence escaped from the jail and waiting inside the plantation to see his mother and brought her to the place of occurrence and attempted to commit rape on her and in that attempt, he had inflicted injuries on the victim and strangulated her.

4. There is no eye witness to the alleged incident and hence prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence. According to the prosecution, the alleged incident had happened in and around 8-8.30 p.m. PW7 was examined to show that he had seen the accused proceeding towards the house of victim and entering into the house in and around 8-8.30 p.m. on 23.12.2006. Another witness PW2 had identified three pieces of maroon colour lunki, one tied around the neck of the victim, one found tied in the main stem of a nearby tree and the third one found lying in the place of occurrence, as the three pieces of lunki worn by the accused. Two other witnesses, PW3 and PW7, had identified all these three pieces of lunki as that of accused. PW5, one of the neighbours whose wife house is situated next to the victim's house by side by side, had also identified the three pieces of maroon colour lunki as the one belonged to the accused and according to him, he had seen the accused on 23.12.2006. On that day at 5'o clock evening PW6 had seen the accused. She had identified MO3 (series) pieces of maroon colour lunki as that of accused. At that time he was wearing a maroon colour lunki and it was noticed by her. She had seen him again after 9 p.m.. At that time, though he was wearing the very same shirt worn by him at 5 p.m. his lunki was found to be changed as he was wearing a green coloured lunki at that time.

5. PW7 is the star witness examined by the prosecution. He had seen the accused entering into the house of the victim by 8 p.m. on 23.12.2006. The main argument advanced by the accused is that the learned Sessions Judge went wrong in appreciating the FIR and the material omission brought out during the cross examination of PW1, the first informant. The first informant is none else, the son of the deceased who was residing in another house. In the FIR he had given statement that on the next day morning by 5.30 p.m. after purchasing milk, he passed over through the courtyard of the house of the deceased and at that time he heard the sound of hitting of chewing leaf with arecanut and he was under the impression that his mother was preparing chewing leaf. It was submitted by the accused that the subsequent denial of PW1 is a material contr