The prosecution failed to prove the murder beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the reversal of conviction; weak evidence and lack of corroboration on confessions contributed to the decision.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, & P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.

-------------------------------------

Crl.Appeal No.872 of 2019 ---------------------------------

Dated this the 21^st day of February 2025

JUDGMENT

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This appeal is filed by the sole accused in SC 32/2017 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Kollam, challenging his conviction and sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC by the said court.

Prosecution case

2. The deceased Sanooja was the wife of the accused. Two children were born in their wedlock. The accused used to doubt the chastity of Sanooja and they regularly indulged in fights. On getting agitated by some words spoken to by Sanooja during the fight, the accused, with an intention to kill Sanooja, on 6/11/2016 at about 9.30 pm, inside the bedroom of his house, banged the head of Sanooja on the wall. When Sanooja became unconscious, the accused made her lie prone in a cot. Thereafter, the accused took a knife from the kitchen and cut a piece from the plastic rope of a cradle kept in the bedroom. Using this, the accused strangled Sanooja by tying it on her neck and killed her. Hence, the prosecution alleged that the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC .

Proceedings before the trial court

3. From the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW24 were examined, and Exts.P1 to P35 and MO1 to MO24 were marked. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence and contended that he is innocent. He stated that while he was having food, Sanooja tied herself onto the rope attached to the cradle and when he cut the rope her head hit on the cot lying nearby and she fell down. Even though the accused was granted an opportunity to adduce evidence, no evidence was adduced. The trial court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record and after hearing both sides, found the accused guilty and convicted him under Section 302 IPC . He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1 Lakh under . In case of default, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year. The fine amount, if realised, was ordered to be paid to PW2 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C. Prosecution evidenc e

4. PW1 is the brother of Sanooja's father. He deposed that on 6/7/2016 at about 11 pm, while he was in his shop, his brother called him and asked him to come to Sanooja's house. When he reached there, he saw Sanooja's father and mother crying. When he tried to open the door, he found it locked and he went inside the room through the door on the eastern side. There, he saw Sanooja lying motionless on the floor and he lifted her and laid her in the cot. At that time, he noticed a ladder and a rope attached to a cradle lying there. Thereafter, Sanooja was taken to a hospital in a car, where she was declared ‘brought dead’. Then, he went to the police station and lodged Ext.P1 FIS.

5. PW2 is the mother of deceased Sanooja. She deposed that at about 11 pm, her husband received a telephone call asking to come to Sanooja's house and when they went there, she saw her daughter lying on the floor. She also stated that the accused was always doubtful about the chastity of Sanooja. 6. PW3 is the brother-in-law of the accused. He deposed that he had come to his wife's family house to celebrate Ramzan and while he was there, his wife informed him that the accused was calling him. When he went to the house of the accused, he told him that he had a fight with Sanooja and that he had beaten her. The accused also told him that Sanooja was lying motionless . Thereafter, the accused wen