Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, MR. K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ
VIJAYARAJAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 1390 OF 2019 | SC NO.828 OF 2015 | SC NO.40 OF 2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. Raman Pillai, R. Anil, M. Sunilkumar, Sujesh Menon V.B., T. Anil Kumar, Thomas Abraham, S. Lakshmi Sankar
For the Respondents: Neema T.V.

The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a lack of evidence regarding motive and inconsistencies in circumstantial evidence can lead to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 - Murder and concealing evidence - The appellant was convicted of murder and concealing the body of the victim, Mini, in a septic tank, sentenced to life imprisonment and fines - Court found insufficient evidence of motive and substantial gaps in circumstantial evidence against the accused - The prosecution's case hinges on circumstantial evidence which was inconclusive and left reasonable doubt unanswered. (Paras 1-44)

(B) Evidence - The court emphasized that for circumstantial evidence to uphold a conviction, it must establish a clear chain excluding other possible explanations, and the absence of direct confrontation left doubt regarding the relationship and events. (Paras 46-61)

Facts of the case:
The deceased, Mini, had been residing with the accused, Vijayarajan, before her murder, which occurred on 09.12.2014. Accused allegedly disposed of her body in a septic tank post-murder, leading to his arrest after a self-incriminating statement. (Paras 3-6)

Findings of Court:
The court acquitted the accused, stating that the prosecution had failed to prove the essential elements of the case beyond a reasonable doubt, notably the lack of evident motive and decisive circumstantial evidence. (Paras 62-62)

Issues: The main issues involved whether the evidence was adequate to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of motive, and the veracity of the circumstantial evidence presented. (Paras 44-49)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the principle that if two views are possible on evidence, one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence, the court must favor the latter. This principle of reasonable doubt diminished the prosecution’s case. (Paras 60-61)

Result: Criminal Appeal No.1390 of 2019 is allowed; the appellant is acquitted and set at liberty. (Paras 1-5)

Table of Content
1. introduction of the case and offenses charged. (Para 1 , 2)
2. summary of the prosecution case and investigation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. details on the committal and trial procedure. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. appellant's arguments regarding errors in conviction. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
5. public prosecutor's arguments supporting the conviction. (Para 19)
6. testimonies of witnesses concerning the relationship and actions of the accused. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
7. medical evidence pertaining to the cause of death. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
8. defendant's side of the story and defenses raised. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
9. the court's evaluation of evidence and arguments regarding motive and circumstantial evidence. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55)
10. judicial guidance on proof standards in criminal law. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62)

JUDGMENT

K. V. Jayakumar, J.

This appeal is preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No.828/2015 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kollam. The appellant stood for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code , convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:

i. Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 302 IPC with a default clause.

ii. Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-under Section 201 IPC with a default clause.

The Prosecution case

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased (Mini) resided along with the accused, Vijayarajan, from 01.04.2014. While so, on 09.12.2014 at about 10.30 p.m., at the courtyard of the house bearing No.VII/300 of Kundara Panchayath, where they resided together, the appellant committed the murder of Mini by catching hold of her neck, pushing her down. The prosecution further alleges that the accused kicked her multiple times in the stomach and stamped on her, causing her death. It is also alleged that the accused dragged Mini's dead body to the eastern side of their house and disposed of it inside the septic tank to conceal evidence.

Registration of crime and the investigation.

4. PW22 (P.J. Habeeb Ahammed), Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Kundara registered Ext.P18 FIR on the basis of Ext.P17 FIS lodged by the accused himself. PW23 (N. Suneesh), the Sub Inspector of Police, Kundara conducted the initial part of the investigation. On 14.12.2014, PW23 recorded the statement of CW4. On 15.12.2014, the accused, Vijayarajan, contacted him from his mobile No. 8606132101 to the official number of PW23 - 9497980193 – and made a self-introduction. Thereafter, the accused told him ‘don’t enquire about Mini. She was murdered and the body was dumped in the septic tank.’

5. Thereafter, PW23 (N. Suneesh), along with the police party proceeded to the scene of occurrence, inspected the septic tank and found the dead body of the deceased Mini. Further investigation of the case was conducted by PW24 (J. Umesh Kumar), the Circle Inspector of Police. As directed by PW24 (J. Umesh Kumar), PW23(N. Suneesh) detected the accused on the basis of tower location on 16.12.2014 from Kollam. PW23 (N. Suneesh) handed over the accused to the Circle Inspector at about 2 p.m. in Kundara Police Station.

6. On 16.12.2014, PW24 (J. Umesh Kumar), along with his party, visited the scene of the occurrence. PW19 (R. Vijayakumar) conducted the inquest and prepared Ext.P1, the inquest report. At that time, PW16 (Gopika G.R.) Scientific Assistant was also present. Subsequently, PW24 prepared Ext.P13, scene mahazar, as shown by the accused. The samples collected by PW16 (Gopika G.R.) were seized in accordance with the seizure mahazar. Thereafter, the body was forwarded to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for postmortem

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMMR. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, MR. K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJVIJAYARAJAN – AppellantVersusSTATE OF KERALA – RespondentCRL.A NO. 1390 OF 2019 | SC NO.828 OF 2015 | SC NO.40 OF 2015

The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a lack of evidence regarding motive and inconsistencies in circumstantial evidence can lead to acquittal.

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, MR. K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ
VIJAYARAJAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A NO. 1390 OF 2019 | SC NO.828 OF 2015 | SC NO.40 OF 2015