Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 55490
KERALA HIGH COURT
A.M. Shaffique, J
Abhilash @ Chinchu v. State of Kerala
Criminal Appeal | Crl.A.No.805 of 2018
For the Appellant: [Learned counsel for the appellant]
For the Respondent: [Learned Public Prosecutor]
In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is not sufficient for conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 397 - Murder and robbery - Appellant convicted of murdering his grandmother and robbing her gold chain - Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as witnesses turned hostile and circumstantial evidence was insufficient to meet legal standards for conviction (Paras 19, 20).
(B) Evidence Law - Principles regarding circumstantial evidence - Prosecution must establish a clear and complete chain of evidence consistent only with the guilt of the accused and excluding any reasonable doubt (Para 17).
Facts of the case:
Appellant accused of murdering his grandmother for her gold chain and subsequently arrested. Initially deemed a natural death, but investigation revealed homicide, leading to charges under IPC Sections 302 and 397.
Findings of Court:
Court found prosecution’s evidence inadequate for conviction, failed to prove direct complicit behavior, leading to benefit of doubt for the appellant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the conviction and sentence against the appellant could be sustained based on insufficient and inconsistent evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the fundamental principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that mere suspicion does not suffice for conviction.
Result: Criminal appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the appellant is acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant was accused of committing homicide against his grandmother for theft. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. the prosecution's argument relied on the circumstantial evidence which was contested. (Para 7 , 8 , 16) |
| 3. the court emphasized the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. the court found insufficient evidence for maintaining conviction leading to acquittal. (Para 18) |
1. The sole accused in S.C.No.235 of 2015 on the files of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge - VI, Kollam is the appellant in the appeal. He stands convicted and sentenced for committing the murder of his grandmother, Anandavallyamma and for robbing her gold chain.
2. Anandavallyamma was the maternal grandmother of the appellant. The mother of the appellant died during the childhood of the appellant. On the death of the mother, the father of the appellant remarried. Although the appellant was residing with his father, about 6 months prior to the murder of his grandmother, the appellant and his wife shifted their residence to the house of the grandmother. The death of the grandmother appeared initially to be natural. The son of Anandavallyamma namely, Vinod who went to the residence of Anandavallyamma on coming to know of her death, however entertained a suspicion about the death. Vinod accordingly lodged a complaint to the police, and on his complaint, a case was registered by Eravipuram Police. The investigation in the case revealed that the death was not natural and that it was a case of homicide and further that it was the appellant who caused the death of Anandavallyamma for robbing her gold chain. The final report was accordingly filed in the case against the appellant alleging commission of the offences punishable under S.397 and S.302 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).
3. The accusation in the final report is that since the victim refused to give the gold chain worn by her to the appellant for pledging, on 23.09.2013, at about 7.00 p.m., the appellant attempted to snatch the gold chain which she was wearing and when the victim made a noise then, the appellant caught hold of her neck with his left hand and smothered her to death by pressing her nose and mouth with his right hand and thereupon snatched the gold chain.
4. On the appellant being committed to trial, the Court of Session framed charges against him, to which he pleaded not guilty. The evidence of the prosecution in the case consists of the oral evidence tendered by the witnesses who were examined as PWs 1 to 18 and Exts.P1 to P29 proved through them. MO1 series are the material objects identified by the witnesses in the case. Inasmuch as the Court of Session did not find the case to be one fit for acquittal under S.232 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), even though the appellant was called upon to enter on his defence, he chose not to adduce any evidence. Thereupon, on an appreciation of the matters before it, the Court of Session found the appellant guilty of the offences charged against him, convicted and sentenced him to undergo, among others, imprisonment for life. The appellant is aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, hence this appeal.
5. In terms of the order passed on 23.11.2018 in Crl.M.A.No.1508 of 2018, this Court suspended the execution of the sentence passed against the appellant and he was enlarged on bail.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The essence of the elaborate arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction of the appellant and the sentence passed against him, are sustainable in law.
9. In order to adjudicate the point, it is necessary to refer to the evidence in the case. PW1 is a friend of Vinod, on whose statement the case was registered. According to PW1
