Back
2026 Supreme(Ker) 642
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, JOBIN SEBASTIAN, JJ.
Aneesh, S/o. Chandran – Applicant
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
Crl.A. No. 77 of 2025, Crl.A. No. 214 of 2026
Decided On : 10-04-2026
For the Applicant : Sri.Renjith B.Marar, Smt. Lakshmi.N.Kaimal, Sri. P.Rajkumar, Sri. Keshavraj Nair, Shri. Biju Vigneswar, Shri. Arun Poomulli, Shri. Abhijith Sreekumar, Shri. Abhiram.S., Smt. Gaadha Suresh, Sri. T.K.Babu, Smt. Jithy Pradeep, Smt. Akhila Radhakrishnan, Shri. Akshay Shibu, Shri. Fayas Muhammed S., Shri. Ananthapadmanabhan, Shri. Ashish Paul, Smt. Laxmisree Jayantha Kumar, Shri. Murali Krishna Prasad, Smt. Jinu Treesa Jose, Shri. Martin Sivi.
For the Respondent: Smt. Ambika Devi S., Spl.G.P. (Atrocities Against Women And Children And Welfare Of W And C).
The conviction concluded that circumstantial evidence, including last seen and absconding, sufficed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing a defendant's burden to explain absence of evidence.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Conviction of mother and her paramour for the murder of minor daughter - Offences were committed in furtherance of their common intention after the victim objected to their illicit relationship. (Paras 1, 5, 50)
(B) Circumstantial evidence - The burden of proving facts is on the accused when they possess special knowledge of those facts - Prosecution relied on last seen evidence, absconding conduct, recovery of body, and confession to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 29, 30, 32)
(C) Evidence - Admissibility of circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain of circumstances for conviction - Scientific evidence regarding the cause of death supports the prosecution’s case. (Paras 18, 39)
Facts of the case:
The case involved the accused strangulating their 16-year-old daughter, Meera, in their home and disposing of her body in a well out of animosity due to her objection to their illicit relationship. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
Both accused guilty of murder and other charges under IPC and JJ Act; conviction affirmed for second accused, while first accused acquitted of the JJ Act charge due to lack of evidence. (Paras 51)
Issues: Whether the evidence presented, particularly circumstantial, sufficiently established the guilt of the accused for the murder of the minor, and the validity of the JJ Act charge against the first accused. (Paras 30, 50)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including the last seen, absconding, and scientific evidence proving the cause of death, established a solid case beyond reasonable doubt against the mother and paramour. Failure by the first accused to offer an explanation burdened him as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. (Paras 28, 29, 31)
Result: Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2026 dismissed; Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2025 allowed in part; first accused acquitted of the charge under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. prosecution and defense arguments concerning the evidence. (Para 4 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. details of the investigation and witness statements. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. establishment of circumstantial evidence against accused. (Para 17 , 21 , 25) |
| 5. legal principles concerning circumstantial evidence. (Para 18 , 20 , 26) |
| 6. conclusion on circumstantial evidence and guilt. (Para 30 , 49) |
| 7. final judgment on charges against both accused. (Para 50 , 51) |
JUDGMENT :
Jobin Sebastian, J.
Both these appeals have been preferred challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the accused in S.C. No.1576/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court -VI, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2015. Out of the said appeals, Crl.A. No.77/2025 has been preferred by the first accused and Crl.A. No.214/2026 is by the second accused.
2. The prosecution's case, as revealed from the final report, is as follows:
The second accused, a married lady and the mother of a minor girl named Meera, was maintaining an illicit relationship with the first accused. However, Meera, who disliked the said relationship, objected the same and due to the said animosity, the first and second accused, in furtherance of their common intention to murder Meera, on 10.06.2019, at 6.00 p.m. inside the rented house where second accused and Meera were residing together, which was arranged by the first accused, strangulated her with a shawl and caused her to fall unconscious. Thereafter, to ensure the death, both the accused, together, took Meera in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-21- M-6395, ridden by the first accused, with the victim positioned between them. They took her to a well located on the property of PW48, near the residence of the first accused. The accused then tied two hollow bricks to Meera's body and threw her into the well, thereby caused her death. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the aforementioned offences.
3. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad. Being satisfied that the case is one triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with all the necessary formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, Thirivananthapuram, under section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance, made over the case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions Court-V. On appearance of the accused before the said court, the learned Judge, after hearing both sides under section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon perusal of the records, framed a written charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act , 2015. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, as per the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the case was withdrawn and made over to the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram, for trial and disposal.
4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW75 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P121. MO1 to MO49 were exhibited and identified. The contradictions in the 161 statement of the prosecution witnesses were marked as Exts.D1 to D3. One document produced by the prosecution was marked at the instance of the defence as Ext.D4. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., during which they denied all the incriminating materials brought out in evidence against them. Thereafter, both sides were heard under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and since it was not a fit case
