Kerala High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Brutal Robbery and Murder Case

Ernakulam, Kerala – The High Court of Kerala, in a significant judgment dated June 18, 2025, has dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Biju Molla , thereby upholding his conviction and life sentence for a brutal robbery, murder, and attempt to murder committed in 2018. The division bench, comprising Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian , meticulously analyzed the evidence and legal arguments, reaffirming the trial court's findings.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Biju Molla , a native of West Bengal, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Court-II, North Paravur, for offences under Sections 449 (house-trespass to commit offence punishable with death), 392 (robbery), 397 (robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), 307 (attempt to murder), and 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution's case was that on July 30, 2018, at approximately 9:45 a.m., Molla, with the intent to commit robbery, trespassed into the house of one Thambi. He attempted to snatch a gold chain from Thambi's mother, Mariyamma . When Thambi's daughter, Nimisha , intervened, Molla seized the kitchen knife she was holding and slit her throat, causing her death. He then forcibly snatched the gold chain.

Elias , Thambi's elder brother, rushed to the scene and tried to intervene. Molla then attacked Elias , attempting to slit his throat with the same knife. After Elias knocked the knife away, Molla grabbed another knife from the kitchen and repeatedly stabbed Elias , aiming for his chest but hitting his left hand as Elias defended himself. Molla then fled with a piece of the stolen gold chain. He had been in custody since July 30, 2018.

Arguments Before the High Court

Appellant's Contentions (Represented by Adv. Sai Pooja ): * The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the acts. * Alternatively, even if the acts were committed by the appellant, the evidence did not establish the requisite intent for murder (S.302 IPC) or attempt to murder (S.307 IPC). * Discrepancies in the testimonies of key eyewitnesses (PW1, PW2, PW3) rendered them unreliable. * The non-examination of Mariyamma , an alleged eyewitness to the attack on Nimisha , was a critical omission by the prosecution. * The recovery of a knife (MO4) based on the appellant's alleged disclosure was inadmissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the appellant did not know Malayalam and the interpreter's role in translating that specific disclosure was not established. * The appellant sought the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, arguing the death occurred in a sudden fight or heat of passion.

Prosecution's Case (Represented by Smt. Ambika Devi S., Special Public Prosecutor): The State argued that the trial court's conviction was based on strong and corroborative evidence, including: * Consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses, including the injured victim Elias (PW2). * Medical evidence detailing the fatal injuries to Nimisha and grievous injuries to Elias . * Crucial forensic evidence (Ext.P60), including DNA matches, bloodstain analysis on the appellant's clothes and recovered weapons, and the presence of the deceased's cells under the appellant's fingernails. * The recovery of a part of the stolen gold chain from the appellant upon arrest. * The admissibility of a statement made by Mariyamma (heard by PW1) immediately after the incident as res gestae under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.

High Court's Rationale and Key Findings

The High Court meticulously examined the evidence and legal arguments.

Eyewitness and Injured Witness Testimony

The Court found the testimonies of PW1 (wife of PW2), PW2 ( Elias , the injured victim), and PW3 (Abbas, who helped overpower the appellant) to be largely consistent and credible. The Court emphasized the high evidentiary value of an injured witness (PW2), stating, "the testimony of an injured witness is generally considered to be very reliable, and that convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." Minor discrepancies were deemed insufficient to discard their evidence. The non-examination of Mariyamma (aged 85 at the time of the incident and reportedly with no memory at trial) was not held against the prosecution, as the appellant could have examined her.

Forensic Evidence and Recoveries

The Court placed significant reliance on the forensic report (Ext.P60), which provided strong corroboration: * Hair samples similar to the appellant's found at the scene. * Nimisha 's blood on the appellant's jeans (MO13). * A mixture of Nimisha 's and the appellant's blood on the appellant's T-shirt (MO12) and hand swabs. * A mixture of Nimisha 's and PW2's ( Elias ) blood on both knives (MO3 and MO4). * Nimisha 's cells and tissues found in the appellant's nail clippings. The Court found no merit in the appellant's argument about improper handling of material objects for forensic examination, noting the lack of cross-examination on this point.

Admissibility of Mariyamma 's Statement (Res Gestae - S.6 Evidence Act)

PW1 testified that upon reaching the scene, she heard Mariyamma crying out, "എന്റെ രക്ഷകൻ വന്നതുകൊണ്ടാണല്ലോ നിമിഷ മോൾക്ക് ഇത് സംഭവിച്ചത്" (It is because my saviour came that this happened to daughter Nimisha ). The Court, referencing Mohanan v. State of Kerala , held this statement admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act (res gestae). It reasoned: > "The term 'transaction' used in Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act must be interpreted...broadly and flexibly to encompass not merely a single act, but the entire sequence of closely connected acts that collectively constitute the occurrence...the utterance was one made so shortly after the transaction."

Disclosure Leading to Recovery (S.27 and S.8 Evidence Act)

The Court agreed with the appellant that the disclosure leading to the recovery of MO4 knife was inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. This was because the appellant, a Bengali speaker, was interrogated with an interpreter (PW36), but PW36 did not testify to translating the specific disclosure statement nor witnessing the recovery based on it. However, the Court held: > "...inasmuch as there is satisfactory evidence before the Court to infer that it was the appellant who took out MO4 knife from the house from where he was apprehended and handed over the same to the police, the evidence tendered by the Investing Officer in this regard is admissible as a subsequent conduct of the accused falling under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act."

Establishing Guilt for Murder (S.302 IPC) and Attempt to Murder (S.307 IPC)

Intent for Attempt to Murder Elias (S.307 IPC): The Court rejected the argument that stabbing Elias on the hand did not constitute an attempt to murder. It noted the appellant had already killed Nimisha , and when Elias intervened, Molla initially brandished a knife towards Elias 's neck and subsequently stabbed towards his abdomen with another knife (MO4, blade length 17.5 cm). PW2's testimony that the blows were aimed at his abdomen was not discredited. > "The evidence tendered by PW22 reveals that the appellant slit the throat of Nimisha to a depth of 3.5 cms. The said act on the part of the appellant would show that the appellant intended to cause the death of the person who stood in his way...Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to hold that the appellant intended to cause the death of PW2 also, while stabbing him."

Intent for Murder of Nimisha (S.302 IPC): While acknowledging no evidence of premeditation to kill Nimisha upon entering the house, the Court inferred intent from the act itself: > "The nature of injury inflicted by the appellant...is an incised horizontal wound having a length of 15.5 cm and a depth of 3.5 cm on the front of the neck...Such a wound can only be caused by slitting the throat. If one slits the throat of another, a vital part of the body, to a depth of 3.5 cm with a kitchen knife, it can certainly be inferred that he/she intended to cause the death of the person."

Inapplicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC: The Court found that the conditions for Exception 4 (culpable homicide not murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion) were not met. There was no evidence of a "sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel," nor was the act committed in the "heat of passion." Instead, the appellant "took undue advantage...and...acted in a cruel and unusual manner."

Circumstantial Evidence

The Court concluded that though there was no direct evidence of who caused Nimisha 's fatal injury, the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and unerringly pointed to the appellant's guilt. This included his presence with a blood-stained knife, Mariyamma 's res gestae statement, the nature of Nimisha 's injury consistent with MO3 knife (found at scene), and the extensive forensic evidence linking him to Nimisha and the crime.

Final Judgment

Finding the appeal devoid of merits, the High Court dismissed it, thereby confirming the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court. The judgment underscores the judiciary's reliance on a cohesive web of eyewitness, medical, circumstantial, and forensic evidence to uphold convictions in heinous crimes. It also provides clarity on the application of principles of res gestae and the inference of intent in murder and attempt to murder cases.