Kerala High Court Acquits Man in Exorcism-Related Murder (S.302 IPC), Citing Insufficient Circumstantial Evidence and Inapplicable 'Last Seen' Theory - 2025-03-05

Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Overturns Murder Conviction in Exorcism Death Case, Cites Flawed Evidence

Ernakulam, Kerala – The High Court of Kerala, in a significant ruling on March 5, 2025, acquitted Muhammed Siraj @ Sirajudheen, who was previously convicted for the murder of a woman named Haseena during an alleged exorcism. The division bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan , set aside the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Kollam, which had sentenced Sirajudheen to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The High Court found that the prosecution's case, resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, failed to establish an unbroken chain of events conclusively pointing to the appellant's guilt and that the "last seen" theory was incorrectly applied.

Case Background: Tragic Death and Allegations of Exorcism

The case dates back to July 2014, involving the death of Haseena , a woman suffering from psychiatric issues. The prosecution alleged that Haseena 's father (Accused No. 3, A3), troubled by his inability to arrange his younger daughter's marriage due to Haseena 's condition, conspired with the appellant (Accused No. 1, A1), an alleged exorcist, and others to murder her.

It was claimed that on the night of July 12, 2014, A1, assisted by A2 and A3, forcibly manipulated Haseena during an exorcism ritual, causing a fatal vertebral column fracture and other injuries. The accused were also charged under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 212 (harbouring offender) of the IPC.

The Kollam Sessions Court had convicted only the appellant, Muhammed Siraj , primarily relying on the "last seen theory," while acquitting the deceased's father (A3) and other co-accused (A2, A4-A6) due to lack of evidence.

Arguments Before the High Court

Appellant's Counsel, Sri. A. Mohammed , argued: * The trial court's appreciation of evidence was perverse. * The prosecution failed to establish a convincing link connecting the appellant to Haseena 's death, especially as the case was based purely on circumstantial evidence. * The acquittal of the alleged principal conspirators, including the deceased's father, weakened the case against the appellant. * Key prosecution witnesses (PW2-Maimoonath, mother; PW3-Noora & PW4-Rahmath, sisters of the deceased) had significantly resiled from their earlier statements, rendering their testimony unreliable. * The "last seen theory" was erroneously applied by the trial court.

The State, represented by Public Prosecutor Sri. T.R. Ranjith, contended: * The homicidal nature of Haseena 's death was clearly established through medical evidence. * Testimonies of PW2 to PW4 indicated the appellant was alone with the deceased before her death. * PW9 (Nurse) and PW10 (Attender) at Valiyath Hospital confirmed the appellant was among those who brought Haseena 's body to the hospital. * The injuries found on the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

High Court's Analysis: Evidence Scrutinized

The High Court meticulously re-evaluated the evidence. While confirming the homicidal nature of Haseena 's death based on the postmortem report by PW16 (Dr. Valsala), the bench found critical flaws in the prosecution's case against the appellant.

On the Credibility of Key Witnesses (PW2, PW3, PW4): The court noted that PWs 2, 3, and 4 (mother and sisters of the deceased and wife and daughters of A3) had presented a version in court that exonerated A2 and A3, claiming the appellant was alone with Haseena . This contradicted their earlier police statements, where they allegedly stated that upon hearing Haseena 's cries, they found her lying on the lap of her father (A3). The court observed:

"Clearly, if their earlier version is accepted, the 3rd accused had an equally important role to play and he was in the room along with accused Nos. 1 and 2. The learned Sessions Judge has ignored this aspect..."

Citing Sat Paul v. Delhi Administration [AIR 1976 SC 294], the court emphasized that while a hostile witness's testimony isn't automatically discarded, if their credit is thoroughly shaken, prudence dictates discarding it. The court found the contradictions in the statements of PWs 2-4 too significant:

"By no stretch of imagination, can their belated assertion that the appellant was the sole person present in the hall room with the deceased be accepted as credible or conclusive."

Principles of Circumstantial Evidence: The court reiterated the stringent standards for cases based on circumstantial evidence, quoting Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh [[(1991) 1 SCC 286)]:

"In a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established... The proved circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused." The court added, "There is a long distance between may be true and must be true."

"Last Seen" Theory Held Inapplicable: The trial court had heavily relied on the "last seen theory" to convict the appellant. The High Court, however, found this application flawed. Referencing State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram [[(2006) 12 SCC 254]] regarding Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the court stated:

"In the case on hand, it cannot be held with any degree of certainty that the appellant was the only person seen in the company of the deceased when she was last seen. If the case of the prosecution is accepted, by ignoring the version of the hostile witnesses, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were inside the room while PWs 2, 3 and 4 were outside. In that view of the matter, the principles of Last Seen cannot be applied in the instant case."

Suspicion Cannot Replace Legal Proof: The judgment underscored the cardinal principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for legal proof. The court cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [[(1984) 4 SCC 116]]:

"An accused may appear to be guilty on the basis of suspicion but that cannot amount to legal proof. When on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in the favour of the prosecution and the other benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt."

Final Verdict: Acquittal

Concluding its detailed analysis, the High Court held:

"After evaluating the entire facts in the light of the evidence adduced, we hold that neither the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn have been fully established nor the same are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant. In our considered opinion, the circumstances are neither conclusive in nature nor exclude every possible hypothesis except the one of the guilt of the appellant. The chain of circumstances in this case is not complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant."

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence passed against Muhammed Siraj @ Sirajudheen were set aside. He was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be set at liberty if not required in any other case.