Wife's Failure To Explain Husband's Homicidal Death Under Her Roof Proves Guilt; Last Seen Theory Sufficient for Conviction: Kerala High Court - 2025-08-25

Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Upholds Wife's Murder Conviction Based on 'Last Seen' Theory, Acquits Alleged Paramour

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling on a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, has upheld the life imprisonment sentence for Sajitha, convicted of murdering her husband, Paul Varghese. A Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian held that the "last seen together" theory was sufficient to establish her guilt, given her failure to explain the circumstances of her husband's homicidal death inside their home.

Simultaneously, the court dismissed the State's appeal against the acquittal of Tisson Kuruvilla, the alleged paramour and co-accused, citing the prosecution's failure to prove his involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

Case Background

The case dates back to December 23, 2011, when Paul Varghese was found dead in his home. The prosecution alleged that Sajitha (1st accused) was in an illicit relationship with Tisson Kuruvilla (2nd accused). To eliminate her husband, who they saw as an obstacle, they conspired to murder him.

According to the prosecution's narrative, Sajitha drugged her husband with sleeping pills mixed in his food. Later that night, while he was in a deep sleep, she and Tisson allegedly strangled him with a towel and smothered him with a pillow. Both were charged under Sections 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) and 302 (Murder) of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial court acquitted both of criminal conspiracy. However, it found Sajitha guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to life imprisonment, while acquitting Tisson of all charges. This led to two appeals: one by Sajitha challenging her conviction and another by the State challenging Tisson's acquittal.

Prosecution's Arguments and Court's Analysis

The prosecution's case was built on several key circumstances:

1. Motive: An alleged illicit affair between the two accused.
2. Last Seen Alive: The deceased was last seen alive in the company of his wife, Sajitha, in their home.
3. Phone Call Records: Frequent communication between the accused.
4. Recovery of Evidence: A towel allegedly used in the crime was recovered based on information from the 2nd accused.

The High Court meticulously dismantled the evidence presented against the 2nd accused, Tisson Kuruvilla. It noted that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged motive, as no witness could testify to the illicit relationship. The evidence regarding phone calls was deemed insufficient as the SIM cards were not registered in the names of the accused or recovered from them, creating a significant evidentiary gap.

Furthermore, the court found the recovery of the towel (MO14) to be unreliable. The information about the towel was likely known to the police through another witness (PW10) before the accused's alleged disclosure, thus invalidating its admissibility under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The forensic report also failed to link the towel conclusively to the crime scene. Finding the trial court's view on his acquittal plausible, the High Court refused to interfere.

The Conviction of the Wife: Last Seen Theory and Section 106

The case against the 1st accused, Sajitha, hinged on the "last seen together" doctrine. The court observed that it was undisputed that Paul Varghese died a homicidal death by strangulation and smothering inside his own bedroom, between 10:30 p.m. and 2:15 a.m.

The judgment emphasized that Sajitha was present in the house with her husband during this period. The court extracted a key passage to underscore its reasoning:

"since the 1st accused was present in the house at the relevant time when her husband’s death occurred, and as the death has been conclusively established to be homicidal in nature the burden lies on the 1st accused to provide a credible explanation as to how the death took place."

Invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the burden of proving a fact especially within the knowledge of a person upon them, the court held that Sajitha had a duty to explain the events that led to her husband's death.

The court stated:

"Despite the said overwhelming circumstance, the 1st accused failed to offer any justifiable or convincing explanation about the incident that occurred inside the privacy of her bedroom in the wee hours. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the proved circumstance that the deceased was alive last in the company of the deceased and the 1st accused failed to offer any explanation and to discharge the burden as spelt out under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly points towards the guilt of the 1st accused."

Final Verdict

Concluding that the chain of circumstances against Sajitha was complete and pointed unequivocally to her guilt, the High Court dismissed her appeal (Crl.Appeal No.491/2019) and confirmed her conviction and life sentence. The State's appeal against the acquittal of Tisson Kuruvilla (Crl.Appeal No.716/2020) was also dismissed, solidifying his innocence in the eyes of the law.