IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931 CRL.A.No. 789 of 2006() ----------------------- SC.101/2002 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC-I), KASARAGOD CP.140/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDURG .................... APPELLANT: ACCUSED: ---------------------- K. SURESH @ SURA, S/O. KUNHIKANNAN, VANIYAN VALAPPU, BELUR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.C.S.SUNIL SRI.M.PRAVEESH SMT.C.G.PREETHA RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT/STATE: --------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI NOBLE MATHEW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- CRL.APPEAL No.789 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF MARCH, 2010 J U D G M E N T Basant, J. The appellant/accused in this appeal challenges the verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence imposed on him under Section 302 IPC. He faces a sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.15,000/-. In default, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. Even though the final report filed by the police as also the charges framed by the court reveal allegations of commission of offences punishable under sections 449, 302 and 201 IPC, conviction is seen entered only under Section 302 IPC. State has not preferred any appeal against the virtually implied acquittal of the appellant under Sections 449 and 201 IPC. 2. The crux of the allegations against the appellant in the final report submitted by the police and the charge framed by the court under Section 302 IPC is that, on 1.4.2000 at about 3 am., he trespassed into the shop in which PW7, the brother of the deceased was running a tea shop. There, he allegedly inflicted multiple injuries on the deceased with MO9, dagger, Crl.A.No.789/2006 -2- while the deceased was sleeping on a wooden desk in that shop. It is the case of the prosecution that there was prior animosity on political grounds between the appellant and the deceased. 3. Investigation commenced with Exhibit P2 FI Statement lodged by PW2 before PW9, who registered Exhibit P2 (a) FIR on the basis of Exhibit P2 FI Statement. Investigation was completed and final report was filed by PW16. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions framed charges against the appellant. He denied all the charges levelled against him. Thereupon the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 16 and proved Exhibits P1 to P22. MOs 1 to 23 were also marked. 4. In the course of cross examination of witnesses and later when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused took up a stand of total denial. He did not advance any specific version. According to him, he had nothing to do with the incident at all. The deceased was a person with questionable habits and antecedents. He must have suffered injuries in some other manner and not when he was sleeping on the desk inside the tea shop of his brother PW7, as alleged by the prosecution, Crl.A.No.789/2006 -3- contended the appellant. The appellant did not examine any defence witnesses. Exhibits D1 to D4 case diary contradictions were marked, when PWs 2, 8 and 12 were examined. 5. The court below on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. As stated earlier, the court below did not record any findings under sections 449 and 201 IPC. Accordingly, the court below proceeded to pass the impugned judgment. 6. Before us the learned counsel for the appellant Shri P.S.Sreedharan Pillai and the learned Public Prosecutor Shri Noble Mathew have advanced their arguments. The learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence on the following grounds. (1) The court below ought to have held that the prosecution has not succeeded in satisfactorily establishing all the circumstances relied on by the prosecution. Crl.A.No.789/2006 -4- (2) In any event, the court below ought to have held that the totality of circumstances generate a very reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as to how the incident had taken place. (3) Benefit of doubt must at any rate have been conceded to the appellant/accused. 7. An appellate judgment is and must be read in continuation of the judgment of the trial court. It is not necessary for us hence to re-narrate the relevant materials which were available before the court below. We are not hence embarking on such a course. Suffice it to say that the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 16, Exhibits P1 to P22 and Exhibits D1 to D4 have been read over to us in detail by the learned counsel. All other materials available in the case have also been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. We shall advert to them wherever necessary in the course of our discussions in this judgment. 8. The prosecution case virtually rested on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution was not able to secure the services of any eye witness who spoke against the appellant. Crl.A.No.789/2006 -5- PW2 was allegedly a person who was sleeping on that night in the shop of PW7 along with the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that they used to so sleep in the night in the tea shop run by PW7, who is the brother of the deceased. While the deceased was sleeping on the desk in the tea shop and PW2 was sleeping on the floor of the tea shop, the deceased had allegedly suffered the multiple injuries seen on his person. According to the prosecution and PW2, PW2 did not wake up while the injuries were being inflicted. After the injuries were suffered by the deceased, the deceased allegedly fell down from the desk and it is only at that point of time that PW2 allegedly woke up. He had allegedly seen the miscreant going away from the scene of the crime. Though he claimed in Exhibit P2 FI Statement that he will be in a position to identify the miscreant who went away from the scene, he did not identify the appellant as the person who had moved away from the scene of the crime when he woke up. That appears to be the consistent case of PW2 before the Investigating Officer and before Court. PW2 and the appellant were admittedly known to each other for a long period of time. It is relevant that PW2 who claimed that sufficient light was Crl.A.No.789/2006 -6- available at the scene for him to identify the miscreant did not choose to identify the appellant as the miscreant either before the police or before the court. 9. The prosecution thus did not have the advantage of any ocular witness speaking about the involvement of the appellant in the crime. The prosecution thus was left to depend on circumstantial evidence to prove the complicity of the appellant. We shall now advert to the circumstances relied on by the prosecution in support of its case against the appellant/ accused. They are: (i) Death of the deceased took place inside the tea shop while he was sleeping on the wooden desk when injuries were inflicted on him by the miscreant, whoever he be, inside the shed. The miscreant allegedly left the shop after infliction of the injuries. (ii) PW2 had occasion to see such person moving away from the scene of the crime (i.e, the tea shop) after infliction of the injuries on the deceased. Crl.A.No.789/2006 -7- (iii) The uncle of the appellant had suffered injuries in an earlier incident, the FIR in which registered by PW10 is produced and marked as Exhibit P7. The appellant allegedly entertained an impression that the deceased was responsible for such attack on the uncle of the appellant. This operated as the motive for the appellant to mount the attack on the deceased. (iv) After the incident which took place at 3 a.m. on 1.4.2000 and after the registration of Exhibit P2 (a) FIR on the basis of Exhibit P2 FI statement at 6 am., the appellant was arrested on 2.4.2000 at 2 am. He was allegedly interrogated and in the confession statement which he made, he furnished information to PW16, the Investigating Officer about the destruction of the shirt worn by him at the time of commission of the offence. That shirt had allegedly been burnt by him. The burnt ashes were seized by PW16 under Exhibit P9. MO22 is such ashes. Crl.A.No.789/2006 -8- (v) In the course of such interrogation, the appellant furnished information to PW16 about the concealment of MO9 knife which was allegedly used for infliction of the injury on the deceased and PW16 recovered MO9 under Exhibit P10 seizure mahazar in the presence of PWs 12 and 13. (vi) In the course of such confession statement, the appellant further furnished to PW16 information about concealment of MO15 blood stained dhothi worn by him at the scene of the crime and PW16 seized the same under Exhibit P11 mahazar in the presence of PWs 12 and 13. (vii) The appellant who is a neighbour did not go to the scene of the crime to see the dead body of the deceased or to express his condolence with the family of the deceased. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that these circumstances have not been proved at all and the proved circumstances cannot at any rate point safely to the inference of Crl.A.No.789/2006 -9- guilt against the appellant. Several possibilities and probabilities galore and a safe inference of guilt against the accused is virtually impossible, contends the learned counsel. At any rate, the benefit of doubt must have been readily conceded to the appellant, argues the learned counsel. 11. It is too trite to require reference to any precedents, that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the burden is very heavy on the prosecution to prove its case satisfactorily before the Court. Each such circumstance has to be established satisfactorily and beyond doubt. Such circumstances must be strong links and together such links must constitute a strong chain. The strong chain must unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. Such chain must effectively rule out all possible hypothesis of innocence of the accused. Then and then only can an accused be convicted in such indictment against him. 12. We shall now consider whether these seven circumstances have been established. Later, we shall consider whether these circumstances satisfactorily point to the guilt of the accused. Crl.A.No.789/2006 -10- 13. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the circumstance that the deceased who was sleeping on the wooden desk suffered injuries at the hands of the miscreant when he was sleeping inside such tea shop. But, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that this version is inherently uninspiring and rebels against reason, logic and common sense. In Exhibit P3 postmortem certificate issued by PW3, we have graphic details about the nature of injuries suffered by the deceased. If all these injuries were suffered by the deceased while he was sleeping on the wooden desk, it is artificial and improbable; nay impossible for PW2 to have not known about such an incident while such incident was going on. The theory that PW2 came to know of the incident only after the deceased fell from the wooden desk to the floor is to say the least uninspiring, contends the learned counsel. We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel has marshalled several circumstances to contend that the fatal injuries could not have been suffered by the deceased inside the tea shop. The learned counsel points out that there were no blood or blood marks available on the wooden desk where the Crl.A.No.789/2006 -11- deceased was allegedly sleeping. The learned counsel points out that the other blood stained articles available inside the house point to the incident having taken place else where and not inside the tea shop. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that in Exhibit P13 scene mahazar, PW16 had found as many as 22 points where blood was found on the ground to a distance of 75 metres from the tea shop which is identified as the scene of the crime. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that this telltale circumstance perceived by PW16, the Investigating Officer at the scene and reported in Exhibit P13 knocks the bottom out of the theory that the deceased must have suffered all injuries, while he was sleeping on the wooden desk inside the tea shop. We find considerable force in this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The trail of blood marks for a distance of 75 metres upto the tea shop suggests unmistakably that the incident could not have taken place in the manner spoken to by PW2. The version of PW2 is inherently and intrinsically uninspiring. It is difficult for a prudent mind to meekly swallow the version of PW2. PW2's version does not explain the long trail of 75 metres of blood at 22 Crl.A.No.789/2006 -12- different points from the scene of the crime. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution that the injuries must have been suffered by the deceased inside the tea shop is thus, not established at all. In fact we must say that the perceptions recorded by the Investigating Officer, PW16 in Exhibit P13 scene mahazar as also in Exhibit P1 inquest report disprove this circumstance relied on by the prosecution. Circumstance No.(i) is thus not established at all. 14. The version of PW2 which is relied on as the 2nd circumstance is that some miscreant found access into the tea shop after both he and the deceased slept on that night. PW2 knows the appellant for a long period of time. According to PW2, there was sufficient light to enable identification of the miscreant. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that if as a matter of fact it was the appellant who inflicted the injuries described in Exhibit P3 on the deceased and if it was the appellant who went out of the tea shop, it is artificial, improbable and impossible that PW2 would not have been able to identify the appellant. The learned counsel submits that the version of PW2 does not inspire confidence at all. The learned counsel Crl.A.No.789/2006 -13- points out that PW2 has, for whatever reasons, adamantly refused to support the case of the prosecution that it was the appellant who went away from the scene of the crime on that night. The learned counsel relying on the inquest report submits that the Investigating Officer obviously had hatched the plan to claim that PW2 had identified the appellant as the person who went out of the tea shop after the occurrence. This is evident from the Remand Report. But that version was not pressed later. Evidently PW2 was not willing to subscribe to such a version. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the appellant, PW2 is resorting to such a course not because of his anxiety to speak the truth. His version about the incident is itself totally untrustworthy and unbelievable and in these circumstances, the failure/inability/refusal of PW2 to identify the appellant as the one who went out of the room is crucially relevant while considering the second circumstance. The second circumstance pressed into service by the prosecution does not in any way help the prosecution, contends the learned counsel. We find force in that contention. Crl.A.No.789/2006 -14- 15. The 3rd circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the appellant had a motive against the deceased. What is this motive? Exhibit P7 relates to an incident that had taken place long earlier. In that incident which took place on 15.10.1999, the uncle of the appellant had allegedly suffered injuries. By the FI statement lodged on 17.10.1999, the crime was reported to the police. It is significant that there is no allegation whatsoever in Exhibit P7 that the deceased or anyone connected with the deceased was responsible for that incident. The learned counsel for the appellant in these circumstances contends that the theory that the appellant had a motive against the deceased is one that cannot be accepted at all. No one has a case that in the course of investigation of Exhibit P7 crime, it was concluded by the police that the deceased or anyone else closely related to him was responsible for Exhibit P7 crime. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the appellant argues that this inconclusive circumstance about the alleged motive of the appellant against the deceased can never be relied on as a circumstance against him to implicate him in this crime. Crl.A.No.789/2006 -15- 16. We find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no case for anyone that the deceased or anyone else connected with him has been arrayed as an accused in Exhibit P7 crime. At any rate, the theory that the appellant entertained a motive against the deceased on that score is not established satisfactorily. The 3rd circumstance also fails. 17. The 4th, 5th and 6th circumstances relate to the recovery of MOs 22, 9 and 15 on the basis of the alleged confession statement of the appellant after his arrest by PW16 at 2 am. on 2.4.2000. On the basis of such statement, PW16 is alleged to have effected recovery at 12 noon, 12.30 p.m. and 1.10 pm. on 2.4.2000 of MOs, 22, 9 and 15 under Exhibits P9, P10 and P11. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that this evidence of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act could not at any rate have been reckoned or used as the foundation to enter a verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence against the appellant. The learned counsel contends first of all that there is no link whatsoever between MO22 recovered under Exhibit P9 and the shirt allegedly worn by the appellant at the Crl.A.No.789/2006 -16- time of occurrence. The evidence of the Expert in Exhibit P22 clearly reveals that MO22 is not opined to be ash obtained by burning of a shirt. In these circumstances, MO22 and Exhibit P9 must be discarded, contends the learned counsel. The court below appears to have accepted that contention. We find no reason to disagree with the court below. 18. Coming to MO9 recovered under Exhibit P10, the learned counsel contends that if going by the present version of the prosecution and the oral evidence of PW3 and Exhibit P3, MO9 knife in its present condition cannot cause injuries described in Exhibit P3. The prosecution hence has a further case. It is their case that the sharp edge of MO9 was bent by the accused in an attempt to destroy evidence. There is absolutely not a semblance of satisfactory evidence to come to this conclusion. The prosecution relies on the oral evidence of PW16. According to the court below, a statement was made by the accused to PW16 that he had so bent MO9 while he was in custody. The court below felt that this statement will not amount to confession and there was no bar against placing reliance on this statement which is only an admission and not a confession. Crl.A.No.789/2006 -17- The learned counsel for the appellant also relies on A.Nagesia v. Bihar State (AIR 1966 SC 119 ). The learned counsel argues that the statement cannot be reckoned as a mere admission. The entire statement according to the prosecution reveals admission of crime by the appellant. It is impermissible to attempt admission of any part of this confession statement by miscalling the same as a mere admission and not a confession, contends counsel. We find merit in that contention. 19. The learned counsel then contends that both Exhibits P10 and P11 suffer from the vice that there is no independent acceptable testimony in support of such recovery of MOs 9 and 15 under Exhibits P10 and P11. The alleged “admission” about bending of MO9 is not borne out by Exhibit P10 recovery mahazar. Both PWs 12 and 13 are political activists who have an interest in PW7 and in these circumstances, the evidence of PWs 12 and 13 who have to be dubbed as improbable chance witnesses present at the scene to Exhibits P10 and P11 recoveries cannot support the evidence of the prosecution, argues the learned counsel. We find merit in that contention also. Crl.A.No.789/2006 -18- 20. The prosecution relies on recovery of MO15 dhothi under Exhibit P11 on the basis of the alleged confession statement of the appellant. The presence of blood in MO15 is confirmed by Exhibit P22 Chemical Examiner's report. The prosecution relies on this piece of evidence as a formidable circumstance to implicate the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand submits that the blood stained saffron coloured dhothi was recovered by the police from the scene of the crime as indicated by Exhibit P1 inquest report as also Exhibit P13 scene mahazar. According to the learned counsel for the appellant ,that dhothi has not been produced by the prosecution as one of the articles which were available at the scene of the crime. It is the case of the appellant that the said saffron coloured dhothi is made use of as MO15 and it is dishonestly and fraudulently claimed now that the same was recovered as MO15 under Exhibit P11. Exhibit P11 also suffers from the same vice that it has not been attested by any independent witness and only PWs 12 and 13 were available to attest the said mahazar also. They are interested common attestors to Exhibits P9, P10 and P11, points out the learned Crl.A.No.789/2006 -19- counsel. 21. We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. The recoveries of MO22, MO9 and MO15 under Exhibits P9 to P11, we must say, do not commend themselves for our acceptance as the main piece of substantive evidence to found a verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Section 302 IPC. Such evidence of recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can ordinarily be made use of only to support and afford inspiration for incriminating evidence that is already there. Unfortunately, in this case, no other circumstance has been established satisfactorily. The alleged recovery of MO22, MO9 and MO15 under Exhibits P9, P10 and P11 by PW16 in the presence of PW12 and PW13, we must say, do not commend themselves to implicit acceptance by us. The same does not inspire confidence. At any rate, we are satisfied that the same cannot be used as a bedrock on which a verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence can be built up. The mere fact that the blood stains of 'O' group was found present in MO9 and MO15 cannot be reckoned as sufficient to give us the assurance and inspiration which we are looking for, for such Crl.A.No.789/2006 -20- recovery of MOs 9 and 15 or for the establishment of the crucial connection between the appellant and the crime committed. We do in these circumstances take the view that circumstances (iv), (v) and (vi) have not been established satisfactorily and what has been established does not at any rate offer us the satisfaction that the same can be used to found a verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence against the appellant in this prosecution under Section 302 IPC. 22. The last and the 7th circumstance relied on by the prosecution is the fact that the appellant did not go to the scene of the crime, though many others had gone to the scene of the crime. He did not also go to the family of