Case: KARATTU SHOUKATHALI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

2. As per the prosecution case, on 11.08.1996, the deceased left her house at 8.00 a.m. in the company of the accused. Thereafter, she did not come back in the evening. A. Alavi, PW-1, father of the deceased, started enquiring about her whereabouts. Vasu, PW-3, informed him that he had seen the deceased in the company of the accused in the morning. Haridas, PW-2 also informed that he had seen deceased in the company of accused in the forest. First Information Report was lodged by A. Alavi, PW-1. The Sub-Inspector recorded his statement at 2.00 a.m. on 12.08.1996 and the offence was registered. The prosecution had examined as many as 15 witnesses. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the chain of circumstances to fasten the guilt upon the appellant is complete. They have found that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused, body had been recovered at the instance of the accused, the shirt fibre of the accused was found on the person of the deceased. Besides that, there was recovery of gold ornaments and purse of the deceased from the house of Shajahan, brother-in-law of the accused.

Reasoning:
4. We have considered the aforesaid decision and on its anvil evidence adduced in the instant case minutely and examined the circumstances found established in the case and have also examined the concurrent finding recorded by the courts below. We find that the chain of circumstances is complete in the instant case. The deceased was taken by the accused in the morning of 11.08.1996 as stated by Vasu, PW-3. The accused was sitting with the deceased on a rock in the forest at 10.30 a.m. Haridas, PW-2, had seen them, at last. When she did not come back in the evening and on making an enquiry about her whereabouts by her father, A. Alavi, PW-1, as she could not be traced, First Information Report was lodged, which was recorded at 2.00 a.m. on 12.08.1996. Thereafter, as the accused and the deceased were last seen together, the appellant was apprehended by the police and at his instance the body was found in the forest. The circumstance that the accused had taken deceased from village and was found in the company of the deceased in forest also stands corroborated. The involvement of accused in offence finds support from material evidence that the fabric of the shirt of the accused tallied with the fabric found on the person of the deceased. Besides that, recovery of gold ornaments and purse of the deceased from the house of Shajahan, brother-in-law of the accused at the instance of accused pursuant to information furnished by him under Section 27 of Evidence Act stands established.5. We are not impressed by the submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that, according to A. Alavi, PW-1, at 6.00 a.m. the police had apprehended the accused/appellant whereas the police says that it apprehended him at 9.00 a.m. There may be some discrepancies as to few hours due to loss of memory of A. Alavi, PW-1, which is not material. Crucial fact is that the recovery of the body at the instance of the appellant in the forest, the shirt fabric of the accused was found on the person of the deceased and also the recovery of the gold ornaments of the deceased. Vasu, PW-3, had seen the accused who had taken the deceased from the house and Haridas, PW-2, had seen them together in forest sitting on a rock, as such chain of circumstances stand completed so as to fasten the guilt. The burden was upon the accused to explain the circumstances in which he parted with company of deceased, how he came into possession of gold ornaments and purse of deceased and how was aware of where body was lying in the forest. He simply made bald denial which is not sufficient whereas as per provision of Section 106 of Evidence Act he should have explained the circumstances against him.