Case: P. K. Narayanan Vs. State of Kerala

1 is the owner and proprietor of Polakulath Tourist Home at Palarivattom, Ernakulam and two such other tourist homes in other places in addition to being an abkari contractor. V. V. Salim @ Sasi,was his driver and personal bodyguard.was a room boy in the tourist home andwas the Manager ofThe deceased Peethambaran was in employment ofsince June 1982. He was an honest young man and was a faithful and trusted employee. He was also a personal friend ofand enjoyed considerable freedom in the house of1 had duplicate accounts of his income and some of them were kept in the house of the deceased. PW 1, father of deceased, had close relations withand he was a member of the administrative committee of the Palarivattom Hariharasutha temple of whichwas the President. PW 1 was looking after the administration of the temple. Sometime before the present incident which took place in the early hours of1 began to distrust the deceased and he also suspected that the deceased was pilfering money from the cash collection of the tourist home. He therefore directedto keep a watch on the deceased. Being alerted about the growing hostility about him, the deceased decided to leave the employment in the tourist home and was in search of some other job.apprehended that if deceased left him he might disclose the inconvenient information regarding unaccounted wealth and sowanted to eliminate the deceased somehow or the other. On the fateful day the deceased andwere on night duty in the tourist home and they along with another room boy occupied Room No. 411. PW 3 had taken a room onand had to leave early in the morning on the new motor cycle to Trivandrum. PW 3 checked out of the tourist home at 4 a. m. and left for Trivandrum on the motor cycle. At that time PW 3 came down to the counter and found the deceased andsleeping in the visitors room adjoining the counter. They were woken up. PW 3 was the last person who saw the deceased alive before leaving and at that time he was in the company ofSometime around 4.30 a. m. the residents and employees of the tourist home and some of the neighbours heard cries and simultaneously they heard something heavy falling from the terrace of the tourist home. Hearing the cries and the sound,and PW 17, the accountant who was staying together in one room and PW 11, a Probationarycame down to the counter and they found the southern door of the tourist home near the counter locked. As that could not be opened they went to the western door.opened the door through which some of the inmates entered the southern courtyard and found the body of Peethambaran who was then profusely bleeding. At the same time they saw a person running away towards the north along the main road. PW 4 identified that person asAt the behest ofsomebody fetched a car in which the deceased was taken to the hospital. Meanwhile PW 1 also was informed about the incident and PWs 1 and 2 rushed to the City Hospital and from there to the Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam where they saw PW 17 talking on the phone. PW 17 led PW 1 to the room where the deceased was lying with injuries. PW 10, the medical officer, examined the deceased and declared him to be dead.and PW 17 went to the police station and ultimately the Circle Inspector, PW 57, rushed to the police station and sawand PW 17 there. PW 23, the SI recorded the FIR, Ex.and registered the crime as one of unnatural death. PW 57 along with PW 23 proceeded to tourist home and posted a constable there for guard duty. He held the inquest on the dead body at the hospital and examined PWs 1 and 2. PW 55, the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine conducted theand he opined that the death was not due to fall alone but there was evidence of violence. A case was registered under Section 302 IPC. PW 58, DSP took up the investigation. He recovered chappals, MO II from the terrace belonging to the deceased. He prepared a mahazar regarding the topography of the area. After investigation, the case was referred as one of suicide. PW 1, however, filed an application before the High Court which set aside the referred report and ordered reinvestigation. The State filed a petition before the Supreme Court and while dismissing the special leave petition this Court directed the reinvestigation by CBI. CBI thereupon proceeded with the reinvestigation. PW 61, the CBI Officer included a number of witnesses including the Forensic Expert and Psychiatrist. He also conducted a dummy experiment by PW 53 Director of Central Forensic Laboratory with the help of PWs 54 to 56 and PW 60, the Senior Scientific Officer. PW 61 arrested the accused and also subjected them to polygraph (lie detector) test. After completion of the investigation, he laid the323, 326, 302 and 201 IPC. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 61 and marked several exhibits. The plea of the accused has been one of denial. As stated above ultimatelyare found guilty. On the basis of the evidence the trial court formulated six points for determination and they are"48. The points that arise for determination in this case1. Whether the death of Peethambaran is a case of homicide or suicide?2. If it is a case of homicide, whethervoluntarily caused grievous hurt to Peethambaran by beating with a stick and torch on the terrace of the Polakulath Tourist Home at Palarivattom and then threw or pushed him down to the southern courtyard with the intention to cause his death onat about 4.30 a. m.?3. Whethercaused the death of Peethambaran at the instance and instigation ofand in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy, between4. Whetheris privy to the conspiracy to cause the death of Peethambaran?5. Whetherin pursuance of a criminal conspiracy, tampered with the evidence of murder to screen the offenders from legal punishment and gave false information to the police?6. Whether the accused are guilty and if so for what offence? " * So far as point 1 is concerned, the medical evidence assumes lot of importance in this case. The trial court, however, finally held that the death of deceased was a case of homicide and not suicide. On point 2 the trial court held thatvoluntarily caused grievous hurt to the deceased on the terrace and threw him down from the terrace to the southern courtyard at a depth of 65 feet. On point 3, the trial court held that it was at the instance and instigation ofcaused the death of the deceased in pursuance of a conspiracy among3. Point 4 was decided against the prosecution andwas acquitted. Point 5 was also decided against the prosecution and it was held that there is absolutely no evidence to find that any of the accused or anybody under the direction tampered with the evidence of offence or gave false information to screen the offenders from legal punishment. On the basis of conclusion the trial court answered point 6 by holdingguilty under Sectionread with Section 302 IPC andunder Section 302 read with SectionIPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them3. In appeal, the High Court, however, held that so far asis concerned there is no positive evidence against him and accordingly acquitted him and confirmed the rest of the findings of the trial court

Court's reasoning:
The High Court, as a matter of fact, acquittedIt is interesting to note at this stage that the trial court took upon the exercise of eliminating one or other inmates who could have committed the crime and by strange process of reasoning fixed the liability on3. Both the courts below have referred to the evidence of PWs 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17. Out of them PW 17 turned hostile. PW 13 simply stated that as the doors were closed they could not go out and that as usual, he and some other employees were sleeping in the dining hall. PW 3 stated that before the incident he saw the deceased in the company ofat the time of his checking out. His evidence in any manner does not incriminateThe categorical finding of the trial court is that the deceased was last seen in the company ofand the High Court, however, took the view that the case againstis not at all proved. The main evidence relied upon by the courts below to connectis that of PW 4. PW 4 deposed that he heard something heavy falling from the terrace of the tourist home. He is employed in another hotel on the southern side of the tourist home and in between there is a piece of vacant land. According to him he used to sleep on the terrace and after hearing the sound he saw a person running away from the tourist home direction and the said person jumped out of the compound wall and ran towards the north. PW 4 immediately got down from the terrace and called his friend Sudhakaran and told him what he had heard. Then they went to the courtyard and recognised the deceased who was lying injured. It is very important to note that PW 4 in the initial stages did not mention that the person whom he saw running away wasIt is only at a highly belated stage when CBI came into picture that he appears to have told them that he sawrunning away. Even before the CBI admittedly he did not disclose everything but when he was again questioned, according to him, he told the CBI that he sawrunning away. We fail to appreciate as to how reliance can be placed on such unsatisfactory evidence for convictingunder Section 302 read with SectionIPC. This witness wasat length. There are quite a few other infirmities in his evidence but it may not be necessary for us to refer to them. We have perused the evidence of other witnesses. They do not in any manner improve the prosecution case. There is no other evidence worth mentioning which connectswith the crime except mere suspicion on the basis that he was a driver and trusted bodyguard ofNo doubt in the case of conspiracy there cannot be direct evidence but the view taken by the High Court that the motive, opportunity and possible complicity in the offence are inferential from the available facts and circumstances and on that basis an offence of conspiracy would be made out, is not justified on the basis of the evidence on the record. It may not be necessary for us to discuss that part of the evidence dealing with motive Assuming thatwas apprehensive that the deceased might disclose his trade secrets, that by itself cannot prove the conspiracy. The High Court, however, pointed out that the conduct of the parties would be a relevant circumstance to make out an offence of conspiracy. The conduct ofreferred to in this context is that he went to the tourist home at 9 a. m. and that he did not go or meet or console PW 1 on that day and that he rewardedsufficiently to purchase ornaments and make investments. According to the High Court, these circumstances which indicate thatwas a close associate ofcoupled with the circumstance thatwas found running away, would be sufficient to make out a case thatconspired to eliminate the deceased. Having give our anxious considerations, we cannot agree with the view taken by the High Court. On the other hand, the evidence relied upon by the prosecution to prove the conspiracy is wholly insufficient. After having perused the judgments of both the courts below, we find that the convictions are based more on suspicion particularly on the ground thathad motive to eliminate thehave perused the evidence in this regard and from that atone it cannot be concluded that the death was homicidal. As a matter of fact, the medical experts PWs 53 to 55 admitted in theirthat all the injuries found on the deceased and noted in thecertificate can as well be sustained in an assault by several persons with different weapons. In view of such halting type of medical evidence, we do not think that the only inference can be that the death wascan thus been that there is no material whatsoever to show that the accused who are alleged to have conspired did anything to cover up the crime. Therefore the only evidence relied upon by the prosecution in proof of the conspiracy is with reference to the fewcircumstances prior to the murder and the only other subsequent circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the conduct ofin not consoling the father of the deceased. An offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inferences which are not supported by cogentif some acts are proved to have been committed it must be clear that they were so committed in pursuance of an agreement made between the accused who were parties to the alleged conspiracy. Inferences from such proved circumstances regarding the guilt may be drawn only when such circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable explanation. From the above discussion it can be seen that some of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not established by cogent and reliable evidence. Even otherwise it cannot be said that those circumstances are incapable of any other reasonable interpretation11. After a careful examination of the entire material on record, we are of the view that the prosecution has completely failed to establish the guilt ofhe High Court observed that the conduct of PW 59 (the petitioner) in reporting the case as of suicide without contacting PWs 54 and 55 justifies drawing an inference that powerful influences were at work to deflect and distort the investigation. There are some more observations in this context against the petitioner. It can therefore be seen that the High Court entertained doubts regarding the honesty of the petitioners participation in the investigation and as to how he came to the conclusion that it was a case of suicide which largely depends on the appreciation of the medical evidence. We have already referred to the relevant evidence on record in this context including the medical evidence. It has also come on record that the deceased was treated by a Psychiatrist and certain drugs also were purchased by the deceased and therefore the possibility of the investigating officer having an honest impression that the deceased might have committed suicide, cannot be ruled out. As a matter of fact the trial court after a consideration of the relevant evidence also made a similar observation. We have also noted that the medical evidence is not conclusive.