RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT , the accused in Sessions Case No. 90 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No. 11), Palakkad was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The Court charge levelled against the accused was as follows :

(2.) THERE are no eye -witnesses to the incident and the Sessions Court convicted the accused only on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that for convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be so complete without any missing link or reasonable doubt as held by the Apex Court in Prem Thakur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 61 : (1983 Cri LJ 155). The chain must be so complete and the only hypothesis possible on the basis of evidence adduced is that the accused and the accused alone is guilty of the offence and the Court has to be on its guard to avoid damages of being swayed by emotional considerations as held by the Apex Court in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 607 : (1996 Cri LJ 883). It has been held by the Apex Court that the distinction between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure considerations and each circumstance must be covered by clear and unobjecting evidence by the prosecution before the accused is condemned as a culprit.

(3.) PW 8 is the father of the accused who was declared hostile. According to him, accused and CW9 went to see temple festival and returned only at 5 -30 a.m. When they returned, deceased was not seen in the room and accused found her near the haystack. He further deposed that he purchased Furadan for plantain cultivation and balance in the bottle was kept in the house PW8 also deposed that there is no need for the deceased to commit suicide.