SATHYANESAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant u/ss. 302 and 392 IPC. and sentence to imprisonment for life. THE appellant was tried on the charge that he strangulated to death his wife and relieved of her gold ornaments between 7-30 A. M. and 8 A. M. on 27-9-1981 and thereby committed the offence of murder and robbery. THE conviction is based on the circumstantial evidence tendered by the prosecution. In challenging the conviction the main contention advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the circumstantial evidence relied on is highly artificial, unreliable and inconclusive and therefore the conviction is unsustainable.

(2.) CONVICTION based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained if it is such as to be conclusive of the guilt of the accused and incapable of explanation on any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. Before a person could be found guilty with reference to mere circumstantial evidence, each of the circumstances relied on must be clearly established and the proved circumstances taken together must be such as reasonably to exclude the probability of innocence.

(3.) THERE is unimpeachable evidence in the case that Retna selvam was strangulated to death at her residence where she lived with her husband, the appellant, on 27-9-1981 between 7 and 9 AM. The gold chain and ear rings worn by the deceased had been removed after cutting the ear lobes. The appellant who was in the house in the morning suddenly disappeared. Neither did he report the incident before police nor make himself available at the time of the inquest. He was suspected when the first information report was recorded and naturally he avoided the police at the time of the inquest. He was arrested by pw. 22 the same night. On the information given by the appellant MOs. 1 and 2 gold chain and gold rings were recovered by pw. 22 under Ext. P3 mahazar attested by pws. 14 and 15. The appellant led Pw. 22 to the boundary between two properties and produced from the crevices of the boundary stones the packet containing the gold chain and gold rings kept concealed by placing two stones. The ear rings were found stained with human blood as certified under Ext. P12. The attestors to the mahazar are respectable persons of the locality, pw. 15 being the Panchayat President. MOs 1 and 2 had been sufficiently identified as the ornaments worn by the deceased. MO 2 gold chain was the thalimala the appellant himself had purchased under Ext. P5 dated 27-12-1979 from pw. 16. The mo. 1 gold ear rings had been made by pw. 17 at the instance of pw. 1, on converting the gold studs given to the deceased at the time of her marriage. All these witnesses have identified the items. pw. 7 the mother-in-law of the deceased, pw. 9 the brother-in-law, besides pws. 1 and 6, have affirmed that the deceased had been wearing these items. pw. 12 noticed the ornaments when he saw the deceased early in the morning while she had been returning after the bath. The appellant has also no case that MOs. 1 and 2 did not belong to the deceased or that she was not wearing the same. The recovery of MOs. 1 and 2 ornaments of the deceased at the instance of the appellant soon after the occurrence, clearly shows that the appellant had come by possession of the property of the deceased. The appellant has no satisfactory explanation how that property had been transferred from the deceased to the appellant. The appellant has only stated that the recovery is false. The testimony of pws. 14,15,22 and the contemporaneous record Ext. P3 mahazar belied that case of the appellant. The confessional statement of the appellant had been duly proved and the relevant facts have been stated by pw. 22 as well as the attestors. We do not find any infirmity or anything artificial in the evidence relating to the recovery. The possession of the property of the deceased with the appellant soon after the occurrence is thus a strong circumstance against the appellant. This is a case where murder and robbery are proved to have been integral parts of one and the same transaction. THEREfore it can be reasonably presumed that not only the appellant committed the murder of the deceased but also committed robbery of her gold ornaments which form part of the same transaction, in the absence of satisfactory explanation for the appellant as to how the property was transferred from the deceased to the appellant.