CHANDRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SESSIONS Court, Manjeri convicted accused 1 and 2 in S. C. 20 of 1993 for offences under Ss. 302, 201 and 392 read with S. 34 of the Penal code. First accused was thereupon sentenced to death under S. 302 of the Code and directed to be hanged under S. 302 of the Code and directed to be hanged by the neck till he is dead. For the offences under S. 2011. P. C. , he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and under S. 397 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The death sentence passed against the first accused has been sent up for confirmation and hence R. T. 5/ 1993. First accused challenges the conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal 889/ 1993. Learned SESSIONS Judge sentenced the second accused for imprisonment for life under S. 302 of the Penal Code. He was again sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and seven years under Ss. 201 and 397 respectively of the Penal Code. He questions the conviction and sentence in Appeal 891/1993.

(2.) SHORT facts which led to this case are as follows: -One Sivadasan, who was a goldsmith working in Kodangad market, was missing from the evening of 7-9-1991 -. His relatives searched for him in all possible places. When the attempt to trace him failed, they lodged a complaint before the police on 9-9-1991. On the basis of that complaint, police registered Crime 308/1991 of Kondotty Police Station, as "man missing". The police also could not find out the whereabouts of Sivadasan. On 5-10-1991, his skeletal remains, soiled dress and watch were found in the paddy field of PW-2, in which harvesting was being done by his employees. The servants informed PW-2 of these articles seen in the paddy field. PW-2 then visited the paddy field and verified the truth of the information given to him. Thereupon he went to the police station and informed the police. On getting that information, police sent Ext. P6 report to Court stating that the skeletal remains are of the missing man Sivadasan and so the case is being investigated for offence under S. 302 of the Code. Necessary steps were taken by the police to guard the scene. Next day morning, 6-10-1991, Circle Inspector of Police, PW-39, came to the scene, prepared inquest, scene mahazar, etc. He got the services of PW- 36, Police surgeon attached to District Hospital , Manjeri and arranged for site postmortem examination. Circle Inspector questioned witnesses on 7-10-1991, arrested first and second accused at 1. 45 P. M. and 3. 15 P. M. respectively on the same day and virtually completed the investigation by the night of 7-10-1991 itself.

(3.) THERE is no eye witness for the incident alleged by the prosecution. The case is based solely on circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and should have a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature as to exclude all hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. In other words, the chain of evidence must lead to the conclusion that in all probability the act must have been done by the accused and the accused alone. According to their Lordships of the Supreme Court, when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: - (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that mere is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence", (vide Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A. P. , 1991 SCC (Cri.) 407 ). From the various circumstances relied on by the prosecution in the case, it has to be seen whether they cumulatively lead to the conclusion that the crime alleged to have been committed by the accused was in fact committed by them and by them alone.