SASHIDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unmarried 34 year old poor woman, who was not mentally steady, was missing after" she went for work on 5-7-1993. On 13-7-1993, the dead body was seen burled. In the post-mortem report it was found that she was pregnant by about two months and she was killed by strangulation. The appellant-accused was charged-sheeted under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. for murdering her. The prosecution allegation was that since the accused wanted to avoid the threat and nuisance from the deceased-Radha as the deceased Radha had conceived illegally from the accused, the accused with the full knowledge that by his acts, death would be caused on 5-7-1993 at about 10.30 a.m. tied around the neck of Radha tightly at a place in the rubber plantation at Anakudi and caused by strangulation and thereafter, the accused with the intention of causing disappearance of the evidence of the commission of the offence and to screen the accused from the clutches of law, took away the dead body of the deceased-Radha to a place called Parappil and buried the dead body in the property of Gangadharan, the father of the accused, thereby he committed the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. There are no eye-witnesses to the incident. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence. The trial Court found him guilty of the offences charged against him and accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default in undergo further imprisonment for two years under Section 302, I.P.C. and he was also convicted and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2.000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 201, I.P.C. There was also a direction to run the sentences concurrently. While convicting the accused, the Court below relied upon the following circumstances:

(2.) No doubt, the crime is committed in a gruesome manner. A poor woman with some mental abnormalities was impregnated by somebody and she was killed by strangulation and her body was buried. The persons who actually killed her deserve serious punishment. But, even if crime is committed in a most cruel and gruesome manner, the Court should not be biased unconsciously and involuntarily on the accusation. As held by the Apex Court in Mudrika Mahto v. State of Bihar 2002 AIR SCW 2093 : 2002 Cri LJ 2810 in spite of shocking nature of the crime, there should be judicial consideration of evidence in a cool and detached manner. Mere suspicious circumstances alone is not enough to convict a person guilty of murder. It is true that commission of offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence. But as held by the Apex Court in Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the Court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations. For convicting the accused generally on the basis of circumstantial evidence, Court should be satisfied that all the links In the chain are complete and the only hypothesis possible on the basis of the evidence adduced is that accused and the accused alone is guilty of the offence. (See C.K. Raveendran v. State of Kerala and Jaswant Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) ). Circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should also be inconsistent with his innocence as held by the Apex Court in Mangleshwari v. State of Bihar . It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that the distinguishment between 'may be true' and 'must be true' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure consideration and each link must be established by clear and unobjecting circumstances before the accused is considered as a culprit. As the first appellate Court, we may go through the entire evidence adduced in this case to find out whether there are unimpeachable circumstantial evidence to come to the conclusion that the accused and accused alone is guilty of the charges levelled against him.

(3.) The prosecution examined 22 witnesses, out of which the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 18 were relied on by the trial Court. P.W. 1 is the youngest sister of the deceased. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are brothers of the deceased. P.W.2 gave Ext. P1 F.I. statement. P.W. 8 is the husband of one of the sisters of the deceased, who lives in the house along with the deceased, her mother etc. P.Ws. 4 to 7 became hostile. Other witnesses are mainly official witnesses like mahazar witnesses, doctor who conducted post-mortem, investigating officer etc. When the accused was examined under Section 313, Cr. P.C. he denied to have committed the offence. He has further stated that he had financial difficulty. He had promised the creditors to pay off the debts on 12-7-1993. However, he could not get money though he asked so many person on 11-7-1993. His wife and children did not allow him to dispose of his property. On 12-7-1993, he had gone to his family house. At that time, he thought of taking poison kept, there for agricultural purposes and accordingly, he consumed the poison. The police did not question him or suspect him till 12-7-1993. The police had suspected him only because he had consumed poison and attempted to commit suicide on the previous day of exhumation of the body of the deceased. He is having only 10 cents of property. His daughter is presently 19 years old. He is innocent and that he has been falsely made as an accused in this case.