SIVAN, S/O.CHATHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT /accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/= for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Appeal was filed from that judgment and since he was unable to appoint an advocate of his choice, court appointed a legal aid counsel at state expense. Allegation against him was that he killed one Sosi, an unmarried man aged 45 years, as he was suspected to have illicit relationship with wife of the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that on 2.6.98 night the accused purchased and supplied liquor to the victim from the house of PW2 and subsequently they both together left that place. At 11 p.m. in the night, in the Sholayur -Chavadiyur Panchayath road, the accused inflicted fatal injuries on the head and other parts of Sosi by using stones and intentionally caused his death. After committing murder, the accused dragged the dead body of Sosi at a distance of one kilometre and partially buried the dead body in a pit in the bushy area of the property of one Muthu -Mudaliyar (not examined). The accused also set fire to the blood stained clothes of the deceased so as to destroy the evidence and thus the accused caused disappearance of evidence.

(2.) THERE is no eye witness in this case and prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence. It is settled principle of law that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be fully established, and the chain of evidence furnished by those circumstances should be fully complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. In a case of circumstantial evidence not only various links of evidence should clearly establish guilt of the accused, but also it must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. The Apex Court in Sharad v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1984 SC 1622) described five principles for convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence which are as follows:

(3.) PW 1 stated that he and PW11 while going through Sholayur -Chavadiyur Panchayat road, found out blood stains and on searching, the dead body was found at a distance of half a kilometre away from the panchayat road. MO1 belt, MO2 series chappals and MO3 stone were also found from the scene of occurrence. According to PW1, accused has once told him that the deceased had illicit relationship with his wife. This is the motive attributed to the accused for committing the murder. There is no other evidence to support the motive. Alleged motive is not proved and even if it is proved, mere existence of motive is not enough for convicting a person. At the most it may be one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence. He also deposed that an empty brandy bottle, a cigarette packet, two chappals (MO2) and a green belt (MO1) were seen in the place of occurrence. A big stone (MO3) was there in the canal. In cross examination he stated that usually two persons are required for lifting MO3 stone.