JOY Vs. C.I. OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO accused were tried for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Both were convicted under each section and sentenced to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years respectively, permitting the sentences to be suffered concurrently Criminal Appeal No. 236 of 1986 was filed by the first accused and the other by the second accused. Second accused Rosamma is the widow of deceased Unni alias Devassia. They have a son (PW 2) and a daughter (CW 4) First accused Joy alias Job was assisting the deceased in his work and residing along with him and his family in a house having only one room. Illicit intimacy developed between accused 1 and 2. Deceased was found a hindrance. Therefore, in furtherance of the common intention of both the accused at about midnight on 3 -7 -1984 when the children were fast asleep, first accused murdered Unni by cutting his chest just below the neck with MO 3 axe inside the residential building at Malom Village and buried the dead body in the paramba itself with the intention of screening themselves from legal punishment by causing disappearance of evidence regarding commission of murder. This is the prosecution case. Second accused is said to have directed and assisted the first accused.

(2.) CASE was registered under the caption "man missing" on 27 -7 -1984 when Ext. P1 complaint filed by PW 1, brother of the deceased. Same day, PW 14 Assistant Sub Inspector questioned both the accused and came to know that Unni was murdered and the body buried in the compound itself The next day, PW 15 Circle Inspector took up investigation and laid the charge for the above offences.

(3.) BEFORE convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence it is necessary to ensure that the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and conclusive without even a missing link. The effect of all the links separately and of the chain cumulatively should lead only to the guilt and not in any way to the innocence. No circumstance should be capable of any explanation on any hypothesis other than the guilt. In such cases, guilt being an inference from proved circumstances, there should not be anything consistent with the innocence and the inference of guilt must be conclusive. Moral conviction however strong cannot be accepted as a substitute for legal evidence.