Ambili v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN** **FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2012/22ND ASHADHA 1934** **CRL.A.No. 2201 of 2009 (A) -------------------------------------[S.C.NO.73/2009 OF THE ADDL.SESSIONS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM] .......** ## **APPELLANT:** **-------------------** **AMBILI,C.NO.4000, CENTRAL PRISON, TRIVANDRUM-12.** **BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE.** **RESPONDENT:** **---------------------** **STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.** **BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ROY THOMAS.** **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Prv.** ## **M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR & P.BHAVADASAN JJ.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.Appeal No.2201 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of July, 2012** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Sasidharan Nambiar, J** Appellant was convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code by Additional Sessions Judge, Thiruvanantapuram in S.C.No.73/2009. The appellant and his deceased wife Girija were residing in a hut bearing No.PP 3/04 of Pulanpara Village. PW2, Madhavi, the mother is residing in a nearby house. PW3, Bindu, the sister-inlaw of the deceased, is residing in another nearby house. PWs.5 and 6 are other neighbours who also reside near to the other houses. On the night of 10.10.2007, the appellant and the deceased were in that house. PW1, Achuthan, the uncle of the deceased had heard them talk by about 8 pm on that night. On the morning of 11.10.2007, children came to the house of PW1 were PW4, Ani, the son of his brother was also residing at that time and informed that Girija is lying inside the house and is **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **2** not answering when called. PW4 informed it to PW2. PW2 along with PW3 went to the house and found that body of Girija was lying on a mat and she is not responding to their enquiry. PWs.2 and 3 carried Girija to take her to a hospital. Before they reached the road, Mohan another neighbour came there and examined the body of Girija and disclosed that Girija is no more. The body of Girija was therefore taken to the house of PW2, the mother. PW1 went to Venjaramoodu Police Station and furnished Ext.P1, First Information Statement at 11 am on 11.10.2007. PW11, the A.S.I recorded Ext.P1 and prepared Ext.P1(a) FIR and registered the case. PW14, the Sub Inspector, as the Circle Inspector is away, took over the investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence, prepared Ext.P11 Inquest Report and sent the body to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for postmortem examination. PW8, Dr.Sreekumari the then Asst.Professor of Forensic Medicine conducted autopsy and prepared Ext.P10 postmortem certificate, certifying that Girija died due to the constriction force applied on her neck. PW12, the Sub Inspector of Police prepared Ext.P4Scene Mahazar. He arrested the appellant on 19.10.2007 from **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **3** the private bus stand Attingal. PW14, the Circle Inspector of Police took over the investigation and questioned the witnesses and submitted the final report. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, when the case was made over to him, framed charge for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As the accused was in custody and did not engage a counsel, a defence counsel was appointed to defend the appellant at the expense of the State. The appellant pleaded not guilty. Prosecution then examined 14 witnesses and marked 15 Exhibits. After closing the prosecution evidence, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he denied the prosecution case and contended that he was not in the house on that night and had gone for cable work to Adoor and he was arrested from there and was kept on illegal detention for 10 days before his production before the Magistrate. Though appellant was called upon to enter on his defence and adduce evidence, if any, he did not adduce any evidence. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, on the evidence found the **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **4** appellant guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of `10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) and in default rigorous imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appeal is filed. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Argument of the learned Senior Counsel is that, if the evidence of PW2, PW5 and PW6 is accepted, they had seen the appellant leaving the house by about 1 am on that midnight and when the evidence of PW8 prove that death of Girija should have been after 9 pm on 10.10.2007 and before 9 am on 11.10.2007 and if Girija had died before 1 am, PWs.2 and 3 would have easily found out that Girija is not alive due to the onset of rigor mortis and if so they would not have taken Girija to the Hospital and as they were unaware that Girija died, her death would have been only subsequent to 1 am and if that be so, the appellant could not have been there at the scene of occurrence when the death was caused. The learned counsel would argue that the evidence of PW2 that she had seen the appellant on that night, as well as **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **5** the evidence of PW5 and PW6 that they had seen him returning from the house on that night cannot be believed. The argument is that if PW2 had seen the deceased when he woke up and had taken the child for urination, she would not have disclosed to the Investigation Authority that she saw the appellant for the last time at 6 pm and she would have definitely disclosed that she had seen the appellant on that midnight and hence the evidence of PW2 cannot be believed. It was also argued that, if PW5 and PW6 had seen the deceased on that night as claimed by them and appellant had made an extra judicial confession to PW6, when the dead body of Girija was found in the house on the next day morning, they would have definitely disclosed it and as they did not disclose it, it is clear that their evidence is not true. The learned Senior Counsel also argued that when the prosecution has created false evidence by making PWs.5 and 6 depose falsehood, it is clear that there was an attempt to fabricate evidence and in such circumstance the entire prosecution case is to be disbelieved. The learned Senior counsel argued that even if it is taken that appellant was there in the house on that night it would only create a strong suspicion and that suspicion is not a **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **6** substitute for proof of the ingredients of the offence and therefore the appellant cannot be convicted. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in **Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab** (2006(12) SCC 306, it was argued that when the broad probabilities of the case are considered, at the worst it could be stated that there is a strong suspicion against the appellant. But that suspicion is not a substitute of proof and in the absence of legal evidence, to prove the guilt, the conviction is not sustainable. Relying on the decision in **Sharad v.State of Maharashtra** (AIR 1984 SC 1622), the learned Senior Counsel argued that when the proved circumstance do not conclusively establish that it was the appellant who committed the murder and the established facts show that the appellant had left the house by about 1 am and as the death could have been caused subsequent to 1 am, the proved circumstances are not sufficient to rule out the hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant and in such circumstances, the conviction is unsustainable. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that prosecution established the circumstances which unerringly point out the guilt of the appellant and rule out the possibility **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **7** of the innocence of the appellant. It was argued that the appellant admittedly the husband of the deceased was living with the deceased. Evidence establish that the appellant used to return to the house every night, even if it was late and the fact that such an accused did not come back to the house, even after the postmortem examination of the deceased and also the fact that he did not participate in the funeral further establish that appellant was responsible for the death of his wife Girija. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 that the appellant used to ill treat Girija and even physically manhandle her on the allegation of unchastity, was not even challenged in cross-examination and on the evidence it is clear that appellant was treating the wife cruelly and was manhandling her. It was also pointed out that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW2 that she had seen the accused during midnight, when she had woken up and that evidence of PW2 was corroborated by the evidence of PW4. The learned Public Prosecutor also argued that the evidence of PW5 and PW6 also establish that appellant was there in the house on that night when the deceased was strangulated and murdered and the fact **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **8** that he left the house on that night and did not return even for the funeral conclusively establish that the appellant was the culprit. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that when appellant was the person who was last seen together with the deceased, he has a duty to explain what transpired on that night and instead of explaining what transpired on that night he pleaded alibi, which was not even attempted to be proved and in such circumstances the conviction is perfectly legal. 6. The fact that the appellant and his wife Girija were living together in house No.PP3/2004, situated near to the house of PWs.1 to 3,5 and 6 is not disputed. The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 that they reached the house on the morning of 11.10.2007, as children informed that Girija is lying inside the house and is not answering to the enquires. Their evidence prove that they together reached the house of the appellant and found the body of Girija lying on a mat. This fact was not disputed when they were cross-examined. The fact that PWs.2 and 3 were unaware of the death of Girija and tried to take her body to a hospital and before they reached the road Mohan another neighbour found that Girija had already breathed her **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **9** last and therefore the body was taken to the house of PW2 and PW1 furnished Ext.P1 First Information Statement, recorded by PW11, the Assistant Sub Inspector were also not disputed. PW11, after conducting the inquest sent the body to the Medical College Hospital for postmortem examination. The evidence of PW8, Dr.Sreekumari, with Ext.P10 postmortem certificate conclusively establish that the death of Girija was due to the constriction force applied on her neck. The existence of the cresentic abrasion on the right side of the jaw, 4 cm outer to the midline and 0.5cm above the jaw margin, in addition to the abrasions on the right side of the front of neck, further establish that death was caused due to the constriction force applied on the neck. That evidence of PW8 was also not challenged. The evidence therefore exclusively establish that the death of Girija was homicide. 7. The only question is whether the homicide was caused by the appellant. When the appellant is the husband and the deceased is his wife and they were living together, if appellant was there in the house on that night, he has definitely a duty to explain what transpired on that night. True, Section 106 of the **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **10** Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. But the Section would apply to cases where prosecution succeeded in proving facts, from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts. If the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts fails to offer any explanation, which might drive the court to draw a different conclusion, inference is to be drawn against the accused. The evidence of PW1,PW2,PW4,PW5 and PW6 establish that the appellant was there in that house along with the deceased, on that night. PW1 deposed that he heard appellant and the deceased talking from their house till he slept at about 8 pm on that night. That evidence of PW1 was not challenged. Evidence of PW2 is also that the accused was there in the house on that day. The evidence of PW2 further shows that at about midnight she woke up and while she opened the door, to take the child out of the house for urination, she found the appellant walking. She talked to him while he was walking. Her evidence is that after sometime she had seen PW4 walking towards the house of PW1. Then she enquired PW4 whether he **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **11** had seen the appellant. PW4 replied that he had seen the appellant going towards the road. Evidence of PW2 that she found PW4 and enquired about the appellant was fully corroborated by the evidence of PW4. Evidence of PW4 establish that he was staying with PW1 during that period and on that night, PW4 had gone to see a film at Thiruvananthapuram city. He returned back by 1 am. Then he had seen the appellant going along the road from his house. That evidence of PW4 corroborates the evidence of PW2. Though the learned Senior counsel argued that as PW2 admitted that she had given a statement to the Police that she had seen the appellant for the last time at 6pm on the previous night, her subsequent evidence that she found him during midnight cannot be true. We find that PW7 was not asked whether she had disclosed the factum of seeing the appellant during midnight. Such a question was not even put to the Investigating Officer to establish any contradiction. In such circumstances, on the evidence it cannot be stated that PW2 have no case when her statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C that she had seen the appellant on the midnight. When the evidence of PW2 on that **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **12** aspect is fully corroborated by evidence of PW4, we have no hesitation to hold that the evidence of PW2 that she had seen the appellant going from the house during midnight and PW4 had seen him walking along the road is trustworthy and reliable. 8. PW6 has a case that on that night he met the appellant and the appellant made an extra judicial confession that he applied force on the neck of the deceased and she was lying motionless. On appreciation of the evidence of PW6, we find it not safe to rely on the evidence of PW6 that the appellant had made an extra judicial confession. But on that ground, we cannot agree with the submission that the evidence of PW2 and 4 that they had seen the appellant on that night is to be disbelieved. 9. Similar is the evidence of PW5. Though PW5 turned hostile to the prosecution, her evidence also shows that appellant used to quarrel with Girija and PW5 had seen Girija in the evening of the previous day and at that time there was no mark on her face, which was found on the dead body by PW8, the Doctor as well as by PWs.1 to 4. 10. It is thus clear that appellant was there in the house **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **13** along with the deceased on that night and he left the house before the morning, while the body of his wife was lying inside the house. The appellant did not return to the house either before the body was taken for postmortem examination to the Medical College Hospital or thereafter. He did not participate in the funeral. This conduct of the appellant is definitely a strong link in the chain of circumstances. Similarly the case of the appellant when questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the stand taken while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses was that he was not there in the house and had gone for cable work at Kundra. Though a plea of alibi was taken, he did not even attempt to prove the case of alibi. Naturally he has to suffer the consequence. The false plea of alibi is yet another link in the claim of circumstantial evidence. 11. The question is to whether these proved facts unerringly point out the guilt of the appellant are incompatible with the innocence of the appellant. The principles to be followed in a case based on circumstantial evidence, are well settled. The golden principles constituting the Panchsheel of proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, as declared in **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **14** ## **Sharad's** Case supra reads:- - “ 1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that his Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793: AIR 1973 SC 2622) where the following observations were made: “certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.” 2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **15** 3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. 4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. These five golden principles, if we may say so constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 12. A mere suspicion however strong, is not sufficient to prove the guilt. The honourable Supreme Court in **Sharad's** case observed:- “ This indicates the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that a case can be said to be proved only when there is certain and explicit evidence and no person can be convicted on pure moral conviction. Horry's case (supra)” was approved by this Court in Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay.(1960) 2 SCR 460: (AIR 1960 SC **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **16** 500). Lagu's case as also the principles enunciated by this Court in Hanumant's case (supra) have been uniformly and consistently followed in all later decisions of this Court without any single exception. To quote a few casesTufail's case (1969 (3)SCC 198) (supra), Ramgopal's case (AIR 1972 SC 656) (supra), Chandrakant Nyalchand Seth v. State of Bombay (Criminal Appeal No.120 of 1957 decided on 19.2.1958). Dharambir Singh v. State of Punjab (Criminal Appeal No.98 of 1958 decided on 4.11.1958). There are a number of other cases where although Hanumant's case has not been expressly noticed but the same principles have been expounded and reiterated, as in Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Administration, (1974)2 SCR 694(696): (AIR 1974 SC 691 at p.693). Mohan Lal Pangasa v. State of U.P., AIR 1974 SC 1144 (1146), Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra, (1981)2 SCR 384 (390): (AIR 1981 SC 765 at p.767) and M.G.Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra, (1963) 2 SCR 405(419): AIR 1963 SC 200 at p.206) a five Judge Bench decision.” The proved facts are to be appreciated in the light of the settled principles. **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **17** 13. The evidence establish that appellant has doubt in the chastity of Girija and was ill treating her and even manhandling her. Though the learned counsel vehemently argued that in view of the evidence of PW8, Dr.Sreekumari, that death of Girija could have been after 9 pm on 10.10.2007 and before 9 am on 11.10.2007 and as the evidence of PWs.3 to 6 establish that the appellant left the house by 1 am, on that night , when the death was subsequent to 1 am, the appellant cannot be person responsible for her death. The argument is that as PWs.2 to 4 did not realise that Girija had died earlier, her death would have occurred subsequent to 1 am and before 9 am. On the evidence, we cannot accept the submission. The evidence establish that before 8 am, the children found the body of Girija inside the house. Though PW2 and PW3 could not realise that Girija has already breathed her last before they found her body, that is not a ground for holding that death was subsequent to 1 am. The evidence of PW8 is only that the death could have been 6 to 18 hours prior to 3 pm on 11.10.2007. The postmortem examination was conducted at 3 pm on 11.10.2007. PW8 did not provide any data to support her opinion on that aspect. Such a **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** **18** finding is not there in Ext.P10 certificate also. Hence, based on that evidence, it cannot be found that death of Girija occured subsequent to 1 am as canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel. On appreciation of the entire proved circumstance of the case, it is absolutely clear that the proved circumstances, are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant. They are conclusive in nature and tendency and exclude every other possible hypothesis, except the one that the appellant committed the murder. On the evidence we have no hesitation to hold that the appellant caused the death of Girija by applying constriction force on her neck on the night of 10.10.2007 and before the morning of 11.10.2007. None of the exemptions, provided under Section 300 is attracted. Hence, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is perfectly legal and correct. We confirm the conviction. The appellant was sentenced only to imprisonment for life and a fine of `10,000/-. We find no reason to interfere with the sentence. As the learned Sessions Judge omitted to grant set off, it is provided that the appellant is entitled to get set off, for the period he has been in custody in this case, as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C **19** ## **Crl. Appeal No. 2201 of 2009** subject to the orders of the appropriate authority under Section 432/433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ## **M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge** **P.Bhavadasan, Judge** sj