Binu @ George v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANIL KUMAR** **MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020/30TH POUSHA, 1941** ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 380/2014 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT, VADAKARA DTD.20.1.2016** **CRIME No.125/2009 OF THOTTILPALAM POLICE STATION** **APPELLANT:** **BINU @ GEORGE, S/O.JOSEPH, C.No.69/16, CENTRAL PRISON, KANNUR.** **BY ADV.SRI.A.K.ALEX (STATE BRIEF)** **RESPONDENT:** **STATE OF KERALA** **PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR** **THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-01-2020, THE COURT ON 20-01-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **N.ANIL KUMAR, J.** This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence against the appellant, who is the accused, in S.C.No.380/2014 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Vadakara. By judgment dated 20.1.2016, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadakara convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Further, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 392 of IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months more. The above sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Set off was allowed as provided **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The appellant was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as hereunder:Leelimol, a spinster, aged 31 years, was residing at Kunduthode along with her mother, brothers and sisters. PW17-Thomas was a wholesale trader of artificial flowers unit near to her house at Kayakkodi. Leelimol was working as a worker in the said unit. She used to leave home for work at 7.30 am everyday and used to come back home at 6 pm. While so, she fell in love with the accused who hails from Wayanadu. As usual, on 08.07.2009 she left the home for work in the morning. However, she did not return. At about 7 pm., PW2Lalamon, who is one of the brothers of Leelimol, received a telephone call from the accused informing that Leelimol was safely with him. Just two days prior to 08.07.2009, the accused came to Leelimol's house and **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** told PW2 that he came to the house as he did not receive any call from Leelimol. PW2 was aware that Leelimol was in love with the accused. Hence PW2 collected the family details of the accused whereupon the accused informed that he is a native of Payyampally and his father-Joseph is an agriculturist and mother-Mary is a Teacher. When PW2 enquired about the details of the accused, he came to know that the accused furnished false information to him to mislead him. Under the circumstances, PW2 lodged Ext.P2-complaint before the police under the caption 'man missing' on 22.7.2009. Subsequently, on 06.10.2009 at about 8 am, PW2 saw the accused near the KSRTC bus stand, Thottilpalam and immediately he went to the police station and informed the matter. The police came and took the accused to the police station. On being questioned, it was disclosed that the accused took Leelimol to the forest area at Peruvannamuzhy owned by **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..5.. the Irrigation Department and had sexual intercourse with her. It was also disclosed that there was an altercation between the accused and Leelimol when Leelimol happened to know that the accused had already married and was the father of two children. Thus, the accused became violent, covered her mouth with his hands, encircled the neck with her churidar and pressed her neck with the branches of a tree and committed rape on her. Thereafter, he tightened her neck with a plastic rope and suspended her body on the tree with an intention to kill her. After killing her, he robbed her gold ornaments weighing 4½ sovereigns. 3. Pursuant to Ext.P2 statement lodged by PW2, PW36 conducted investigation in this case. On 06.10.2009, he received reliable information that the accused was present at the bus stand. Accordingly, he proceeded to the spot and arrested the accused in ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..6.. accordance with law. On being questioned in police custody, the accused confessed by way of Ext.P25 that the place where the dead body of the victim had been left would be shown, if he was taken to the place. As led by the accused, PW36 proceeded to the place and when they reached the forest area owned by the Kuttiadi Irrigation Department, the accused pointed out a skull of a human being and other articles. PW36 prepared Ext.P3 mahazar noting the description of the articles found at the place. He had not seized any of the above said material objects as the articles required to be examined by the forensic experts. He had made an arrangement for guarding the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, he brought back the accused to the police station and filed Ext.P26 report adding Sections 376 and 302 of IPC. Subsequently investigation was taken over by PW37-the Circle Inspector of Police on 06.10.2009. During investigation, it was ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** **==> picture [22 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** disclosed that the accused robbed away the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased. Hence PW37 submitted Ext.P30 report before court seeking police custody and police custody was obtained. On being questioned, the accused confessed. On the basis of the confession, Section 392 of IPC was also incorporated. 4. On 06.10.2009 at 4 pm, PW37 conducted inspection and prepared Ext.P1 report. While so, PWs.28 and 29 were present. He had seized churidar top, chappals and anklets from the scene of occurrence. From the place, skull, lower jaw bone, pelvis bone and teeth were recovered and entrusted to the forensic experts. Since the accused was involved in Section 392 of IPC, he was again arrested for the said offence by PW37 on the same day at 6.15 pm. On being questioned, the accused confessed by way of Ext.P28 that the plastic rope and mobile phone were kept at the rental house at Edacherry ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..8.. and he would show the same if he was taken to the said house. Accordingly, PW37 proceeded to the place as led by the accused and recovered MOs.10 and 11 as pointed by the accused by Ext.P6 seizure mahazar. PW11-the brother of PW10 in whose house the accused had resided for rent opened the room as required by PW37. 5. On 15.10.2009, PW37 filed an application before the court seeking custody of the accused. Police custody was granted and the accused was entrusted to PW37 on 19.10.2009. He had stated that in connection with Nadapuram riots, he was heavily engaged and could not conduct any investigation on 19.10.2009. Accordingly, PW37 directed PW27 to conduct investigation on 19.10.2009. He was entrusted to do the needful pursuant to the confession statement given by the accused before PW37. PW27 also stated that he had been entrusted with the investigation for a day by PW37 as PW37 was heavily ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..9.. engaged on that day. Accordingly, the accused, who was entrusted with the police custody was received by PW27, who in pursuance of the confession statement given by the accused to PW37, went to Kilukkam Jewellery, Mananthavady as led by the accused. The accused had pointed out the gold ornaments kept there in the shelf of the jewellery shop and it was handed over to him by PW6the sales man of the shop room by way of Ext.P4 seizure mahazar. After recovery of MOs.1 and 2, he came back and entrusted the accused with the C.I. of Police along with MOs.1 and 2. On 09.07.2009, the accused sold MOs.1 and 2 to PW6 and received an amount of Rs.24,000/-. PW6 is also an attestor to Ext.P4 mahazar prepared by PW27. PW37 questioned the witnesses, recorded their statements, completed the investigation and filed final report before court. **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..10.. 6. The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Kozhikode after complying with the usual formalities. The learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 302 and 392 of IPC and numbered the case as S.C.No.380/2014. Later the case was transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadakara for trial and disposal. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing both sides, framed charges under Sections 376, 302 and 392 of IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 38 and marked Exts.P1 to P40 and MOs.1 to 11 on the side of the prosecution. On closing the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. His defence is one of total denial. **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..11.. 8. The learned trial Judge did not deem it fit and proper to acquit the accused under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the accused was called upon to enter on his defence. However, no defence evidence was adduced. 9. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in paragraph 1 of this judgment supra. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this appeal. 11. Heard Sri.A.K.Alex, learned State Brief for the appellant and Sri.K.B.Udayakumar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 12. Challenging the appreciation and evidence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.A.K.Alex submitted that the case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** evidence, it is submitted that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has not been able to establish that it was the skull of the deceased-Leelimol that was recovered. Further, the learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective and failed to note that there was no motive for the appellant to cause the death of Leelimol. It is further submitted that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and the delay was not explained by the prosecution. 13. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor Sri.K.B.Udayakumar submitted that the accused **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** committed murder and took away the gold ornaments worn by the deceased. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the gold ornaments were recovered pursuant to the confession given by the accused in accordance with law. It is also submitted that the skull was recovered in accordance with law. Thereupon, PW32-Scientific Assistant, Biology, Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram had conducted superimposition test and issued Ext.P24 report. Referring to Ext.P24, the learned Public Prosecutor argued that the opinion expressed by PW32 that the skull and mandible could have belonged to the person whose photograph was given for examination is relevant. Further PW30, the Joint Director, Research Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, who conducted DNA test and filed Ext.P22 report stating that the deceased-Leelimol is the biological offspring of PW31Mariyakutty. In view of the clear evidence, learned Public ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..14.. Prosecutor submitted that the trial court has taken a probable view and no interference in appeal is warranted. 14. PW28-the Police Surgeon, who conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased, issued Ext.P20 postmortem report stating that the plastic rope ligature found constricted around the scalp hair at the probable site of neck and the nature it was found tied to the tree were suggestive of unsuccessful attempts to tie up the body to mimic hanging (the pull up of the suspension point upwards on the bark as against the pull down in real hanging) and was not per se suggestive of hanging. PW28 further opined that strangulation death is a strong possibility which cannot be ruled out only since the advanced postmortem interval had allowed nature to act to cause loss of evidence. 15. PW2-the brother of the deceased lodged Ext.P2 statement before the police stating that his sister was ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..15.. missing from 08.07.2009 onwards. He identified the personal belongings of his sister recovered by the police. The fact that deceased-Leelimol met with homicidal death is not disputed. 16. The accused, a married man, having two children fell in love with Leelimol. PW10-Kunjikannan stated that he had let out his house to the accused wherein the accused and his wife, children and father had resided until the month of October, 2009. PW11-the brother of PW10 stated that the accused had resided at the house owned by PW10 with family. The fact that the accused took Leelimol to forest area at Peruvannamuzhy is strongly disputed by the accused. According to the prosecution case, the accused under the pretext of love with Leelimol took her to forest area at Peruvannamuzhy and had sexual intercourse with her. Although the prosecution laid charge for the offence under Section 376 **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** of IPC, the trial court acquitted the accused for the said offence. The State has not preferred any appeal challenging the acquittal under Section 376 of IPC. 17. The skull of the deceased was recovered by PW37. To prove the identity of Leelimol, the prosecution examined PW24-the then Head Master of P.T.Chacko Memorial High School, Koyilandy. He issued Ext.P19 school admission register extract to PW37 stating that Leelimol.K.J., D/o.Joseph.M.M. studied in the said school. PW30-the Joint Director, Research, Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram examined one teeth and formed an opinion that the person to whom the teeth in item No.1 belongs is the biological offspring of Mariakutty, W/o.Joseph the admitted mother of suspected deceased person Leelimol. PW30 adduced evidence to show that on 23.04.2010, he received a parcel from Scientific Assistant, Biology, FSL, Thiruvananthapuram for **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** considering DNA typing in connection with Crime No.125/2009. He stated that in connection with the same, as per the direction of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram, two persons, namely, Mariakutty, W/o.Joseph and Lalamon S/o.Joseph were brought to Lab and identified by Jagannivasan, ASI, Thottipalam Station for detecting the identity of deceased person by DNA typing. The parcel received from Scientific Assistant, Biology consisted of one sealed packet and it contained two human noted teeth. PW30 collected blood samples from the admitted mother Mariakutty and admitted brother Lalamon on 23.04.2010. On examination, PW30 formed an opinion that Leelimol is none other than the daughter of Mariakutty. 18. On going through the evidence of PW30, it is clear that the skull and teeth recovered by PW37 as confessed by the accused is that of the deceased. PW31, **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the mother of Leelimol stated that Leelimol was in love with the accused before her death. The accused was a frequent visitor to the residence of PW31. She also stated that she went to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for DNA examination. 19. The evidence on record would show that on 08.07.2009 at 07.30 am, the deceased left her house for her work place at Kayakkodi. PW31 stated that the whereabouts of her daughter had not been known since 08.07.2009. On that day, according to PW31, the accused telephoned and informed her that Leelimol was with him. However, she did not hear anything thereafter. PW17 stated before court that Leelimol was working with him at Kayakkodi. PW3 stated before court that he knew the accused and deceased-Leelimol and they were found roaming at Chembanoda on a motor cycle. PW5, a Watcher at Pervannamuzhi Crocodile Farm stated that he **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..19.. had seen the accused on 08.07.2009 along with one woman, aged about 30 years. According to him, they came to the Crocodile Farm about 10 am and had been there till 02.00 pm. He also stated that after three months, PW37 came to him and showed the photograph of a woman and asked him to identify the same. According to him, he identified the woman as the one he had occasion to see at the Crocodile Farm on 08.07.2009. 20. PW36 who arrested the accused on 06.10.2009 as pointed out by PW2 from the bus stand, took the accused into custody and brought to the police station. By virtue of Ext.P25 confession statement, the skull of a human body was recovered from the forest area owned by the Kuttiadi Irrigation Department. The superimposition test was conducted and it was disclosed that the skull so recovered is that of deceased Leelimol. It is true that no conviction can be rendered based on the superimposition **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..20.. test alone. In the absence of any direct evidence, the prosecution not only has to prove that circumstances incriminating to the accused had been laid before the court, but further that the sum total of such evidence unerringly points to the commission of the offence by the accused leaving no room for any other view. It is urged that DNA matching and superimposition test cannot lead to fair and conclusive opinion beyond doubt as regards to the identity of dead body. In **Santosh Kumar Singh V. State** [(2010) 9 SCC 747], the Apex Court held that the DNA report as being scientifically accurate and an exact science as held by the Apex Court in **Kamti Devi V. Poshi Ram** [AIR 2001 SC 2226]. It is brought out from the evidence of forensic expert that the teeth isolated from the skull recovered by the Investigating Officer is that of the deceased. DNA finger printing is a 100% science. The same is admissible in evidence. It goes **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..21.. without saying that the skull recovered on the basis of the confession statement given by the accused is also that of the deceased. 21. We may now proceed to analyse the substratum of the evidence as noted above. As already indicated, the homicidal nature of death of Leelimol and her identity has been conclusively established by the prosecution. In so far as the alleged involvement of the accused in the crime alleged against him is concerned, the evidence and other materials on record would indicate that the gold ornaments owned by the accused as identified by PW2 were recovered in accordance with law by PW27. MOs.1 and 2 were recovered from PW6 by Ext.P6 mahazar. Recovery of valuables owned by the deceased from the accused is of considerable importance. On examination, it is clearly brought out that, MOs.1 and 2 were recovered pursuant to the confession made by the accused to PW37 ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** in accordance with law. In cases in which murder and robbery have been shown to form parts of one transaction, it has been consistently held that recent and unexplained possession of the stolen property would be a presumptive evidence against the accused on the charges of robbery and murder. In **Wasim Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh** , (AIR 1956 SC 400), the Apex Court considered the recent possession of the property of a deceased, in circumstances clearly indicating that he had been murdered and robbed, so as to suggest that not only the possessor of the property was a thief or a receiver of stolen property, but it also indicated that he was guilty of a more aggravated crime which had a connection with the theft. Under the above circumstances, recovery of Mos.1 and 2 from the accused would lead to a presumption that the accused had stolen Mos.1 and 2 from the deceased. **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..23.. 22. PW37 who arrested the accused had recorded Ext.P28 in pursuance of which he recovered MO.10 mobile phone and MO.11 plastic rope from the rental house at Edachery as led by the accused by Ext.P6 mahazar. The recovery of the above articles would also lead to the inference that the accused had role in the crime. 23. In the light of the above facts, we do not entertain any doubt, whatsoever, that in the present case the prosecution has succeeded in proving a series of highly incriminating circumstances involving the accused all of which, if analysed together, can point only to one direction, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime in question. 24. We do also agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the principles of last seen theory as held by the trial court are a weak kind of evidence by itself to find conviction upon the same singularly. In ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..24.. ## **Satpal** v. **State of Haryana** [(2018) 6 SCC 610] in para ## 6 the Supreme Court held as follows:- “ **6.** _We have considered the respective submissions and the evidence on record. There is no eye witness to the occurrence but only circumstances coupled with the fact of the deceased having been last seen with the appellant. Criminal jurisprudence and plethora of judicial precedents leave little room for reconsideration of the basic principles for invocation of the last seen theory as a facet of circumstantial evidence. Succinctly stated, it may be a weak kind of evidence by itself to found conviction upon the same singularly. But when it is coupled with other circumstances such as the time when the deceased was last seen with the accused, and the recovery of the corpse being in very close proximity of time, the accused owes an explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act with regard to the circumstances under which death may have taken place. If the accused offers no explanation, or furnishes a wrong explanation, absconds, motive is established, and there is corroborative evidence available inter alia in the form of recovery or otherwise forming a chain of circumstances leading to the only inference for_ ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..25.. _guilt of the accused, incompatible with any possible hypothesis of innocence, conviction can be based on the same. If there be any doubt or break in the link of chain of circumstances, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Each case will therefore have to be examined on its own facts for invocation of the doctrine.”_ 25. PW5-Johny had an occasion to see the accused along with the company of the deceased on 08.07.2009. PW2-the brother of the deceased stated that the accused made a phonecall to him on 08.07.2009 and informed that the deceased was with the company of the accused. PW31-the mother of the accused also supported the version of PW2. PW3 stated that he had seen Leelimol along with the accused at Chembanode while they were traveling on a motor bike. The evidence on record would show that on 08.07.2009 at 07.30 am Leelimol had left the house for her workplace at Kayakkodi. PW17, the shop owner at Kayakkodi where Leelimol had been **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..26.. working confirmed that Leelimol was working in his shop room. PW5, who is a watcher of the crocodile farm at Peruvannamuzhi stated that the accused along with a woman aged 30 years came to the crocodile farm around 10.00 am on 08.07.2009 and had been there till 02.00 pm. PW5 later identified the woman, he had an occasion to see at the crocodile farm on 08.07.2009, based on the photograph shown to him by the Investigating Officer. From the above evidence, it is clear that PW3 alone had occasion to see the accused and Leelimol together. PW5 had no previous acquaintance with the deceased. Subsequent to her death, identification was made based on the photograph shown to him. Nevertheless, the evidence adduced would show that deceased Leelimol was found missing from the residence of PW31 on 08.07.2009 in the morning. PW2 and PW31 supported the case of the prosecution. It is proved that the deceased was found in **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..27.. the company of the accused on 08.07.2009. Once it is proved by the prosecution that the accused moved along with the deceased on 08.07.2009, the burden was heavy on the part of the accused to show how Leelimol suffered a homicidal death. Her whereabouts were not known to anyone since 08.07.2009. The prosecution case is that the deceased died out of strangulation. It is proved that there was a long gap between the date of death and date of conducting postmortem by PW28 in this case. PW28 stated that strangulation death is a strong possibility which cannot be ruled out since the postmortem interval had permitted nature to act to cause loss of evidence. Section 106 of the Evidence Act requires a person having special knowledge of the fact to explain the same. In this case, the accused was bound to give an answer as to what happened to Leelimol after they had moved together on 08.07.2009. No plausible explanation was offered by the ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..28.. accused when he was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. This is also one of the circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Various circumstances in this case would conclusively prove that the accused committed both the offences under Sections 392 and Section 302 of IPC. 26. It is not in dispute that the basis of conviction rendered by the trial court is solely based on the circumstances relied on by the prosecution. In **Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda** v. **State of Maharashtra** [1984 (4) SCC 116] a bench of three-Judge of the Supreme Court on the basis of circumstantial evidence laid down the following conditions which must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:- “ _1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; [163D]_ _2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt and the_ ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..29.. _accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; [163G]_ _3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;[163G]_ _4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and [163H]_ _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. [164B]_ ”. These five golden principles followed in various decisions of the Supreme Court constitute the panchasheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence. Needless to say even in the absence of eye witnesses, if various circumstances relied on by the prosecution relating to the guilt of the accused is fully established beyond doubt, the court is at liberty to award conviction based on circumstantial evidence. ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** ..30.. 27. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances relating to the time, the place of occurrence, relationship of the accused and deceased, the recovery of skull of the deceased on the basis of the confession statement given by the accused, the place where they were found roaming on the date of occurrence, recovery of MOs.1 and 2 on the strength of confession statement given by the accused, the place of crime and surrounding circumstances would unhesitatingly prove the occurrence in this case. Merely because, the crime was registered on 22.7.2009 based on a compliant lodged by PW2, the delay factor itself is not a suspicious circumstance to disbelieve the prosecution case. PW2 and PW31 adduced evidence to show that the accused and the deceased were in love and on 08.07.2009 the accused telephoned and told them that the deceased was with him on that day. Considering the close relationship between **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** the parties, it is natural that they might be under the bonafide impression that the deceased was safely with the accused. Later, PW2 received some reliable information regarding the conduct of the accused and thereafter he lodged Ext.P2 FIS before the police under the caption 'man missing'. 28. We are satisfied from the forensic evidence and other circumstances that the deceased was murdered and robbed by the accused as alleged by the prosecution. In our opinion, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court contained reliable evidence, positive proof, sequence of events and factual proof linking the accused with the commission of robbery and murder. The prosecution has succeeded in proving the offences under Sections 392 and 302 of IPC beyond reasonable shadow of doubt. ## **CRL.A.No.810 OF 2016** **==> picture [28 x 8] intentionally omitted <==** Resultantly, we uphold the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the court below for the several reasons stated supra. This Crl.Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- **A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE** Sd/- **N.ANIL KUMAR, JUDGE** skj