Rakesh @ Kaykuru, Shaju, Arun and Baiju @ Bootiya Baiju v. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ## PRESENT ## THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. TUESDAY, THE 25[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 5TH MAGHA, 1943 ## CRL.A NO. 291 OF 2018 [CRIME NO.224/2010 OF Kattur Police Station, Thrissur] AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.2.2018 IN S.C. NO.298/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, IRINJALAKUDA [CP 5/2012 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,IRINJALAKUDA] ## APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 4: |1|RAKESH @ KAYKURU,AGED 34 YEARS, S/O. AYYANDI<br>VELAYUDHANKUTTY, PERINGOTUKARA, THANNIYAM VILLAGE,<br>THRISSUR DISTRICT.| |---|---| |2|SHAIJU,AGED 28 YEARS<br>S/O. CHANDRANGATHAN, ARUKETTY HOUSE, NEAR NATTIKA S.N.<br>COLLEGE.| |3|ARUN,AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. SATHEESH BABU, KODAPPULLY HOUSE,<br>NEAR NATTIKA S. N. COLLEGE.| |4|BAIJU @ BOOTIYA BAIJU,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O. KUTTAPPAN,<br>PARLIKATTIL HOUSE, KATTUKADAVU DESOM, KATTUR.| ||BY ADV SRI.VISHNUPRASAD NAIR| |RESPONDENT/STATE/COMPLAINANT:|| ||STATE OF KERALA<br>REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,<br>ERNAKULAM-682031.(CRIME NO. 224/2010 OF KATTUR POLICE<br>STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT.)| ||BY SHRI. ARAVIND V. MATHEW, PP.| THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24.11.2021, THE COURT ON 25.1.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 2 ## JUDGMENT The appellants are accused numbers 1 to 4 in S.C.No.298 of 2012 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda. The aforesaid Sessions Case arises from Crime No.224 of 2010 of Kattur Police Station which was registered against the appellants herein and two others, alleging offences punishable under Sections 341,365 and 395 r/w. Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 2. Out of the six accused persons, five persons faced the trial in the aforesaid Sessions Case, out of which, accused numbers 1 to 4 were found guilty. 3. The prosecution case is as follows: The appellants, along with one Vineesh Kannan (Originally arrayed as A2) and Sahindev (Originally arrayed as A4) conspired together to abduct PW1. He was an Executive of Swapna Jewellery owned by PW6. The aforesaid jewellery is also running the Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 3 business of purchasing gold ornaments pledged with financial institutions and used to make advertisements in respect of the same. On 2.05.2010, PW6 Anoop, the owner of the said jewellery shop, received a telephone call, to the effect that, some gold ornaments belonging to the sister of the person who made the telephone call, are pledged in Suraksha Finance, and requested their help to release the said ornaments. Accordingly, PW6 instructed PW1 to go to Irinjalakuda and to purchase the said gold ornaments. As instructed, PW1 went to Irinjalakuda on 3.05.2010 and while he was travelling in an autorikshaw, the accused came in a Scorpio car bearing registration No.KL-7-AU9862, abducted PW1 showing a knife and robbed an amount of Rs.35,000/-. Later, they took the ATM card from him and also got an amount of Rs.50,000/- withdrawn from the ATM counter of State Bank of Travancore, Chalakkudy branch. Thus, a total amount of Rs.85,000/- was forcibly taken by the accused Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 4 from PW1. After committing the crime, they released PW1 at Chalakkudy by giving an amount of Rs.200/for bus fare. 4. Based on the First Information Statement furnished by PW1 on 6.05.2010, Crime No.224/2010 was registered by Kattur Police Station and after completing the investigation, a final report was filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Irinjalakuda. There is a delay of three days in the registration of the F.I.R. After completion of committal proceedings, the same was committed to the Principal Session Court, Thrissur and later the case was made over to Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda, where the same was tried as S.C.No.298/2012. 5. For establishing the prosecution case, they have examined PWs. 1 to 17 and marked Exhibits P1 to P28. No material objects were identified. After completing the prosecution evidence, accused Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 5 persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) and the incriminating materials brought out during the course of trial were put to them. All of them denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded innocence. After examining the materials available on record, the Sessions Court found the accused numbers 1 to 4 guilty and acquitted the 5[th] accused. On the basis of the finding of guilt, accused Nos.1 to 4 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years each and a fine of Rs.20,000/each with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three months each for the offence under Section 365 of the IPC. Under Section 395, they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each and a fine of Rs.30,000/- each with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months each. Under Section 341 of the IPC, the accused are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 6 month each and a fine of Rs.500/- each with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for 15 days each. It was ordered that, the sentence shall run concurrently. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, this appeal is filed. 6. Heard Sri. Vishnuprasad Nair, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri. Aravind V. Mathew, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that, the appellants are innocent of all the allegations and the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court is without proper appreciation of the materials on record. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that, the prosecution case is full of discrepancies and there is no consistent case for the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellants further contends that, there was no proper identification of the accused persons as no test Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 7 identification parade was conducted despite the fact that, PW1 who was allegedly abducted was not having any previous acquaintance with any of the accused persons. The vehicle allegedly used for commission of crime was also not properly identified. To substantiate the contentions, the learned counsel relies on the judgment in Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra [(1982)1 SCC 700]. 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor seriously opposes the contentions put forward by the learned counsel for the appellants. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has clearly established the guilt of the accused by reliable evidence in the form of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW6. Their evidence was corroborated by the evidence of PWs.7,8,12 and 13. In such circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor seeks for dismissal of the appeal. Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 8 9. The main allegation is abduction of PW1 on 3.5.2010 at 3 p.m. and commission of the offence of dacoity by taking away Rs.85,000/-. Crime was registered on the basis of the information furnished by PW1 on 6.5.2010 at 2.45 p.m. Exhibit P1 is the First Information Statement and Ext.P14 is the F.I.R. in Crime No.224/2010 of Kattur Police Station. In the First Information Statement, PW1 has stated as follows: PW1 is the employee of Swapna jewellery, Kozhikode which is owned by one Anoop. They used to help the people to get the gold ornaments pledged with the financial institutions released in favour of customers and purchase the same. They used to make advertisement about their activities in various newspapers. While so, a person named Manoj called the said Anoop over phone and informed that, they want their services. Accordingly, as instructed by Anoop, PW1 along with necessary amount went to Irinjalakuda on 3.5.2010. As it was Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 9 informed that, the ornaments were pledged in South Indian Bank, Thannissery branch, he went there and contacted in the telephone number of the party which was provided to him by the said Anoop. Thereupon, PW1 was informed that, gold ornaments are pledged by his sister and the same is at Suraksha Finance at Vellayani. It was also informed that they are waiting for him at Vellayani. Accordingly, he went to Vellayani in a bus and after getting down from the bus, he hired an autorikshaw for going to Suraksha Finance. Upon reaching there, he found the said institution locked and therefore he returned. When he was returning in the said autorikshaw, some persons chased the autorikshaw in a Scorpio car with golden colour and obstructed the autorikshaw. From the said vehicle, five persons got down and forcibly taken PW1 to their vehicle by placing a knife on his neck. They demanded the amounts which he is having and thereby taken Rs.28,000/- which he kept Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 10 in the pockets of his pants and a further sum of Rs.7,000/- kept in his purse. A.T.M. card in his possession was also forcibly taken from him. Thereafter, he was taken to Chalakkudy and upon reaching there, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn from an A.T.M. counter of the State Bank of Travancore at Chalakkudy. Later, A.T.M card was returned to him and he was released at Chalakkudy after giving an amount of Rs.200/- towards bus fare. The number of the vehicle in which PW1 was forcibly taken was mentioned as KL-08-Y-9824. 10. When examined before the court, PW1 deposed the incidents in a slightly different manner. The vehicle number was not specifically mentioned by PW1. Apart from the above, it was also stated by PW1 that, the institution named Swapna jewellery belongs to two persons viz. Anoop and Swaroop and when he was abducted, the ATM Card in his possession was that of Swaroop. After he was taken to Chalakkudy, he required Swaroop to make some Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 11 payments in the said accounts. At that time, he did not inform Swaroop as to the real incident and what he has stated is that, in order to complete the transaction, some more amount is required. Immediately, Swaroop deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- in his account. Thereafter, two among the accused persons had withdrawn an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the ATM. Thereafter, ATM card was returned to him. Mobile phone which was earlier taken by them was also returned to him after removing the sim card. After PW1 was released from their custody, he immediately contacted Anoop from an STD booth and informed about the incident. He immediately instructed PW1 to come back and later after holding discussion with Anoop and Swaroop who are brothers, on the third day, they have decided to submit a complaint. Accordingly, on 6.5.2010, the matter was informed to the police and Ext.P1 F.I.S. and Ext.P4 F.I.R were registered by PW14. Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 12 11. PW2 is the autorikshaw driver who had taken PW1 to the place of occurrence. He admits that he had taken PW1 to Suraksha Finance and upon reaching there, they found the said institution locked. While returning, a vehicle described by him as a jeep looks like a Qualis vehicle obstructed the autorikshaw and from the said vehicle two persons came outside and taken the passenger in the autorikshaw in their custody, forcibly. The crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, he neither identified PW1, as the passenger who was travelling in the autorikshaw nor the accused persons. PW2 was declared hostile and was crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor. On examining the evidence of PW2, it can be seen that, apart from the fact of non identification of PW1 and accused persons, it contains certain inconsistencies as well with the evidence of PW1. Firstly, PW2 did not identify the vehicle as a Scorpio. He did not even mentioned the colour of the said vehicle. Secondly, Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 13 according to him, two persons came out of the vehicle and taken PW1 into their custody. Whereas the deposition of PW1 is to the effect that five persons came out of the vehicle. 12. PW6 is Anoop, who is the owner of Swapna Jewellery. He stated that, as he received a call from one Manoj on 2.5.2010, he instructed PW1 to go to Irinjalakuda. He also stated that, he entrusted with PW1 two ATM cards and an amount of Rs.35,000/-. One ATM card belonged to him and the other ATM card was that of his brother. By 3.30 p.m. on the said day, PW1 called him over phone and informed that, the transaction is being done but for completing the same some more amount is required. Accordingly, he immediately deposited an amount of Rs.49,900/- in his account which is with the IDBI bank. By 5.30 p.m., PW1 again called him and informed that they have taken an amount of Rs.35,000/- and also an amount of Rs.50,000/- deposited in the account through ATM. Immediately, Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 14 he instructed him to come back to Kozhikode. Later, on 6.5.2010, he sent PW1 to the police station for reporting the matter. 13. When we examine the evidence of PW6, it can be seen that, there is some inconsistencies in his evidence as well. Firstly, the evidence of PW1 is to the effect that the request which he made for depositing the amount was in the account of Swaroop and the amount was deposited by him. However, the evidence of PW6 would reveal that, PW1 has contacted him, and the payment was made in his account which was later withdrawn by the assailants. Apart from the above, in the evidence of PW1, there is absolutely no mention about he is being entrusted with two ATM cards. On the other hand, specific statement of PW6 is to the effect that two ATM cards; one belonged to him and the other belonged to his brother, were entrusted to PW2. Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 15 14. Another crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, even though PW1 has stated about the telephone calls which he had made to Swaroop, the same is contrary to the evidence of PW6. It is to be noted that, the prosecution has not cared to bring any call details of the aforesaid witnesses to establish the making of such phone calls. Similarly, even though, PW1 and PW6 have stated that they were engaged in the business of purchasing gold ornaments pledged with financial institutions and they used to make advertisements in this regard, no evidence indicating such advertisements were seen produced. This aspect gains importance in the light of the fact that, as per the prosecution case, the phone call requiring PW6 to send a person to Irinjalakuda was received by PW6, as a response to one such advertisements. Another crucial inconsistency in this regard is the delay in reporting the incident to the police station. Despite the fact that, a serious incident Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 16 as narrated by PW1 has occurred, he left the place of occurrence without informing the matter to the police. Thereafter, the matter was informed only on the third day. Even though, PW1 and PW6 tried to explain the delay by stating that they have taken a decision as to whether a complaint is to be filed or not, after discussing with others. The aforesaid aspects and the consequential delay creates a serious shadow of doubt on the case advanced through the aforesaid witnesses. If an incident in the manner as described by the said witnesses was occurred, normal response that is expected from a prudent person, would be to immediately report the matter to the police and the delay of three days in the facts and circumstances of the case is very crucial. When this aspect is taken into consideration along with the other discrepancies as mentioned above, the prosecution case becomes weaker. Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 17 15. Lack of recovery of the knife alleged used by the accused for threatening PW1 is another instance which goes against the prosecution case. There is absolutely no explanation forthcoming from the prosecution for non production of the same. This aspect is very crucial when taking into account of the fact that, PW2, who witnessed the incident of abduction of PW1, did not speak about using a knife, even though, he had stated that, after obstructing the autorickshaw, two persons came out of the vehicle and taken the passenger therein. 16. The learned counsel for the appellants specifically highlighted the above discrepancies and submitted that the same are fatal to the prosecution. In addition to the above discrepancies, the learned counsel further points out certain glaring inconsistencies with regard to identity of the vehicle allegedly used by the assailants for committing the crime. It was pointed Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 18 out that, while examining PW1, he did not make any mention about the number of the vehicle. However, in Ext.P1 F.I.S, the number of the vehicle was mentioned as KL-8-Y-9824. In order to establish the identity of the vehicle, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW4, PW9, PW10 and Exts.P7 seizure mahazar as well as Ext.P17 F.I.R. in Crime No. 552/2010 of Irinjalakuda Police Station. PW4 was examined to prove that one of the accused named Sahindev ( _not tried in the present case_ ) has taken the vehicle for rent from him. He deposed that, the said Sahindev has taken a Scorpio Car for rent from him on 1.5.2010 and the same was returned after 5 days. He also paid an amount of Rs.5,000/- as rent for the said vehicle. Later, the police had taken the said vehicle in custody stating that, the said vehicle was used for commission of the crime in this case. He mentioned the vehicle number as KL7AU-6874. According to him, the aforesaid vehicle belongs to one Shafeeque. Conspicuously, the Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 19 evidence of PW4 would not establish the identity of the vehicle at all. Another evidence in this regard is that of PW9 and PW10. PW9 is a Police Officer. He stated that, he along with Irinjalakuda Sub Inspector Mohandas, ASI Philip, ASI Davis, Head Constable Reji and CPO Sunil went to the place near Karuvalloor bridge upon getting an information that a Scorpio car is found parked there under suspicious circumstances. When they reached there, one person suddenly opened the door of the said vehicle and tried to escape. He was immediately apprehended by the police party. He was identified as Rakesh, the 1[st] accused herein. In the vehicle, five other persons were also there. Among them, there were A2 and A3 in this case. On inspecting the vehicle, they found certain weapons therein and in respect of the said incident, Ext.P17 F.I.R. was registered as Crime No.552/2010. The vehicle was also seized by preparing Ext.P7 seizure mahazar. PW16 is the Sub Inspector of Police who has taken Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 20 the aforesaid vehicle in custody and arrested the said persons. He also stated in tune with the evidence of PW9. Exhibit P7 is the seizure mahazar of the said vehicle. On going through the aforesaid seizure mahazar, it can be seen that, the colour of the vehicle was mentioned as silver. From the description of the vehicle as contained in Ext.P7, it is seen that, on the front the number plate exhibited was KL-8-Y-9254 whereas on the rear side, the number shown was KL-07-AU-9862. When the police party removed the number plate on the front side, beneath the same, they could find another number plate with the number KL-07-AU-9862. In this case, as per the prosecution case, the number of the vehicle which was used by the assailants to commit abduction of PW1 is shown as KL-07-AU-9862. The colour of the vehicle mentioned by PW1 is golden colour. Thus, when we examine the identity of the vehicle allegedly used by the assailants, there are several glaring inconsistencies. Firstly, the Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 21 colour of the vehicle and also the number of the vehicle mentioned by PW1 in Ext.P1 F.I.S. is golden colour and KL-8-Y-9824, respectively. Exhibit P7 would indicate that the said vehicle was silver colour and the number thereof is KL-7-AU-9862. Apart from the above, there are absolutely no materials to establish the ownership of the vehicle. How the aforesaid vehicle came to the possession of the assailants is also not seen established by the prosecution. The only evidence relied on by the prosecution is that of PW4. But the number mentioned by him is completely different. Further, PW4 is also not the owner of the said vehicle and according to him, the vehicle belonged to one Shafeeque. From the evidence of PW4, it is evident that, the vehicle has been released on kachit. Exhibit P26 is the said kachit. On going through the same, it can be seen that, the aforesaid vehicle was released in favour of one T.V.Fathima. Thus, when all these aspects are taken Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 22 into consideration, there are absolutely no materials indicating the identification of the vehicle which is allegedly used by the assailants in committing the crime. The lack of a consistent case in respect of the same is very fatal to the prosecution and it adversely affects the credibility of the investigation. 17. Another crucial material relied on by the prosecution, is the evidence adduced through the officers of the IDBI Bank to establish the deposits and withdrawals of amounts from the ATM. The relevant witnesses in this regard are PWs.7,8,12 and 13. PW7 and PW8 were examined to prove the CCTV footages from the ATM counter. Exhibit P7 is the seizure mahazar of the aforesaid visuals in the form of a Compact Disc (CD). However, the trial court did not allow the marking of the CD on the ground that the same was produced without proper certification as contemplated under section 65B of the Evidence Act. Therefore, CCTV visuals are not Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 23 available before this Court. The remaining evidence is Ext.P6(a) and Ext.P13. Exhibit P6(a)is marked through PW13 and it is a statement prepared by PW13 containing the details of transactions in the account of PW6 which occurred on 3.5.2010. The aforesaid document would indicate that, on that day, an amount of Rs.49,900/- was deposited and immediately five withdrawal transactions took place at a time from 15:55:30 to 15:59:59 for an amount of Rs.10,000/- each. It is also discernible from Ext.6(a) that the aforesaid transactions were from the ATM counter at Chalakudy. Exhibit P13 is the account statement for the aforesaid transactions which was produced along with the certification under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. The entries contained in Ext.P13 would fortify the contents of Ext.P6(a). However, the discrepancy pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants is that, in Ext.P13, the place of transaction is mentioned as Thrissur and it does not contain any mention of Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 24 Chalakudy. However, PW13 has clarified this aspect by pointing out that, the entry as contained in Ext.P13, would only indicate the district in which the transaction took place, whereas Ext.P6(a) was prepared by him after examining the records, in which it was specifically mentioned as Chalakudi. Thus, from the evidence, it is clear that, the transactions of deposits as well as withdrawals did take place, as stated by PW1. However, that by itself is not sufficient to connect the accused persons with the aforesaid withdrawals. The specific case of the prosecution in this regard is that PW1 was initially taken by the assailants in a Scorpio car by showing a knife and later he was taken to Chalakudy from where the amounts in the manner as mentioned above were withdrawn from the ATM. While analysing the above allegation of prosecution, it is to be noted that, the prosecution miserably failed in proving the identity of the vehicle by which PW1 was allegedly Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 25 brought to Chalakudy. In addition to the above, there is absolutely no materials other than the evidence of PW1 to prove that it was the accused persons who were instrumental in withdrawing the aforesaid amounts. The evidence of PW1 by itself cannot be relied upon for arriving at a conclusion due to many reasons. First of all, the evidence of PW1 that he requested Swaroop to make the deposit in the account is completely against the evidence of PW6, who had stated that the said request was made with him. The evidence of PW6 is to the effect that, when PW1 was sent to Irinjalakuda, he was entrusted with two ATM cards. But PW1 do not have such a case. He spoke about only one ATM card and going by the evidence, the said ATM card belonged to Swaroop and the evidence of PW6 in this regard is contrary to the same. In addition to the above, the discrepancy in the manner by which the incident of abduction occurred is very much relevant. While PW1 has stated that, when he was coming in an Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 26 autorikshaw, it was obstructed by a Scorpio car and five persons came out of the said vehicle and forcibly taken him by showing a knife. PW2, the autorikshaw driver deposed that, only two persons came out of the said vehicle and he has not mentioned about using a knife for the alleged forcible abduction. He also did not identify PW1 or any of the accused persons. Further, the number of the vehicle mentioned by him in the FIS, is different and in his deposition no number thereof is mentioned. Above all, there is delay in registration of the FIR as well, on account of delay on the part of PW1 in reporting the matter. Thus when we examine all these aspects, the only conclusion possible is that the evidence of PW1 as such cannot be relied upon, in the absence of any corroboration for arriving at a finding of guilt of the accused persons. In this case, when looking for corroboration of the evidence of PW1, there is absolutely nothing. On the other hand, the evidence Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 27 contains full of inconsistencies which I have already discussed in detail in the above paragraphs. 18. In addition to the above inconsistencies, the learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out serious dispute as to the identification of the accused persons. It is true that, PW1 has identified all the appellants herein while they were in the dock. However, the specific case of the learned counsel for the appellants is that PW1 was not having any previous acquaintance with the aforesaid accused persons and therefore in the absence of any test identification parade, the identification by PW1 cannot be relied upon. In support of the said contention, he also relied on the judgment in Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani’s case (supra). However, the aforesaid judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Even though, the absence of test identification parade by itself is not a ground to Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 28 dispute the identity of the accused persons, in the facts and circumstances existing in this case, the aforesaid contention is having some relevance. This is particularly because of the gross discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is evident from the materials produced from the prosecution itself that when the First Information Statement was being recorded, all the accused persons were in the police station who were arrested in connection with another crime viz. Crime No.552/2010. This is an admitted fact and PW1 himself has stated that he had seen the accused persons in the police station at the relevant time. In such circumstances, the identification of the accused persons by PW1 while the accused persons were in the dock, will not give any advantage to the prosecution. When the aforesaid aspect is taken into consideration in the background of the glaring inconsistencies as mentioned above, the identification of the accused persons from the Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 29 dock, by PW1 cannot be treated as a valuable piece of evidence to be relied on for establishing the guilt of the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt. 19. Thus when all the above aspects are taken into consideration, I am of the view the prosecution, though is successful in creating a suspicion as to the involvement of the appellants herein in commission of crime, they did not succeed in proving the case beyond reasonable doubts. It is a well settled position of law that, a suspicion however strong may be, cannot be a substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has a duty to establish the guilt by ruling out all possible hypothesis of innocence of the accused persons and they have to travel the distance from “may be true” to “must be true’. In this case, after analyzing the entire materials available on record, I am of the view that, the prosecution did not succeed in adducing evidence with the gravity Crl.Appeal No.291 of 2018 30 and intensity as required by law, to prove the offences. In such circumstances, the appellants herein are entitled for benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 26.02.2018 in S.C.No.298/2012 passed by Additional Sessions Court, Irinjalakuda is hereby set aside. The appellants are found not guilty of any of the offences alleged against them and thereby they are acquitted from all the charges. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE pkk