Sujatha v. State of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2017/4TH MAGHA, 1938 ## **CRL.A.No. 1168 of 2011 (A)** **---------------------------** AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 1350/2009 of III ADDL.D.C., KOLLAM DATED 20-06-2011 APPELLANT(S)/ACCUSED: -------------------- SUJATHA, AGED 48 YEARS, D/O.CHANDRAKSHI, MONU BHAVAN, III WARD, MANNAMKONAM, POOYAPPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAJEEV SRI.K.V.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.140/04 OF PATHANAPURAM POLICE, STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT) BY SMT. AMBIKA DEVI, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-01-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & A. HARIPRASAD, JJ** ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 24[th] day of January, 2017 ## **JUDGMENT** ## Hariprasad J. Appellant challenges the conviction and sentence imposed on her under Sections 302 and 309 of IPC in Sessions Case No. 1350 of 2009 before the Additional Session Judge, Kollam. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant and PW11 Raju were living as man and wife. In that relationship a son by name Abhiraj was born. It is the case that the appellant was pregnant by seven months at the time of occurrence. Later, PW11 Raju married CW13 Jisha. The appellant had a strong feeling that PW11's marriage with Jisha was conducted with active connivance and support of her mother in law, deceased Ponnamma. The prosecution further alleged that the appellant demanded property belonging to Raju, for which also the deceased was a stumbling block. Thereafter, during the night between 01.05.2004 and 02.05.2004, the appellant, while staying in the house of deceased Ponnamma, inflicted fatal injury on her head by using M.O.3 wooden piece and in the ensued _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 2 : head injury, Ponnamma suffered a murderous death. Thereafter, she smothered her son Abhiraj, who was sleeping at that time. Then she cut wrists of her both hands by using M.O.6 shaving blades. It is therefore alleged that the appellant is guilty of murder as well as an attempt to commit suicide. 3. In order to prove the case, prosecution examined 20 witnesses and marked 21 documents. Two witnesses were examined and Exts. D1 to D6 were marked on the side of the defence. Material objects are M.O.1 to M.O.28. 4. We heard Sri. S. Rajeev, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Ambika Devi S., learned special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. The case borne out from Ext. P1 F.I. statement is as follows. Informant is the brother of deceased Ponnamma. He was a lottery vendor at the material time. It is mentioned in Ext. P1 that the deceased had been separated from her husband years before. Initially, PW4 Rajendran married the appellant. In that relationship PW15 Ayana was born. Subsequently, she developed intimacy with PW11 Raju, brother of PW4. It is the prosecution case that thereafter PW4 divorced the appellant and he remarried _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 3 : later. Even though the appellant has a case, as revealed from the trend of cross examination, that PW11 had married her, the prosecution contend that they were living as man and wife without a ceremony of marriage. The fact that deceased Abhiraj was born in that relationship is not in dispute. It is also come out in evidence that the appellant was pregnant by about 7 months at the time of incident. About four days prior to the incident, the appellant and her children started residing with the deceased. PW15 went to one of her relative's house in the morning on 01.05.2004. She came back on 02.05.2004 at about 11 a.m. The informant stated in Ext. P1 that he got information that his sister was killed and also that the appellant, along with her son, was lying in the house. On receiving the information he went to the place and thereafter informed the matter to police. 6. When examined as PW1, he adhered to the version in Ext.P1. In chief examination, he deposed that he did not find the deceased child at that time. His sister was lying dead with broken head. In spite of searching cross examination, the testimony of this witness remains credible. There was an attempt made in cross examination to suggest that somebody from outside must _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 4 : have trespassed into the house and committed murder. This suggestion was not supported by PW1. 7. PW2 Rajeswari is the daughter of deceased Ponnamma. PW4 and PW11 are her brothers. She was residing about 9 k.ms. away from the place of occurrence. It is her case that, on receiving the information, she rushed to the place at about 12.30 noon on 02.05.2004. When she came home she did not find the appellant and deceased child Abhiraj. Her mother was lying in a pool of blood in the kitchen. Deceased was about 65 years old. PW2 deposed that on the date of occurrence, the appellant and her children were residing with the deceased. PW2 further stated that two days prior to the incident, she had gone to the deceased's house as called by her. Deceased informed her that the appellant and children have started residing with her and she was making problems demanding property. Her visit to the deceased was on 28.04.2004. She found the appellant and children in the house. This witness also testified about the first marriage of the appellant with her brother PW4. Later, the appellant developed intimacy with PW11. On 28.04.2004, she knew from the appellant that she had sold her property and acquired another property at a different _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 5 : place. The appellant insisted that land belonging to PW11 should be transferred in her favour. She complained that the deceased was creating problems in the transfer of property. It is also the case of PW2 that she informed the appellant that PW11 had assigned property in the name of his wife namely, CW13 Jisha. It resulted in an altercation. It was declared by the appellant that she would teach the deceased a lesson. PW2 further deposed that she informed the matter to PW4 and PW11 over phone. 8. PW2 was cross examined at length. It has come out in evidence that 87 cents of land belonged to PW2 and her siblings. Out of that, 25 cents each were given to three children of deceased Ponnamma. Remaining 12 belonged to the mother at the time of her death. Thereafter, PW11 purchased 25 cents from PW4, whereby he became the owner of 50 cents of property. Defence case that PW2 used to pick up quarrel with her mother is stoutly denied by her. The suggestion made by the learned defence counsel at the time of cross examination that the deceased had invited the appellant and her children to stay with her is also strongly denied by her. 9. PW3 Premanathan is an independent witness. He knew _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 6 : deceased Ponnamma, appellant and deceased child. He saw Ponnamma's dead body at 11 a.m. on 02.05.2004. He saw the dead body of the child too. The appellant was lying with the deceased child with her both wrists cut. He went to the place of occurrence on hearing alarm made by PW15 Ayana. He also deposed about the appellant's first marriage with PW4 and then developing a relationship with PW11. He saw PW15 and the deceased child on the previous day, when they were proceeding to a nearby temple. Thereafter, he saw PW15 Ayana just before he found Ponnamma's dead body. It is also deposed by this witness that couple of days prior to the incident, Ponnamma was seen in the shop of one Somanathan and she was telling someone that the appellant was making problems demanding share in the property. Prosecution has a definite case that the appellant demanded property from the deceased and also that she was inimical to the deceased on account of she acting as facilitator for the marriage between Raju (PW11) and CW13. Prosecution would contend that these are the motives for the incident. This witness, to some extent, supported the prosecution case. 10. In cross examination PW3 deposed that at about 12'O _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 7 : clock on 02.05.2004, a police dog was brought to the place as part of the investigation. However, neither the prosecution nor the defence has a case that the investigation officer gathered any evidence by using a sniffer dog. It is suggested to PW3 that he was working as Manager for PW11 Raju and therefore he was uttering falsehood. This suggestion is strongly denied by him. On an evaluation of the evidence of this witness, it can be seen that the defence case that an outsider must have committed the crime is not probabalised. 11. PW4 Rajendran deposed that he married the appellant initially. While they were residing at a place in Punjab, he brought PW11 Raju, who was in search of an employment. Thereafter the appellant developed intimacy with PW11. PW4 divorced the appellant and she started living with PW11. Deceased child Abhiraj is the progeny in the said relationship. This witness also deposed that the appellant was nurturing hostility towards deceased Ponnamma. PW2 intimated him about the fight happened between the appellant and deceased Ponnamma. When cross examined, this witness deposed that PW2 intimated him over phone from a neighbour's telephone that the appellant had picked quarrel with _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 8 : the deceased. It is come out in evidence that PW15 Ayana had stayed for about an year in the family house along with the deceased. PW4 stated that, with the blessings of his mother, sister and himself, PW11 married CW13 Jisha. He was not aware whether the appellant was pregnant at that time. PW4 stated in cross examination that the appellant has filed a case against PW11 before the Family Court concerned claiming maintenance for the deceased child. In cross examination, PW4 further stated that a lady handed over a gold chain to him on 02.05.2004, when he was in the house. It was a gold chain belonging to the appellant. The chain was not in a broken condition. It was handed over to the appellant. When PW4 reached the scene of occurrence, all the doors were open and lot of persons were assembled in and around the house. 12. PW10 Sobhana is another witness who was examined to prove the strained relationship between the appellant and deceased Ponnamma. PW10 knew the family members of deceased Ponnamma. She was staying in the neighbourhood. She testified that her father-in-law Somanathan was running a tea shop and a stationery shop adjacent to his house. On 02.05.2004 at about 11 _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 9 : a.m. she came to know that Ponnamma was murdered and at that time the appellant and her children were staying with the deceased. They started residing together about four days prior to the incident. It is her testimony that Ponnamma used to come to Somanathan's tea shop. On the previous day of the incident, she had come to the shop. PW10 also knew that the appellant was demanding property from the deceased. PW10 did not hear any wordy quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. At about 10.30 a.m. in the morning on 01.05.2004 she saw PW15 Ayana going out. On 02.05.2004, she went to the place of occurrence, on hearing PW15's loud cry. At that time Ponnamma was lying dead in the kitchen. Abhiraj was also lying dead on a cot. It is the version of PW10 in chief examination that the appellant was sitting on the cot and was weeping. She had put her hands in a basin filled with water. Local persons assembled and took the appellant to a hospital. Subsequently, the child was also taken to hospital. This witness was subjected to searching cross examination. It has come out in her evidence that the appellant had informed that those who had killed her child should have killed her too. It is the version given by the appellant to PW10 that during the previous _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 10 : night somebody knocked the door and deceased Ponnamma went out. PW11 admitted that she did not inform police that she found the appellant sitting on a cot when she entered the house. A specific suggestion put to this witness that the appellant was found with gagged the mouth has strongly been denied by PW10. She saw someone taking the child to hospital. The defence case that an intruder must have committed the crime is not supported by this witness. 13. PW11 Raju also deposed in terms of the prosecution case. He is the brother of PW4 and was living with the appellant. The appellant would contend that they lived together for 9 years. But PW11 deposed that it was for a shorter period. However, the deceased child was born to PW11 and appellant is an admitted fact. PW11 also deposed that there were frequent quarrels between deceased Ponnamma and appellant on account of property claims. PW2 informed the incident happened on 28.04.2004 to this witness. He also supported the testimony of PW2 that she came home as required by their mother. PW11 further deposed that there was a quarrel between PW2 and the appellant. It is his case in chief examination that on 01.05.2004 at about 10 - 10.30 hours _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 11 : in the night he called his mother over their land phone. At that time the appellant attended the call. When PW11 asked where his mother was, the appellant answered that she was standing in the courtyard. At that time also the appellant demanded that PW11 should transfer property in her name. PW11 replied that the matter could be considered at a time when came down to the native place from Delhi. About 1 ½ months prior to this incident, PW11 married CW13. PW11 also deposed that the appellant used to quarrel with his mother alleging that she was instrumental for PW11's marriage with CW13. It is also stated by this witness that the appellant threatened him that she would teach the deceased a lesson, if property was not given. Thereafter she cut the phone and when called again after ten minutes, nobody attended the call. In cross examination, this witness admitted that while he was working at a place in Punjab he established a relationship with the appellant and she came down to her native place. He would depose that the appellant stayed with him for about one year whereas the appellant would contend that their relationship lasted for 9 years. Ext. D1 is the copy of the suit filed by the appellant against PW11 seeking maintenance and other reliefs. Admittedly, _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 12 : this legal action was taken subsequent to the incident. PW11 strongly denied the suggestion in cross examination that deceased Ponnamma, on knowing that the appellant was pregnant, invited her and children to reside with the former. According to him, the deceased never called the appellant and children to stay with her. He deposed that the appellant, on her own wish, went to the deceased's house and stayed to assert rights. In spite of searching cross examination, no material could be elicited from PW11 to show that the deceased had any enemies who would have committed the crime. 14. PW5 was the Assistant Surgeon, Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Punalur. On 02.05.2004 at about 11.40 a.m. he examined the appellant and issued Ext. P2 certificate. On a perusal of Ext. P2, it can be seen that the appellant was conscious and oriented at the time of hospitalization. She sustained four incised wounds on both wrists and vertical linear abrasion on the right side of neck. It is seen from Ext.P2 that on 02.05.2004 itself she was referred to Medical College. It is true that there is no document produced to show what was the treatment given to the appellant in the Medical College. But Ext. D5, out patient ticket, would show _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 13 : that she was treated in Government Hospital, Punalur on 04.05.2004, as she had been referred back from Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. She was admitted in the hospital on 04.05.2004 till 11.05.2004. PW5 deposed in chief examination that all the injuries noted on wrists of the appellant were on accessible areas. The prosecution wanted to highlight this fact to show that they were self inflicted injuries. However no such concrete suggestion was put to this witness at the time of examination. It is also deposed by PW5 that injury Nos. 1 to 4 in Ext. P2 would be caused by coming into contact with the sharp edge of a blade. Injury No. 5 noted on Ext. P2 could be caused by rubbing against any sharp edged object. That injury was also on a accessible area of human body. In cross examination, PW5 denied the suggestion that injury No.5 could be caused by coming into contact with blunt object. He deposed that it was possible to cause injury No.5 in an attempt to snatch a chain worn around neck. He deposed that hesitation marks were not noted in the area of injury Nos. 1 to 4. It has come out in evidence through this witness that it may be possible to note hesitation marks when a person attempts to commit suicide. It is not an absolute necessity or _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 14 : requirement in all cases. Prosecution witnesses deposed that the appellant was keeping her hands immersed in water kept in a basin. PW5 deposed that putting hands in water will not prevent clotting of blood, but it could be delayed. He was also questioned regarding the absence of marks of violence on the body of the child. Ext. P3 would show that the child was having contusion and abrasion around nose, cheek and mouth. He was having incised wound on the right wrist as well. Ext.P3 certificate is also proved through this witness so as to show that the child was smothered. 15. PW6 was working as the Joint Director, FSL, Thiruvananthapuram. He issued Ext. P4 report. As per Ext.P4, 24 items were sent for analysis. Prosecution case is that the weapon of assault was M.O.3, which is described as item No. 23 in Ext. P4. It is seen from the report that M.O.3 tested positive for human blood. M.O.14 and 15 are items 5 and 6 in Ext. P4. They are wooden pieces with blood stains and hairs adhered to them. That was subjected to biological examination. It was seen from the report that hairs found on items 5 and 6 were matched with the hairs taken from the body of deceased Ponnamma. Similarly, the dress materials worn by the child shown as M.O.1 and M.O.2 _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 15 : (items 22 and 23 in Ext. P4) also tested positive for human blood with A[+] group. 16. PW7 was a police constable attached to the police station, Punalur. On 03.05.2004, the investigation officer weighed the gold ornaments recovered from body of the deceased and they were recovered as per Ext.P5 mahazar. He is a witness to that mahazar. 17. PW8, Radhakrishnan Nair conducted inquest. He prepared Ext. P6 inquest report. He proved the recovery of dress materials worn by child as M.O.1 and M.O.2. 18. PW9 is a witness to Ext. P7 mahazar, which prosecution relied on to prove the recovery of M.O.3 at the instance of appellant while in custody. Ext. P7 was prepared on 11.05.2004 at about 4.30 p.m. It seen from Ext.P7 that after arresting the appellant she was questioned. She informed about the concealment of M.O.3. on the top of a coop placed by the side of house where the incident had occurred. PW9 deposed that the appellant in the presence of PW20, the Investigation Officer, pointed out M.O.3. He identified M.O.3 from the Court and he deposed that Ext. P7 bore his signature. This witness was _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 16 : subjected to strict cross examination. He was an autorikshaw driver. It is his version that he accidentally came there at the time of effecting recovery by Police at the instance of the appellant. In spite of cross examination, his testimony regarding regularity and propriety of the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence could not be discredited. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Investigation Officer has deposed that more than 100 persons were present at the time of effecting the recovery and still no explanation is forthcoming for not making any person in the neighbourhood as a witness in Ext. P7. As is seen from Ext. P7 as well as from the testimony of PW9, there is no circumstance brought out in cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. The Investigation Officer also supported to hilt the recovery of M.O.3. 19. PW12 Dr. Sreedevi conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Ponnamma and deceased Abhiraj. Exts. P8 and P9 are the post postmortem certificates issued by PW12. It came out in evidence that Ponnamma died of multiple injuries on head and Abhiraj due to asphyxiation by smothering. The causes of death cannot be disputed because the details shown in the postmortem _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 17 : certificates and the oral evidence of PW9 remain unimpeached. 20. PW13 is an attester to Ext. P10 scene mahazar. It was prepared by PW20 immediately after registration of the crime. He identified the material objects 4 to 9. PW14 was a Woman Police Constable. According to her, she arrested the appellant as instructed by PW20. The arrest was on 11.05.2004 from the compound of Government Hospital, Punalur. In cross examination she stated that at about 12'O clock in the noon she arrested the appellant when DW2 Dr. Sudhakaran discharged her. 21. PW15 Ayana is the daughter of the appellant and PW4 is her father. Even though the prosecution wanted her to speak in favour of them, she did not support the prosecution case and deposition given by her tends to extricate her mother from the insinuation. It is the statement of PW15 that she used to call the deceased as “Achamma”. After completing pre-degree, she stayed with grandmother (deceased) for studying for Diploma in Radiology. It is her version that they came to the house of the deceased as the latter had extended an invitation. The prosecutor declared this witness hostile to the prosecution and sought permission of the Court to cross examine her. In cross _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 18 : examination, PW15 stated that she did not inform the police as stated in Ext. P11 (a). It is her version that at the time of occurrence she was not present in the house. She came back on 02.05.2004 at about 10.30 a.m. At that time the house was locked. Hen coop was not opened. The front door remained shut. When she pushed the kitchen door, it flung open. She found her Achamma lying dead in a pool of blood. It is the version of PW15 that the deceased was gagged. On seeing this, she cried out and went outside. Neighbours came to the place of occurrence and they lifted her mother and Abhiraj to a hospital. Prosecutor put questions to PW15 to establish that she was not in good terms with her mother earlier. Ext. P12 letter was confronted to this witness by invoking Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Even though learned defence counsel had objected to the marking of the document, the Court accepted Ext. P12 finding that she admitted the authorship of the letter. As per Ext. P12, the relationship between the appellant and PW15 was not very cordial. There are certain references in Ext. P2 about marriage of PW11 with CW13. Totality of the evidence tendered by PW15 would certainly tend to indicate her attempt to exonerate the appellant from the _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 19 : culpability. 23. PW16 recorded Ext. P1 F.I. statement and registered Ext.P1 (a) F.I.R. It is deposed by this witness in cross examination that time of the incident was mentioned in Ext. P1 [between 11 p.m. on 01.05.2005 and about 10.00 a.m. on 02.05.2004] on the basis that they used to take food by 10.00 clock and go to bed by 11' O clock. PW17 prepared Ext. P13 site plan. The learned defence counsel pointed out that the coop is not shown in Ext. P13 from where allegedly M.O.3 was recovered. 24. PW13 was examined to prove the marriage between PW11 and CW13 Jisha. Testimony of this witness is not relevant as this fact has not been disputed by any of the witnesses. 25. PW20 conducted major portion of the investigation. At the material time, he was working as the Circle Inspector, Punalur. He conducted inquest on the body of the child Abhiraj. Thereafter, he went to the place of incident and prepared the scene mahazar. Inquest report was prepared in respect of deceased Ponnamma also. He recovered the valuables worn by deceased Ponnamma and the clothes used to muffle her. He also recovered the blood stained wooden pieces and a denture worn by the deceased. Blood _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 20 : stained cover of a cigarette packet and blood stained cigarette buds were also recovered. He took out hairs from the deceased and also took blood samples. Material objects have been identified by this witness. Two shaving blades taken from the place where the appellant was lying was produced and marked as M.O.6 series. He deposed that when questioned PW15 did not state that the deceased ever invited the appellant and her children to the family house. No such statement was given by this witness to the Police is the definite version of PW20. PW20 also proved recovery of M.O.3 at the instance of the appellant. His testimony derives support from the independent witness. The recitals in Ext. P7 have been properly proved by this witness. As the investigation proceeded, he submitted a report before the Magistrate's Court implicating the appellant in an offence under Section 309 of IPC as well. This officer also deposed about the arrest of appellant on getting evidence against her in the course of investigation. This witness was cross examined at length. As mentioned already, the defence case is that the appellant was lying in a state of distress due to physical injuries suffered and also due to the mental shock inflicted by the assailants. It is the defence case that the appellant _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 21 : has been implicated without conducting proper investigation as the real culprits could not be identified due to slipshod investigation. All these suggestions are denied by PW20. 26. It is deposed by PW20 that PW10 did not inform him that the appellant was found in a sitting position and weeping when PW10 entered the house. On an overall assessment of the testimony of PW20, we are unable to find any infirmity in the investigation. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has found out three reasons to implicate the accused. Motive of the appellant to fight against deceased Ponnamma was on account of the property disputes and also that she was responsible for PW11's marriage with CW13. Another point urged by the prosecution is that the appellant was last seen together with the deceased in the house prior to the incident. Third point raised by the Prosecution is regarding the recovery of M.O.3 at the instance of the appellant. We are of the view that the case of last seen together may not be relevant in this case, for the reason that the appellant herself has admitted that she was residing with deceased Ponnamma on the fateful night. It is her version that _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 22 : Ponnamma invited her and children a couple of days prior to the incident and allowed them to reside with her, whereas the case spoken to by PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW11 is that the appellant came with her children and started residing with the deceased demanding a share in the property. However the fact the appellant was residing with the deceased at the time of occurrence is not disputed. Therefore, the last seen together theory may not be relevant in this case. 28. Admittedly, this is a case resting on circumstantial evidence alone. There is no direct eye witness in this crime. Prosecution would contend that a couple of days prior to the incident the appellant barged into the house of the deceased and started residing there. Frequent quarrels ensued. The deceased informed PW2 over phone about the issues and she came on 28.04.2004 for making enquiry. It is the testimony of PW2 that the appellant picked up a quarrel with deceased Ponnamma and demanded share in PW11's property. She also threatened that she would not spare the deceased for the bad things done to her. This fact was informed by PW2 to her brothers, namely, PW4 and PW11, According to the Prosecution, the appellant had two motives to _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 23 : commit the crime. Firstly, she was demanding property for which the deceased was not supportive. Secondly, the appellant believed that the deceased was responsible for PW11's marriage with CW13. In order to prove these motives, which are relevant in a case resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the learned prosecutor relied on testimonies of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW10 and PW11. As contended by learned counsel for the defence, testimony of PW10 shows some embellishments. However, the fact established through their evidence is that there were fights between deceased Ponnamma and the appellant on account of the property disputes. 29. The learned prosecutor contended that Ext. D1 also probabalise the prosecution case because the appellant had filed a civil suit against PW11 seeking injunction against forceful eviction from the house. Although, the litigation started subsequent to the incident, the learned prosecutor would contend that this fact would reveal the mind set of the appellant. Prosecution would contend that PW11 Raju did not marry the appellant though they resided together as man and wife for some time. Stand taken by the prosecution witness is that the appellant had no right over Raju's land, which provoked the appellant to pick up quarrels. Learned _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 24 : counsel for the appellant would contend that she would not have quarrelled with the deceased, as she was aware of the fact that PW11 was the owner of the property and not the deceased. In answer to this argument, the learned prosecutor contend that the appellant was of the view that the deceased could have persuaded PW11 to give property her. There is no evidence to hold that what was the real conflicts between the parties. But the fact that the appellant fought for property is a fact established. 30. Learned Prosecutor contended that the conduct of the appellant, as a mother, was utterly unnatural. According to her no mother would have remained as a mute spectator when her five year old child was brutally attacked by some one. Even though the learned counsel contended that the appellant had sustained injuries at the hands of the aggressor, from the nature of injuries and the course of treatment as revealed from Ext. D2, we are not impressed that the appellant had suffered any injury capable of incapacitating her to react against a person harming her child. The case revealed by the appellant to the doctor is that at about 9'O clock on 01.05.2004 somebody entered the house and committed the crime. As mentioned above, the testimonies of DW1 and _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 25 : DW2 coupled with the medical records produced pertaining to the appellant do not show that she suffered any grave injury sufficient to prevent her from crying out. She was gagged is a case spoken to by PW15 alone. No other witness had seen the appellant in muffled state. Injuries revealed from Ext. P2 would show that they were inflicted on accessible parts of the human body. It is the prosecution case that the appellant used M.O.6 blades to self inflict some injuries after committing the murder of her mother-in-law and child. The defence case that an external aggressor must have committed the offence is not probabalised from the nature of bodily injury suffered by the appellant. 31. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that recovery of M.O.3 was not proved. According to him, there is no reason for the material prosecution witnesses for sending M.O.14 and M.O.15 with blood stains and hairs adhered to them for biological examination. Prosecution has no case that M.O.14 and M.O.15 were used by the aggressor on the deceased to cause the fatal injuries. It is seen from the evidence that they were lying close to the body of the victim and blood oozed out must have smeared on M.O.14 and M.O.15. Regarding the recovery of M.O.3, _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 26 : as mentioned above, testimony of PW7 coupled with that of the investigation officer do inspire confidence in the mind of the Court. 32. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that M.O.3 was not subjected to biological examination. Chemical analysis shows that M.O.3 was having AB[+] blood, which exactly matched with the blood group of deceased Ponnamma. Therefore, the recovery of M.O.3 and the fact that M.O.3 was used for assaulting the deceased cannot be disbelieved. 33. The learned Prosecutor contended that no valuable was found missing from the body of the deceased. It is a circumstance against the case that any outsider must have caused harm to the deceased. Case of the appellant is that on 01.05.2004 at about 8.00 p.m. she along with her child went to bed and thereafter she did not wake up till the time when she was taken to hospital. Admittedly, that happened at about 11.30 a.m. on 02.05.2004. Going by the medical records and the testimonies of the doctors, we do not find any commonsensical reason to hold that the appellant must have remained unconscious for such a long time. Trivial injuries sustained by her would belie the defence case. Natural conduct of any mother to make a hue and cry on seeing her _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ **==> picture [36 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** child suffering injuries in an aggression is also absent in this case. It is settled law that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the preponderance of probability is a relevant aspect. The entire circumstances only indicate that the appellant herself must have been the aggressor. 34. The learned prosecutor relied on the statement in column 12 in Ext. P6 inquest report that the appellant was the suspect even when the body of the child was subjected to inquest. 35. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant was arrested and clothes were taken by police, no scientific examination was done to find out whether there was any blood stains. It is true that the investigation officer has not done anything in that direction. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that despite the presence of blood and other body secretions at the place of occurrence, no scientific examination was done and finger print was also not taken. These contentions cannot be accepted for the reason that the materials available were taken from the place as part of investigation. Merely because M.O.3 was not subjected to biological examination it cannot be said it was not used for inflicting _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 28 : the fatal blows. 36. Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the presence of cigarette buds, cigarette packet etc. indicate the role of some outsider in the crime. PW20, when examined stated that many persons had come to the crime scene before the Police had reached there. Other witnesses also deposed so. This fact alone cannot be taken as a circumstance to infer an external aggression. 37. The testimonies of material witnesses form a complete chain of circumstances. We are of the view that there is no breakage in the chain of circumstances. The behaviour of the appellant subsequent to the incident also has to be taken note of for evaluating the preponderance of probabilities. 38. The principles enunciated in **Sharad Birdhichand Sarda** **Vs. State of Maharashtra [1984 SCC (Cri). 487]** that the facts established in a case involving circumstantial evidence should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty is well settled. We may extract paragraphs 151 to 154 of the above decision: _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 29 : “151. It is well settled that the prosecution must stand or fall on its own legs and it cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence. This is trite law and no decision has taken a contrary view. What some cases have held is only this : where various links in a chain are in themselves complete, then a false plea or a false defence may be called into aid only to lend assurance to the Court. In other words, before using the additional link it must be proved that all the links in the chain are complete and do not suffer from any infirmity. It is not the law that where there is any infirmity or lacuna in the prosecution case, the same could be cured or supplied by a false defence or a plea which is not accepted by a court. 152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SCR 1091 : (AIR 1952 SC 343). This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alia) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1969) 3 SCC 198 and Ramgopal v State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 656. It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant's case: _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 30 : "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions 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. It may be noted here that this 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 Mharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (AIR _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 31 : 1973 SC 26) 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' is 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. (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. **154.** These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” 39. We are of the view that circumstances revealed from the prosecution evidence in this case forms a unbroken chain leading _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 32 : to the hypothesis of guilt of the accused alone. Her innocence is incompatible with the evidence available. 40. Learned prosecutor relying on the decision rendered in **Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10** **SCC 681** contended that in a case where the appellant alone was present in the house with the deceased at the time of death, the appellant has to satisfactory explain as to how the deceased sustained injuries. In this case there is no reason to think that she must have received injuries from an outsider because no valuables have been lost and we find no reason to hold that any other person was inimical to the deceased at the material time. There is no evidence let in by either side to think in that line. 41. To sum up, we find that the prosecution has established guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and all the circumstances proved only lead to the complicity of the appellant in the crime. Therefore, we are view of that the Trial Court has correctly convicted the complicity of the appellant in the crime. The sentences imposed on the appellant are also legal. We find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence. The appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. _Crl. Appeal No. 1168 of 2011_ : 33 : 42. It is brought to our notice that the sentence imposed on the appellant had been suspended by this Court. The trial Court shall take appropriate steps to take the appellant in custody and she shall serve out the sentence. Her bail bond will remain cancelled. sd/- **P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE** sd/- **A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE** kmd /True copy/ P.A. to Judge