AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bhavadasan, J.—The accused was prosecuted for the offences punishable u/s 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, for which he was found guilty. He was therefore convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence u/s 201 of Indian Penal Code. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Prosecution case is that the deceased and the accused were living together as husband and wife. As per the prosecution case, the dead body of the deceased was found in the property belonging to PW1 at about 11 am on 26.12.2007. He informed the police and lodged Ext.P1 F.I.Statement. PW12, S.I of the police station concerned prepared Ext.P10 FIR and prepared Ext.P4 inquest report. He seized Mo5 and Mo6 from the place of occurrence. Investigation was taken over by PW13. In the meanwhile, autopsy was conducted by PW8, the doctor and Ext.P8 post mortem certificate was furnished. As per the post mortem certificate, death was caused due to strangulation and throttling. PW13 arrested the accused on 27.12.2007 and seized Mos 2 and 3 which he was wearing at the relevant time. He questioned the witnesses and after completing the investigation, laid charge before the court.
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur who took cognizance of the offences, finding that the offence was exclusively by homicide, committed the case to Sessions Court, Manjeri u/s 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Sessions Court made over the case to Additional Sessions Court, Manjeri for trial and disposal of the case.
On appearance of the accused, after completing necessary formalities, charges were framed u/s 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined Pws 1 to 13 and marked Exts.P1 to P13. Mos 1 to 6 were also identified and marked. The accused was questioned u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure after closing the evidence regarding the incriminating materials against him. Finding that the accused could not be acquitted u/s 232 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he was asked to enter on his defence. He chose to adduce no evidence. On the basis of the evidence adduced, which was found to be convincing by the trial court the accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced as already mentioned.
This appeal has been preferred from jail. Smt.Suja.T was appointed as State Brief. Learned counsel in her well prepared and presented arguments attacked the findings of the courts below that the circumstances would not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the offence must have been committed by the accused. Learned counsel pointed out that none of the circumstances if taken independently or cumulatively would conclusively show that the offence had been committed by the accused and no one else. Learned counsel attacked the findings of the court below, based on extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by PW4, which according to the learned counsel is totally unreliable and not trustworthy. Learned counsel also pointed out that at best what could be shown by the prosecution is that the accused along with deceased and PW4 had gone to the toddy shop of PW10 and after consuming liquor, PW4 left, followed by the deceased and the accused. Since the time of death has not been spoken to by PW8 the Doctor,there is nothing to show the gap between the time of death and the time the deceased and accused left the toddy shop of PW10 and hence the last scene theory could not be invoked. It is also pointed out that further reliance placed on Mos 1, 2 and 3 and the blood stains found therein cannot automatically lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the offence for the reason that it does not show that the blood found on Mo2 and Mo3 was that of the blood of the deceased since there was no grouping done in that respect.
Learned counsel also pointed out that the nail clippings of the accused collected during investigation, though showed traces of blood and skin particles, it will not help the prosecution to prove the case against the accused for the reason that blood group has not been determined. So also there is nothing to show that the skin particles found in the nail clippings is not that of the deceased. It is possible that skin particles found on the nail clippings would be that of the accused himself. It is also pointed out that prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that there was any motive for the accused to commit the offence. Under these circumstances, learned counsel went on to point out that court below was not justified in coming to the conclusion that it was the accused who had committed the offence.
Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand pointed out that the circumstances relied on by the lower court conclusively show that it was none other than the accused who must have committed the offence. There is evidence to show that accused and the deceased were living together and they were last seen together. If that be so, there must be an explanation by accused as to what transpired after the accused and the deceased left the toddy shop. No explanation whatsoever was offered by the accused in this regard. It was pointed out that at any rate, the clothes worn by the accused at the relevant time which were seized by the Investigating Officer as Mo2 and Mo3 contained the blood stains for which there was no explanation offered by the accused. He owes a duty to explain as to how the blood stains happened to be present on his clothes. Along with the presence of blood stains, skin particles in nail clippings of accused is an added circumstance pointing the finger at the accused. The court below on the basis of the above items of evidence came to the conclusion that it was the accused who had committed the offence. Learned Public Prosecutor went on to point out that going by Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was the duty of the accused to offer satisfactory explanation as to what transpired between the accused and the deceased after they left the toddy shop. An explanation in this regard is not given by the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor went on to point out that nothing has been shown to doubt that on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it can lead to the conclusion that death could have been caused by some one else.
Firstly, we shall refer to the circumstances relied on by the court below to come to the conclusion that it was the accused who had committed the offence. They are as follows.
i) The accused and deceased were living together.
ii)Accused and deceased were seen last on the previous evening of the day on which the body was recovered from the coconut garden of PW1.
Iii)The extra judicial confession spoken to by PW4.
iv) Blood found on Mos 2 and 3 which were the clothes worn by the accused at the relevant time.
v)Blood stains and skin particles found in the nail clippings of the accused.
It is no doubt true that if the above circumstances are proved and accepted taken as a whole, it would lead to the irresistible conclusion that it is the accused who committed the offence. The question is whether there is clinching evidence to accept the above circumstances as proof against the accused.
The evidence of PW4 and PW10 would show that on the day previous to the alleged date of incident, PW4, the accused and the deceased had gone to the toddy shop of PW10. The evidence of PW4, PW9 and PW10 show that the accused and the deceased were in the habit of consuming toddy. Going by the evidence of PW4 on the day previous to the day on which the dead body was found in the coconut garden of PW1, they had gone together to the toddy shop of PW10 and consumed liquor. The evidence of PW4 also show that there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased. Even though PW10 says that on the previous day to the date on which the dead body was recovered, accused and the deceased along with PW4 had gone to the toddy shop to consume liquor, he would say that the deceased Cheera did not consume liquor. He also says that Cheera and the accused left the shop together. So far as leaving of the accused and the deceased from the shop of PW10 is concerned, the evidence of PW4 shows that she had left earlier to the deceased and the accused and if that be so, it is not possible to understand how she could say that accused and deceased left together from the shop. Even assuming that one could accept the evidence of PW10, it leads only to the inference that deceased and the accused left the shop together.
The evidence of PW9 shows that deceased Cheera had left the company of her husband and son, PW9 and had been living with the accused. It is significant to note that the evidence of PW4 is to the effect that the accused and deceased had no permanent place to reside and they used to sleep at places where they found it suitable and convenient. It is true that the evidence is convincing enough to show that they were living together, though unmarried.
Coming to the extra judicial confession made by PW4, on the very face of it, not acceptable for the simple reason that the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the accused, is not seen mentioned in Section 161 statement to the police. The omission to mention about an important aspect at the earliest point of time makes her version in court extremely doubtful. The omission to mention such a significant fact to the police amounts to a contradiction which makes her evidence in that regard vulnerable. The lower court felt that being a person of lower strata of the society, it might not have occured to her that that fact is significant and in all probability, the police might not have asked her about it.
It is not possible to adopt the above reasoning of the lower court to accept the so called extrajudicial confession of the accused. Even otherwise extra judicial confession has to be in the exact words as spoken to by the accused. The omission to mention this significant aspect cannot be lightly brushed aside.
Coming to the blood stains found on Mos 2 and 3, it is true that the accused has not offered satisfactory explanation regarding that aspect. But merely because the blood stains were found on the clothes alleged to have been worn by the accused, it does not lead to the irresistible conclusion that he is the culprit. There was no attempt from the side of the prosecution to establish the fact that the blood stains found on the clothes of the accused was that of the deceased. There was no attempt to get the blood group determined. In the absence of any attempt to adduce any evidence in that regard, it may not be proper to accept that evidence as a conclusive evidence against the accused.
It is true that the nail clippings collected from the accused showed traces of blood and skin particles. PW7, the expert who had collected the sample and had it examined, in cross examination submitted that if a person having skin disease, scratches himself it is possible that the skin particles and blood stains may be found in his nail clippings. He also would say that the blood stains and skin particles may remain even if the hands are washed. Here also there is nothing to show that the skin particles found in the nail clippings or blood stains found in the clippings are that of the deceased as in the case of Mo2 and Mo3. There was no attempt on the part of prosecution to establish the blood group and identity of the skin particles which were seen in the nail clippings of the accused.
We are clear in our mind, going by the evidence of PW8 and Ext.P8 that the death was not natural and was in fact due to strangulation and throttling. We note that as many as 37 injuries were noted by PW8, also shows that except injury No. 1, all the other injuries were fresh. However PW8 was unable to state about even the approximate time of the death of the deceased, though there can be no doubt that death was caused by homicide.
The contours and parameters of evidence necessary in a case relying on circumstantial evidence are well settled. It is not necessary to elucidate on the point except that it has been laid down that such circumstances must be proved and the circumstances so proved should lead to the irresistible conclusion that it was the accused alone who has committed the act and it unerringly should point out to the guilt of the accused and should be inconsistent with any hypotheses of the innocence of the accused.
Moreover, no motive as such is established in this case which might have driven the accused to commit the offence.
It is true that evidence of PW4 and PW10 show that there was frequent quarrels between the deceased and accused, but there is nothing to show that on the alleged date of incident, there was any quarrel between them which could have driven the accused to commit the offence. Of course, there is a vague suggestion by the prosecution that deceased Cheera used to go along with other persons which might not have been liked by the accused. There is no evidence in this regard to show that there was any such previous incident which had made the accused furious by the conduct of the deceased going along with another person.
As regards Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act is concerned, it is true that once it is shown that the accused was seen last in company of the deceased and other incriminating circumstances, there is the duty on the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death took place. A careful reading of the decisions which are concerned with Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act would show that in almost all such cases, the husband and wife were living under one roof and they had frequent quarrels. In most of the cases, husband offered a false reason for the cause of the death. In the instant case, it is already noted that accused and deceased had no fixed place of abode and they used to sleep in the night in places where they found it convenient and suitable at that point of time.
In the absence of convincing evidence except that they were seen leaving the toddy shop of PW10 together which to some extent is convincing, we are unable to concur with the trial court that the extra judicial confession made by PW4 could be accepted. We also find the evidence of blood stains on Mos 2 and 3 said to have been seized from the accused are not sufficient enough to lead to the irresistible conclusion that it was the accused who committed the offence. A reasonable doubt is generated in the mind of the court as to the possibility of somebody else committing the crime. In the above facts and circumstances, we are not able to sustain the conviction and sentence passed by the court below against the accused. Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the accused in S.C. No. 345 of 2008 of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. III(Adhoc), Manjeri are set aside. We hold that prosecution has not been successful in establishing that it was the accused who committed the murder of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt. He is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. If he is in custody, he shall be released forthwith, unless wanted in any other case.