Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. Both these appeals have been preferred challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the accused in S.C. No.1576/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court -VI, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Out of the said appeals, Crl.A. No.77/2025 has been preferred by the first accused and Crl.A. No.214/2026 is by the second accused.

2. The prosecution's case, as revealed from the final report, is as follows:

                  The second accused, a married lady and the mother of a minor girl named Meera, was maintaining an illicit relationship with the first accused. However, Meera, who disliked the said relationship, objected the same and due to the said animosity, the first and second accused, in furtherance of their common intention to murder Meera, on 10.06.2019, at 6.00 p.m. inside the rented house where second accused and Meera were residing together, which was arranged by the first accused, strangulated her with a shawl and caused her to fall unconscious. Thereafter, to ensure the death, both the accused, together, took Meera in a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-21- M-6395, ridden by the first accused, with the victim positioned between them. They took her to a well located on the property of PW48, near the residence of the first accused. The accused then tied two hollow bricks to Meera's body and threw her into the well, thereby caused her death. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the aforementioned offences.

3. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad. Being satisfied that the case is one triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with all the necessary formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, Thirivananthapuram, under section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance, made over the case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions Court-V. On appearance of the accused before the said court, the learned Judge, after hearing both sides under section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon perusal of the records, framed a written charge against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, as per the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the case was withdrawn and made over to the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram, for trial and disposal.

4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW75 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P121. MO1 to MO49 were exhibited and identified. The contradictions in the 161 statement of the prosecution witnesses were marked as Exts.D1 to D3. One document produced by the prosecution was marked at the instance of the defence as Ext.D4. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., during which they denied all the incriminating materials brought out in evidence against them. Thereafter, both sides were heard under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under the said provision, the accused were directed to enter on their defence and to adduce any evidence that they may have in support thereof. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the accused.

5. Thereafter, both sides were heard in detail, and finally, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 201, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC. In default of payment of the fine, the accused were ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 of IPC, both the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 75 of the JJ Act, the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each with a default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved by the said finding of guilt, conviction, and the order of sentence passed, the accused have come up with these appeals.

6. We heard Sri. Renjith B. Marar, the learned counsel appearing for the first accused, Sri.Godwin Joseph the learned counsel appearing for the second accused, and Smt. Ambika Devi S., the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

7. This is a case in which a mother, along with her paramour, is alleged to have committed murder of her minor daughter, aged 16 years. The paramour of the victim’s mother was arrayed as the first accused, while the mother was arrayed as the second accused. The prosecution alleges that the motive for the commission of the offence was the minor girl’s objection to her mother’s illicit relationship, which purportedly led the accused to eliminate her.

8. The matter in this case had come to light on 17.06.2019, when the mother of the second accused approached the Sub Inspector of Police (PW64), Nedumangad Police Station, complaining that her daughter, the second accused, as well as her granddaughter named Meera, had been missing from 11.06.2019 onwards. As per the direction of the Sub Inspector of Police, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (PW63) attached to Nedumangad Police Station had recorded the statement of the mother of the second accused and registered an FIR under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act as a man missing case. It was in the investigation that followed on the said complaint that the entire matter relating to the murder of Meera, the minor daughter of the second accused, was unfolded.

9. Undisputedly, this is a case where there is no direct evidence to establish the occurrence. The prosecution, therefore, relies on circumstantial evidence to prove its case. Moreover, the prosecution relies on recovery evidence as well as scientific evidence to establish the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence. In order to properly appreciate the materials and circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, it is necessary to examine the evidence of PW1, the mother of the second accused, who approached the police with a complaint stating that her daughter and granddaughter were missing.

10. During examination before the Court, PW1 deposed that during the period of occurrence in this case, Meera, her granddaughter, was residing with her daughter Manjusha (A2) in a rented house at Parandode. On 10.06.2019, her granddaughter came to her house. Thereafter, at around 4.00 p.m., the second accused called Meera over the phone, and she left the house of PW1 with food for her mother, the second accused. Thereafter, she had not seen Meera. Subsequently, on 12.06.2019 at around 6.00 p.m., the second accused contacted her over the phone and informed her that one boy had taken Meera and that the second accused had gone to Tirupathi in search of Meera. The second accused further stated that the said boy and Meera were also with her and asked PW1 to shift the household articles kept in her rented house to the house of PW1. Accordingly, on the next day, she, along with her husband (PW2), went to the rented house, but the landlord did not allow them to shift the household items, stating that the said house had been taken on rent by another man and, therefore, he would not permit them to take the household articles from there. Moreover, the landlord told them that the house had been rented out to one Aneesh (A1). After a few days, she attempted to contact the second accused over the phone, but she did not respond. Hence, on 17.06.2019, she approached the Police and had given a statement.

11. PW1 further deposed that the second accused had initially eloped with one Sunil, and Meera, the deceased in this case, was born out of the said relationship. Thereafter, the second accused’s relationship with Sunil became strained and, hence, she was given in marriage to one Christopher. The second accused and Christopher resided together as husband and wife for around ten years. Thereafter, their relationship also turned bitter, and the second accused left the matrimonial home and started residing with PW1 and her husband. While residing there, the second accused was employed. Subsequently, CW31, the nephew of PW1, stated that after work, the second accused was returning home on a bike ridden by another man. When PW1 questioned her about the same, the second accused got infuriated and started residing in a rented house along with Meera. On one occasion, when she visited the said house, she saw a helmet there. When asked about it, the second accused stated that it belonged to her friend’s brother, and after a short while, Aneesh (A1) came to the said house to take the said helmet. On 28.06.2019, she reached the police station as intimated by the police, and at that time, the first and second accused were present there. Then she came to know that Meera had been murdered and that her dead body was lying in a well belonging to Aneesh. Thereafter, the dead body of Meera was brought to her house after the post-mortem examination. When the wearing apparel and the ornaments seized from the dead body of Meera were shown to PW1, she identified those items as that of Meera, and they were marked as MO1 to MO8, MO15, and MO16.

12. When the father of the second accused was examined as PW2, he had given evidence in similar lines as spoken by PW1. He also identified the wearing apparel and ornaments of Meera, which were marked as MO1 to MO8, MO15, and MO16, and were found on the dead body of Meera at the time when it was exhumed from the well. According to him, he was also present when the Fire Force retrieved the body of his granddaughter from the well.

13. Before delving into a discussion regarding the circumstances and other materials relied upon by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, it is apposite to refer to the evidence of the doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of the minor girl. When the said doctor was examined as PW55, she deposed that, it was on 29.06.2019, while she was working as Professor of Forensic Medicine, the Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, that she conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of a female named Meera, aged about 16 years, the deceased in this case. The post-mortem certificate issued by her is marked as Ext.P45. Referring to Ext.P45, she deposed that in the autopsy examination, she noted the following anti-mortem injuries;

                  1. Contusion of whole of left temporalis muscle.

                  2. Light bluish discolouration 12x2.5 to 3cm, almost horizontal, across the front of neck, 8cm above the top of breast bone.

                  3. Dark brown discolouration 4x2cm, suggestive of contusion oblique, on the right side of neck, its upper inner end 2.5 cm outer to midline and 3 cm above collar bone.

                  Thyroid cartilage showed fracture along the midline separating it into two halves. Upper part of its body showed bluish discolouration. Muscles underneath showed brownish discolouration. Other neck structures including hyoid bone were absent due to advanced decomposition. Neck vertebrae showed decomposition changes, otherwise appeared normal.

                  4. Contusion 12x0.8cm, muscle deep on the right side of chest extending to left, the upper end just below collor bone.

                  5. Contusion 10x7cm involving the rectus muscle on the right side of abdomen upper end just below stomach pit.

                  6. Contusion 7x5x0.3cm on the right side of abdomen, just outer to midline and just below costal margin.

                  7. Contusion 2x1x0.5cm, on the right side of abdomen, 6cm outer to midline and 4cm above anterior superior iliac spine.

                  8. Contusion of rectus muscle 16x10cm involving the whole thickness on either side of abdomen, upper end 11 cm below stomach pit. Contusion of small intestine(1) 4x1.5cm, involving the whole thickness, 12cm distal to fixed loop(2) 2.5x2cm involving the whole thickness 19 cm distal to fixed loop (3) contusion of mesentery 7x2cm, involving the full thickness in the middle (4) contusion of diaphragm 8x4cm involving the full thickness on the right side just outer to the central attachment.

                  9. Contusion 2.5x1.5x0.3cm on the inner aspect of left forearm, 7cm below elbow.

                  10. Contusion 0.8x0.5x0.3cm on the back of left forearm. 8cm below elbow.

                  11. Contusion 3.5x0.7x0.2cm on the back of right leg. 2.5 cm below knee. (Page No.6)

                  12. Contusion 2.5x1x0.2cm on the inner aspect of right leg. 9cm below knee.

14. The doctor further testified that, on examination, the brain was found to be liquefied, and a major part of it was found to be missing. Mucosa of the upper part of the air passages showed decomposition changes, and soft tissue and bone above the thyroid cartilage were missing. Aspirated food particles present up to the available bronchioles. A small leaf-like particle was found in the upper part of the air passage. Terminal bronchioles and lungs were absent. The stomach was full and contained soft rice, green gram, and other identifiable food particles, having no unusual smell. Mucosa showed decomposition changes. The urinary bladder was empty. Uterus measured 9x3.3x0.5cm, cavity empty, ovaries and appendages were not in an identifiable state. All other internal organs showed decomposition changes.

15. Sample of viscera was preserved and sent for chemical analysis. Scalp hair, pubic hair, right hemerus, right upper central incisor tooth, and left lower second molar tooth, vaginal swabs, and smear and anal swabs and smear collected and handed over to charge WCPO 4603 in separate sealed packets and containers. A piece of sternum, along with water sample brought by the police were handed over to charge WCPO 4603 in sealed bottles.

16. According to PW55, she had furnished her final opinion as to the cause of death after obtaining the chemical analysis report (Ext.P46). Referring to Ext.P46, PW55 deposed that in the FSL report, it was concluded that identical diatoms were present in the bone marrow of the deceased and the water sample in the drowning medium. Moreover, PW55 clarified that the presence of identical diatoms in the bone marrow of the deceased and the water sample in the drowning medium indicates that the deceased was alive at the time of falling into the water and had inhaled water from the medium, which contained diatoms. Referring to post-mortem report, PW55 further deposed that anti-mortem injury Nos.2 and 3 along with the description given in the common paragraph below injury No.3 in Ext.P45 post-mortem report, are suggestive of constriction force on the neck. PW55 finally opined that the death was due to the combined effects of drowning and constriction force on the neck. Therefore, the evidence of PW55, the Doctor clearly establishes the fact that the death of Meera was undoubtedly and certainly is nothing but homicidal in nature.

17. Likewise, the evidence of PW61 and PW62, the firemen in the Fire and Rescue Station, Nedumangad, who took the body out of the well, reveals that they found a yellow rope tied around the portion of the knee and chest of the dead body. This evidence also suggests that the death of Meera was neither natural nor accidental, but homicidal.

18. As already stated, this is a case based on circumstantial evidence. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622], the Apex Court discussed the nature, character, and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone and held as under:

                  (i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;

                  (ii) 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 of any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

                  (iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

                  (iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

                  (v) 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.

19. A similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Bodh Raj alias Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [AIR 2002 SC 3164], State of Uttarpradesh v. Satish [AIR 2005 SC 1000], and Subramaniam v. State of Tamilnadu [(2009) 14 SCC 415].

20. In cases founded entirely on circumstantial evidence, a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances is a requisite. Moreover, the proved circumstances when taken together must inevitably lead to the conclusion that the accused, and none other than, could have committed the offence. In other words, to sustain a conviction, circumstantial evidence must be comprehensive and incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. Thus, such evidence must not only be consistent with the accused’s guilt but also inconsistent with his innocence. Keeping in mind the above-mentioned principles, the crucial question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the prosecution has fully and conclusively established the circumstances relied upon to prove the charge levelled against the accused. Furthermore, it must be examined whether these circumstances, when taken cumulatively, lead inexorably to the conclusion of the accused’s guilt, to the exclusion of any other plausible explanation, including that of innocence.

21. Taking the above into account, and reverting to the present case, it can be seen that the fact that, during the relevant period, the second accused was residing with her daughter in a rented house at Parandode stands fully established in this case by convincing evidence. The evidence of PW1 and PW2, the parents of the second accused, clearly establishes the said fact. Moreover, when the landlord of the said house was examined as PW3, he deposed that it was the first accused who took the house on rent and that the first accused told him that he required the said house for the accommodation of his sister and his sister’s daughter. According to PW3, the first accused approached him through one of his friends named Murali. Moreover, PW3 testified that it was the first accused who used to pay the rent for the said house and also identified first accused during his examination before the Court.

22. Notably, when one of the neighbours of the said house was examined as PW9, he deposed that he was acquainted with both the accused. According to PW9, in the said house, the second accused was residing with her daughter, Meera. However, the first accused used to visit the second accused in the said rented house and would come there on a motorcycle after parking it on the rear side of the house of one Sathyabhama (PW10). More significantly, PW9 deposed that on 10.06.2019, at 10:00 p.m., while he was smoking a cigarette standing in front of his house, he heard the sound of a bike starting, and when he looked, he saw the first and second accused, and the deceased Meera leaving on a motorcycle. PW9 further testified that at that time, the first accused was riding the motorcycle and Meera was sitting between the first and the second accused. PW9 identified the said motorcycle during his examination before the court, and the same was marked as MO21. Notably, PW9 further testified that after he had seen the accused and Meera leaving on the motorcycle, he did not see them thereafter.

23. PW11, the wife of PW9, also deposed that during the period of occurrence in this case, the second accused and her daughter were residing in a neighbouring house. She also deposed that first accused was a frequent visitor to the rented house of the second accused and identified first accused before the court. She further deposed that on 10.06.2019, her husband told her that he had seen the accused and Meera going on a motorcycle.

24. When one Sathyabhama, who allegedly resides near the rented house of the second accused, was examined as PW12, she deposed that the second accused and her daughter were residing in a rented house situated near her house. According to her, the first accused used to visit the said house, and while doing so, he used to park his motorcycle on the side of the road in front of her house. Moreover, PW12 deposed that Meera, the deceased minor girl, told her that as she and her mother were alone, first accused, who is her uncle, was coming for their protection. PW12 also identified A1 as well as the MO21 motorcycle before the court.

25. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW3, PW9, PW11, and PW12 clearly reveals that, during the period of occurrence in this case, second accused and her minor daughter Meera were residing in a house that had been taken on rent by first accused. Moreover, their evidence establishes that first accused was a frequent visitor to the said house and that he was the one who used to pay the rent periodically. It is also evident that first and second accused projected first accused as the brother of the second accused. Further, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 indicates that the second accused maintained a relationship with the first accused after the breakdown of her marriage with one Christopher. In these circumstances, the motive alleged by the prosecution for the commission of the offence cannot be said to be improbable or without basis.

26. It is true that there are no materials on record to demonstrate that the deceased Meera had objected the relationship between her mother and the first accused, or that such objection motivated the accused to eliminate her. However, it must be borne in mind that intention and motive are states of the mind, which cannot be directly proved, and the court cannot probe into the mental state of an individual to ascertain the precise motive behind an act. The surrounding circumstances, as detailed above, reasonably persuade this Court to conclude that the motive alleged by the prosecution cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive is not a sine qua non for establishing the guilt of the accused, particularly where the chain of circumstances is otherwise complete and points unerringly towards the guilt of the accused.

27. One of the main circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused is that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of both the accused and that they have failed to offer any plausible explanation as to what transpired thereafter. It is primarily on the basis of the evidence of PW9, as discussed earlier, that the prosecution seeks to establish that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused.

28. As already noted, PW9 categorically testified that on 10.06.2019 at 10 p.m., he saw first and the second accused travelling on a motorcycle ridden by the first accused, with the deceased minor girl sitting between them. Likewise, from the evidence, it is established that thereafter nobody had seen Meera alive. Subsequently, it was on 28.06.2019 that the dead body of Meera was detected inside a well on the basis of the information given by the first accused. We find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW9 that he saw both the accused as well as the deceased Meera travelling on a motorcycle on 10.06.2019 at 10.00 p.m., particularly since there is nothing to suggest that PW9 has any sort of animosity or grudge towards the accused to falsely implicate them in a case of this nature.

29. As from the evidence, it is established that it was in the company of the accused that the deceased minor girl was last seen alive; a burden is cast upon them to offer a plausible explanation regarding the circumstances in which they parted company with the deceased or the events leading to her death. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact lies upon such person. In the present case, it was therefore incumbent upon both the accused to furnish a credible and convincing explanation as to what transpired after the deceased was last seen alive in their company. However, despite this significant incriminating circumstance, both the accused have failed to offer any justifiable or satisfactory explanation in this regard.

30. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the case of the prosecution is that in the night of 10.06.2019, inside the rented house of the second accused, both the accused together strangulated the deceased minor girl by tying a shawl around her neck and caused her to fell unconscious and took the unconscious minor girl on a motorcycle by placing her in between them and thereafter, in order to ensure the minor girl’s death, thrown her to the well near to the house of the first accused. As already noted, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination opined that the death was due to the combined effect of drowning and constriction force on the neck. Notably, the said opinion was expressed by the doctor after considering the FSL report and after finding that the deceased was alive at the time of falling into the water, as she had inhaled water before death. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the proved circumstances that the deceased was alive last in the company of the accused, coupled with the failure of the accused to offer any explanation and to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, clearly points towards the guilt of the accused. However, we are not oblivious of the law that the last seen circumstance alone is not sufficient to hold a person guilty of an offence.

31. Significantly, this is not a case in which the prosecution is relying on the last seen circumstance alone to prove the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence. The prosecution has a consistent case that it was on the strength of the disclosure statement made by the first accused that the dead body of the deceased was detected and recovered from inside a well. When the investigating officer was examined as PW75, he categorically deposed that, while the investigation was in progress, he obtained certain leads regarding the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence, and accordingly, both the accused were taken into custody from Nagarkovil in Tamil Nadu and brought to the police station. During the subsequent interrogation, the first accused made a disclosure statement that, IMAGE IMAGE IMAGE According to the investigating officer, it was on the strength of the said disclosure statement made by the first accused that the dead body was detected and recovered from inside the well. The relevant portion of the confession statement given by the first accused, recorded separately and deposed to by the investigating officer, was marked in evidence as Ext.P94. The recovery of the dead body on the strength of the disclosure statement given by the first accused is certainly a valid piece of evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

32. Another crucial material that glares at the accused is their conduct in absconding to Tamil Nadu after the commission of the offence. When the manager of a lodge named SDS Lodge located at Nagarkovil in Tamil Nadu was examined as PW10, he deposed that on 11.06.2019, at 2.15 p.m., the first accused named Aneesh had taken room No.204 in the said lodge and vacated the room on 12.06.2019 at 12.25 p.m. The arrival and departure register maintained in the said lodge is marked as Ext.P10. According to PW10, the first accused was then accompanied by a lady, and PW10 identified the first and second accused as the persons who had taken the room in his lodge.

33. Likewise, PW13, another witness, deposed that while he was having a tea at an eatery situated on the side of the water tank road at Nagarkovil, the first accused, along with the second accused, approached him and asked whether he could arrange a house for rent for them. Accordingly, he arranged a rented house for them, belonging to one Rosamma. According to PW13, it was either on 11.06.2019 or 12.06.2019 that the accused approached him, and the second accused introduced herself as Ancy. PW13 further deposed that he obtained a SIM card using his identity details and handed it over to the first accused, and the phone number of the said SIM card is 6383260440. According to PW13, his phone number is 9361104441. PW13 further deposed that after three days, the accused returned the advance amount and vacated the rented house, stating that they wanted to go to Madurai. However, on the same night, they returned, stating that they had missed the train, and continued to reside in the said rented house. Thereafter, the first accused started going to work along with one Nagarajan. However, after a few days, the police came and enquired about the first accused and took both the accused from there. PW13 identified both the accused before the court as the persons for whom he had arranged the rented house. When Nagarajan, the person with whom the first accused started to work at Nagarkovil, was examined as PW36, he also admitted that the first accused worked with him for two days.

34. The evidence discussed above, along with the call detail records produced and marked in this case, clearly indicate that immediately after the commission of the offence, both the accused absconded. The conduct of the accused in absconding after the occurrence is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such conduct is a circumstance that may be taken into consideration along with other evidence to establish the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence.

35. Another circumstance pressed into service by the prosecution is the preparation allegedly made by the first accused to secretly throw the unconscious minor girl into the well situated near his house. Evidently, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a well situated near the house of the first accused. The prosecution has a case that, to throw Meera secretly into the said well, the first accused made arrangements to shift his mother from his house before his arrival, along with Meera, who was in an unconscious state, from the rented house of the second accused. In order to prove the said fact, the prosecution relies on the evidence of PW23, who is none other than one of the close friends of the first accused.

36. The evidence of PW23 shows that on 10.06.2019, at 9:30 p.m., the first accused called him over the phone and requested him to send an autorickshaw to the house of the first accused, stating that his mother had to be taken to a hospital urgently. According to PW23, the first accused further stated that he had entered into a scuffle with another person at Kowdiar and that the police would come to his house in search of him. PW23 further deposed that, at the request of the accused, he arranged the autorickshaw of one Anand (PW24) and asked Anand to go to the house of the first accused.

37. When Anand, the said autorickshaw driver, was examined as PW24, he deposed that, as told by PW23, on 10.06.2019 at 9:30 p.m., he reached the house of the first accused and took the first accused’s mother and sister to the Medical College Hospital in his autorickshaw. Moreover, he deposed that after dropping the mother and sister of the first accused at the hospital, he informed the same to PW23. The evidence of PW23 and PW24 finds sufficient corroboration from the call records of the mobile phones used by them at the relevant time, which were marked in evidence in this case. The evidence of PW23 and PW24 in the above regard is convincing and reliable, and the same will certainly help the prosecution in establishing that the accused made all the preparations to dispose of the dead body secretly by shifting his mother and other inmates from his house at the time when he allegedly planned to throw the unconscious Meera into the well situated near his house. The same is another telling circumstance that points towards the guilt of the accused.

38. Another material circumstance relied upon by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused is the recovery of MO32 (shawl) and MO38 (bedsheet), allegedly effected on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the first accused. According to the Investigating Officer, the recovery was carried out at the instance of the first accused, who led the police to a bushy area within a property situated near a lodge at Nagerkovil, where the accused had reportedly stayed together for a day. The recovery mahazar has been marked as Ext.P43, and the relevant portion of the confession statement leading to the recovery, as recorded in the seizure mahazar and proved through the Investigating Officer, has been marked as Ext.P43(a). Notably, the shawl (MO32) is alleged to have been used by the accused to strangulate the deceased. It is further pertinent that, as per the FSL report relating to the chemical examination of MO38 (bedsheet), human blood was detected, and DNA analysis established that the blood belonged to the deceased. However, this incriminating circumstance was not put to the accused when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., thereby effectively denying him the opportunity to offer any explanation in this regard. Consequently, the said scientific evidence cannot be legally relied upon against the accused.

39. One of the main contentions taken by the learned counsel for the appellants to assail the impugned judgment of conviction is that there is no proper identification of the dead body, which was allegedly recovered from the well. According to the learned counsel, there is ample evidence to show that when the dead body was recovered, it was in an advanced stage of decomposition. The learned counsel mainly relied on Ext.P59 series photographs, the evidence of the doctor who conducted the autopsy examination, the evidence of the Tahsildar who conducted the inquest on the dead body of the deceased, and the inquest report prepared by him to establish that the body was in an advanced stage of decomposition, making it practically unrecognizable.

40. While considering the said submission, it is to be noted that from the evidence, it is established that the dead body was recovered from the well on the 19th day after the minor girl went missing. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, there are materials to show that the body was in an advanced stage of decomposition and that the face of the deceased was not easily recognizable. However, in the case at hand, it is pertinent to note that the recovery of the body was effected on the strength of the disclosure statement made by the first accused. Moreover, when the dead body was recovered, PW2, the grandfather of the deceased minor girl, was present there. During examination before the court, PW2 categorically deposed that he identified the dead body as that of his granddaughter. The evidence of PW2 in the above regard was not even challenged in cross-examination.

41. We are not oblivious to the fact that, irrespective of the absence of any challenge from the side of the defence, it is the primary duty of the prosecution to establish the identity of the dead body. When the body was found in a decomposed condition, the proper and best course available to the prosecution to establish the identity of the deceased was to resort to scientific methods such as DNA profiling. The investigating agency could also have adopted other forensic methods, including superimposition, if required. However, in the present case, no such examination was conducted. This lapse on the part of the investigating agency cannot be lightly ignored.

42. However, in any event, the worst that can be assumed in the absence of proper identification is that the dead body was not recovered at all. It is well settled that the failure to recover the corpus delicti will not invariably render the prosecution's case doubtful. In this regard, we are fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Rajak v. State of Bihar [(2019) 12 SCC 552]. Therefore, the non-conduct of DNA examination, by itself, is not a ground to discard the prosecution's case if there are other compelling circumstances and materials to prove the guilt of the accused.

43. The non-conduct of DNA examination in the present case can be treated only as a lapse in the investigation, particularly when it cannot be said that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the dead body. Notably, PW2, who identified the dead body, also identified the ornaments and dress materials found on it when he was confronted with them before the court, and they were marked as MO1 to MO8. We are not unmindful of the fact that the prosecution did not make an attempt to establish through PW2 that the ornaments found on the dead body were those that belonged to his granddaughter. However, when the ornaments and dress collected from the dead body of the deceased were shown to PW1, the grandmother of the deceased, she deposed that those ornaments and wearing apparel belonged to her granddaughter.

44. However, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kalinga @ Kushal v. State of Karnataka by Police Inspector, Hubli (2024 KHC Online 6082), the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the identification of the dead body solely on the strength of the ornaments found on it cannot be acted upon. We do agree that in the said case also, the prime question was regarding the identification of a dead body recovered from a well after twelve days

of the deceased going missing. However, the facts and circumstances relating to the recovery and identification of the dead body in that case were different from those in the present case. In paragraph 22 of the said judgment, it is stated as follows:

                  “22. Furthermore, we deem it appropriate to note that the identity of the dead body recovered from the well is also not beyond question. The Trial Court had also noted the doubts regarding the identity of the dead body, however, the identity of the deceased was held to be established in light of the fact that the identification was done by PW-1, father of the deceased. The Trial Court also relied upon the fact that the identification was not challenged by either side. Be that as it may, we consider it important to note that there exist serious doubts regarding the identity of the dead body recovered from the well. The description of the deceased given by PW-1 in his complaint Ext.P1 did not match with the description of the dead body. The clothes found on the dead body were substantially different from the clothes mentioned by PW-1 in his complaint. The presence of ornaments was not mentioned in the complaint. Furthermore, identification of the dead body by face was not possible as the body had started decomposing due to lapse of time. Admittedly, the dead body was recovered after 12 days of the incident from a well. Sensitive body parts were found bitten by aquatic animals inside the well. The theory of ornaments has already been held to be a figment of imagination by the Trial Court and the High Court in an unequivocal manner. Therefore, the prosecution case regarding the identity of the dead body is not free from doubts.”

45. A holistic reading of the above paragraph shows that, in that case, the trial court raised doubts regarding the identity of the dead body and acquitted the accused. Subsequently, the High Court interfered with the said order of acquittal. While considering the appeals against the judgment of conviction passed by the High Court, the Supreme Court found that serious doubts existed regarding the identity of the dead body recovered from the well. One of the main reasons that persuaded the Supreme Court to doubt the identity of the dead body was that the description of the deceased given by PW1 in his complaint did not match the description of the dead body. Likewise, the clothes found on the dead body were substantially different from those mentioned by PW1 in his complaint. Moreover, in the said judgment, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution’s case that the dead body was recovered on the strength of an extrajudicial confession made by the accused to PW1, the father of the deceased, was itself doubtful.

46. Notably, in the present case, no such suspicious circumstances exist. PW2, the grandfather of the deceased, categorically deposed that he identified the dead body as that of his granddaughter. Likewise, PW56, the Tahsildar who conducted the inquest, also deposed that PW2 identified the dead body as that of the deceased Meera at the time of the inquest. The above evidence of PW2 and the Tahsildar remains unchallenged in cross-examination. Moreover, at no stage of the trial the defence raise any serious challenge regarding the identity of the dead body, and even at the time when the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., no such challenge was raised.

47. Further, we find no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged evidence of PW1, the grandmother of the deceased, that the ornaments and dress found on the dead body belonged to her granddaughter. Significantly, PW1 and PW2 are none other than the parents of the second accused, and both of them apparently have no motive to falsely implicate their daughter in the murder case of their granddaughter. Even the accused have no case that PW1 and PW2 bore any grudge to falsely implicate the accused persons in a case of this nature. In Kalinga’s case cited above, the identification of the dead body was made by none other than the father of the deceased and not a relative of the accused. Likewise, in that case, the evidence of the father of the deceased was found by the Supreme Court to be riddled with contradictions, multiplicity of versions, and material improvements, which is why the Supreme Court doubted the recovery of the dead body as one effected on the strength of the disclosure statement given by the accused.

48. In the case at hand, we find no reason to doubt the identification of the dead body. The identification of the ornaments and dress found on the dead body by PW1 is capable of inspiring the confidence of the Court, particularly when the same was not challenged in cross-examination. Likewise, the recovery of the dead body pursuant to the disclosure statement given by the first accused lends further assurance to the prosecution's case that the body recovered from the well is that of the deceased, Meera.

49. In short, after careful consideration, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has successfully proven the accused guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The compelling circumstances meticulously examined above inexorably lead to the conclusion that it was the accused who murdered the deceased. Likewise, the circumstances presented in this case are incompatible with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

50. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the first accused, the conviction under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act was recorded against the first accused in the absence of a specific charge. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence to establish that the first accused had actual care, custody, or control over the minor victim. Therefore, the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 75 of the said Act are not made out against the first accused, and he is consequently entitled to an acquittal for the said offence.

51. Resultantly, we confirm the finding, conviction, and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in S.C. No. 1576/2019 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-VI, Thiruvananthapuram, in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, insofar as they relate to the second accused. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2026 stands dismissed.

                  Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2025, filed by the first accused, is allowed in part. The first accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act and is acquitted of the said offence. However, the findings, conviction, and sentence passed by the trial court against the first accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby confirmed.