Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.

1. The instant appeal is preferred challenging the judgment dated 18.01.2025 in S.C. No.1674 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Judge. In this appeal he assails the finding of guilt, conviction, and sentence.

2. Before dealing with the contentions advanced in this appeal, it would be apposite to narrate the brief facts:

3. Manu, aged 33 years, the son of Karthikeyan, was found lying unconscious by the side of the gate, with the bike he was riding on the side at about 9.15 p.m., on 06.12.2016. The parents of Manu and his wife (PW2) were the residents of the house. Hearing the sound of the bike falling down, the parents and wife got out and availed the services of a relative (PW5 - Chandrahasan) to rush him to the KTCT Hospital. The injured was referred to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, where he was declared “brought dead”. Everyone was under the impression that the injuries sustained by Manu were consequent to a motor traffic accident or a fall from the bike. PW1, the father of the deceased, rushed to the Police Station and lodged Ext.P1 statement based on which Ext.P17 FIR was registered as Crime No. 2580 of 2016 at 8 a.m. on 07.12.2016 by PW20, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Attingal Police Station under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C.

4. The Station House Officer, Attingal Police Station, took over the investigation of the case. He went to the Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, and conducted an inquest on the dead body and prepared Ext.P2 inquest report. The body was then handed over to the Forensic Surgeon for conducting the autopsy, which was conducted by PW19, the Professor and Police Surgeon on 07.12.2016. The Doctor noted an incised punctured wound 3x0.5x6cm horizontally on the left side of back of head behind the left attachment of the ear, , both ends of which were found to be sharply cut. The only other injury was a minor abrasion on the bridge of the nose. Based on inputs received from the Forensic Surgeon, Ext.P18 report was submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate seeking to delete Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and instead to incorporate Section 302 of the IPC. Ext.P19 report was also submitted requesting the Judicial Magistrate to call for the records from the Sub Divisional Magistrate. A corresponding application was also filed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.

5. While so, according to the prosecution, a report was forwarded to the Inspector of Police Attingal from the Inspector of Police, Kadakkavoor, wherein it was stated that while interrogating the accused in Crime No. 1607 of 2016 of the Kadakkavoor Police Station, after arresting him on 12.12.2016, the accused confessed to his role in the murder of Manu. According to the prosecution, the accused gave a disclosure statement to the officer that he would point out the place where the weapon of offence was disposed of and also the clothes that he had worn at the time of occurrence. The Inspector of Police, Kadakkavoor, forwarded the disclosure statement to the Inspector of Police, Attingal Police Station. On the basis of the said information, Ext.P27 address report disclosing the names and details of i) Manikandan, S/o. Neelakandan and ii) Ashok Kumar, S/o. Raveendran was forwarded to the learned Magistrate. On 13.12.2016, formal arrest of Ashok Kumar, the 2nd accused, was recorded. As the 1st accused was in judicial custody in connection with Crime No. 1607 of 2016 of the Kadakkavoor Police Station, an application was filed before the learned Magistrate for getting police custody.

6. On 20.12.2016, the police custody of the appellant was granted by the learned Magistrate and on the basis of the alleged disclosure statement given by the accused, MO8 knife was recovered from the banks of the pond Kambarakulam as per Ext.P11 seizure mahazar. On the next day, i.e., on 21.12.2016, based on the disclosure statement and as led by the accused, the police party went to his residential home and recovered the shirt and lunki allegedly worn by the accused at the time of occurrence and the container in which MO8 knife was kept on the strength of Ext.P6 seizure mahazar. In the meantime, Ext.P10 scene mahazar was prepared by the investigating officer. After completion of investigation, final report was laid before the jurisdictional court on 15.03.2017 for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

7. As per the charge, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased Manu, along with his parents and wife, were residing in House Bearing No. AMC XIII/45 of Attingal Municipality. His father-in-law, Rajan (PW3), was residing near to the house. On 20.11.2016, the accused, viz, Manikandan and Ashok Kumar, came to a banana plantation near to the house of Manu carrying a bottle of liquor for the purpose of consuming the same. Manu and his friend Jijin (CW9) questioned them. This led to an altercation. It is alleged that the appellant threatened that he would teach Manu a lesson. Keeping this enmity in mind, the accused are alleged to have conspired and in pursuance to the same, on 06.12.2016, at about 8.30 p.m., the appellant followed Manu while he was returning to his residence and hid himself near the compound wall. When Manu entered his house and attempted to park his bike, the appellant is alleged to have come from behind and inflicted a stab injury with MO8 knife on the back side of his left ear.

8. On submission of the final report before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Attingal, the case was committed to the Court of Session after complying with the formalities. The case was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge for Trial and Disposal. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302 and 34 of the IPC. Before the commencement of the trial, the 2nd accused passed away and the case against him stood abated. To the charges, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 23 were examined and Exts.P1 to P43 were marked. Material objects were produced and identified as MOs 1 to 16. On the side of the defence, case diary contradictions were marked as Exts.D1 to D5. The attested copy of the property register of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Attingal was marked as Ext.D6 on the side of the defence. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials arising from the prosecution evidence were put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code. He denied the allegations against him and stated that he was falsely included in this case. As the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter upon his defence. On his side, the Junior Superintendent attached to the JFMC-I, Attingal, was examined.

9. The learned Sessions Judge, after a detailed evaluation of the evidence on record, found the 1st accused guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Since there were no direct eyewitnesses to the occurrence, the finding of guilt rested on a chain of circumstances which, according to the court, pointed unerringly to the culpability of the accused. The Sessions Court found that the medical evidence revealed a deep incised punctured wound on the left side of the back of the head of the deceased. It was held that the evidence of PW19, the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, coupled with the scientific evidence on record, left no manner of doubt that the death was homicidal in nature. The learned Sessions Judge further relied upon the evidence of PW3 to conclude that the prosecution had successfully established the motive for the crime and the genesis of the hostility that ultimately culminated in the murder. The recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant was also treated as a significant circumstance connecting the accused with the commission of the offence. Another important circumstance relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge was the forensic evidence. The Forensic Science Laboratory report revealed that blood of the same group as that of the deceased was detected on MO8 knife as well as on MO15 shirt and MO16 lungi allegedly worn by the accused at the relevant time. The subsequent conduct of the accused was yet another incriminating circumstance taken into account by the court. The learned Sessions Judge noted that, in an attempt to secure funds for absconding, the accused had allegedly committed another offence involving the murder and robbery of an elderly woman named Sarada within days of Manu's death. On an overall appreciation of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge concluded that the prosecution had succeeded in establishing a complete chain of circumstances consistent only with the guilt of the accused and wholly inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence. The court found that the accused had intentionally inflicted an injury which was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death, thereby attracting clause "Thirdly" of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the 1st accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

10. Sri M.P. Madhavan Kutty, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following contentions

                  a) There is neither direct nor reliable circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the commission of the offence.

                  b) The prosecution witnesses are either friends or near relatives of the deceased and hence were interested witnesses whose testimonies suffered from material inconsistencies. Referring to the evidence of PW3, the learned counsel submitted that his version was riddled with material omissions and contradictions. It was pointed out that PW3 had not stated before the police that the friend of the deceased had frisked the accused during the alleged altercation. It was further contended that the deceased could not have been present at the place of occurrence during the alleged incident, as he was expected to attend a temple pooja scheduled at about 6.30 p.m. The learned counsel also argued that PW3 admittedly did not leave his shop and proceed to the plantain plantation where the altercation allegedly took place and, therefore, could not have personally witnessed the incident. It was further submitted that PW3 had not stated during the investigation that he was capable of identifying the accused by sight, thereby casting doubt on the reliability of his identification.

                  c) The learned counsel next challenged the fairness and propriety of the investigation conducted by PW21 and PW23. According to the learned counsel, several circumstances created a serious doubt regarding the manner in which the investigation was carried out. The delay in producing the seized articles before the court is a circumstance which would show the unfairness of the investigation and the manner in which evidence was manipulated. The learned counsel further contended that the officer who recorded the disclosure statement ought to have effected the consequential recovery and that the recovery having been effected by another officer rendered the procedure suspect. It was further contended that the scene mahazar (Ext.P10) did not mention the existence of an access way enabling a motorbike to enter the premises, nor did it indicate whether the house was electrified. According to the defence, these omissions cast doubt on the prosecution version regarding the manner in which the incident occurred.

                  d) It is submitted that a conscious effort was made by the learned Sessions Judge to place reliance on the invoices in respect of kitchen set gifts. It is submitted that the evidence was fabricated and the same was found to be so in the judgement rendered by this Court in Crl.A No.2330 of 2024. It is urged that the appellant was acquitted by this Court finding that the evidence with regard to the alleged purchase of the knife by the appellant could not be believed.

                  e) Placing reliance on the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Ram Singh v. Sonia & Ors, ( [AIR 2007 SC 1218]) it was urged by the learned counsel that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused.

11. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel. The following submissions were made:

                  a) The evidence tendered by PW3, who is none other than the father-in-law of the deceased, was convincing and credible. The same established that there was a previous altercation between the deceased and the appellant.

                  b) The medical and scientific evidence established beyond any semblance of doubt that it was a case of homicide and not a motor vehicle accident as was initially thought.

                  c) The recovery of the weapon based on the disclosure statement given by the appellant and the presence of blood on the same, established the culpability of the appellant beyond any doubt.

                  d) By examining the employees of QRS Home Appliances, it was established that MO8 knife was given as a gift to the appellant when he purchased a music system.

                  e) The presence of the same group of blood as the deceased in the clothes of the accused was yet another convincing circumstance to link the accused with the crime.

                  f) Just days after killing Manu, the accused murdered and robbed an elderly woman named Sarada to mobilize funds to abscond.

                  g) The entire aspect of the matter was considered by the learned Sessions Judge while arriving at the finding of guilt.

12. We have considered the submissions advanced. The first issue that needs a determination is whether the death of Manu was a case of homicide. PW19 is the Police Surgeon who conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased Manu and issued Ext.P16 Postmortem certificate. She noticed two ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. Injury No.1 was the fatal injury. It was an incised punctured wound 3X0.5X6cm horizontal on the left side of the back of head, its outer end was 4 cm behind the lower attachment of ear with both ends were sharply cut. The spinal canal was found punctured by cutting the ligaments of atlanto-occipital joint. Duramatter and spinal cord underneath was found cleanly cut. The wound was directed forward, downwards and to the right. The brain showed subarachnoid bleeding over both temporal and right parietal and occipital lobes and over cerebellum and there were flattening of gyri and narrowing of sulci. The second injury noted was a minor abrasion of no significance. In her evidence, the doctor stated that injury No.1, which cut the spinal cord and respiratory centre was the cause of the death. She also opined that injury No.1 could be possible by the use of MO8 weapon. The doctor stated that she went to the scene of crime to ascertain whether the injury found on the body of the deceased could be caused by a fall from the bike. More pertinently, it was stated that as a result and consequence of injury No.1, the vertebral artery was cut and that blood would pump out like an arc. She further testified that injury No.1 is independent and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. She stated that death would be instantaneous since the injured part of the spinal cord contains the respiratory center.

13. PW18 is the Scientific Assistant attached to District Crime Records Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram. As requested by the Investigating Officer, he inspected the scene of occurrence and he collected the blood stains in MO10 to MO13 cotton gauze. PW18 stated that he noticed blood stains on the wall of the aforesaid residential house. According to him, the pattern of blood stains found on the wall adjacent to the place where the bike was found lying is forensically called an ‘Arterial Spurt’. When deep injuries are inflicted by sharp weapons the arteries spurt out blood under considerable pressure and the same will be projected to the nearby surfaces as has been seen in the instant case.

14. Serious arguments were not advanced on the findings of the doctor who conducted the autopsy nor was a contention taken that the cause of death was consequent to a motor traffic accident as was initially thought. Having regard to the evidence tendered by PW’s 19 and 18, it can be held without any semblance of doubt that the death of Manu was homicidal.

15. Before dealing with the evidence, it would be proper to understand the settled principles of law relating to circumstantial evidence. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] , the conditions that are to be satisfied before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence have been succinctly laid down. They are:

                  (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established;

                  (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.

16. It is also trite that for a crime to be proved, there is no requirement that the fact shall be proven by direct ocular evidence. The offence can be proved by circumstantial evidence also. The principal fact or “factum probandum” may be proved indirectly by means of certain inferences drawn from “factum probans”, that is, the evidentiary facts. To put it differently, circumstantial evidence is not direct to the point in issue but consists of evidence of various other facts which are so closely associated with the fact in issue that taken together they form a chain of circumstances from which the existence of the principal fact can be legally inferred or presumed. (See "Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), Hanumant v. State Of M.P. ([AIR 1952 SC 343]) , Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P ( [1989 Supp (2) SCC 706)).)

17. In State Of U.P v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava ((1992) 2 SCC 86) , it was held that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. The Court further held that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

18. In the light of the principles above, we shall deal with the evidence let in by the prosecution.

19. PW1 is the father of the deceased, Manu. He stated that at about 9.30 p.m. on the date of the occurrence, while he, his wife, and his daughter-in-law (PW2) were inside the house, they heard a sound from outside. They rushed out to enquire and found Manu lying unconscious by the side of his motorcycle just near the boundary wall. Since Manu was profusely bleeding, he along with PW2 shifted Manu to the verandah of the house. He then informed his brother-in-law, Chandrahasan (PW5), about the incident over the telephone. PW5 reached the spot and took Manu to KTCT Hospital, Chathanpara from where the injured was referred to the Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. However, after examining the injured, the doctors at the Medical College Hospital declared Manu dead. He stated that he furnished an FI Statement and identified his signature in Ext.P1. He went on to depose that a few days prior to the incident, the accused Manikandan and his friend picked up a quarrel outside the shop of his brother-in-law Rajan. It was after two weeks of the said incident, that Manu was found injured outside his house. He added that Rajan’s shop was situated near to his house. He identified the accused who was standing in the dock. In cross-examination, certain omissions from his previous statement were brought out by the defence. It was brought out that he had not stated to the police that Rajan’s shop was situated near to his house or that an incident involving the deceased and the accused had taken place outside the shop two weeks prior to the incident. He denied that his son was an alcoholic. According to him, his statement was recorded by the police on more than one occasion.

20. PW2 is the wife of the deceased. She stated that at about 9:30 p.m., she heard the sound of a motorcycle approaching, followed immediately by the sound of it falling to the ground. She along with PW1 went out and found Manu lying on the ground. They lifted Manu and laid him on the Verandah. They immediately called his relatives. Manu was taken in her father’s car to the KTCT Hospital and from there to the Medical College Hospital. She stated that the police had shown her the accused. She identified the clothes worn by Manu at the time of incident. In Cross-examination, she stated that she was questioned on 07.12.2016, and then on 09.12.2016. Certain minor omissions were brought out during cross-examination. Ext.D1 contradiction was brought out by the defence.

21. PW3 stated that PW2 is his daughter and the deceased is his son-in-law. He stated that on 6.12.2016, he heard cries from the house of Manu. When he went there, he found that Manu was lying on the courtyard of the house and he was bleeding from the head. The people who had assembled, took Manu to the hospital. At midnight, he was informed about the death of Manu. He stated that he was told later that somebody had inflicted a stab injury on the back of his head. He was informed that the accused who was standing in the dock had inflicted the injury. According to him, about 10-20 days prior to the incident, the accused came to his shop and purchased mango juice and soda. At that time, Manu and his friend, Pakkuvetty, were there in his shop. Manu took a cigarette and went down to the road. There is a “Pana” (grove) near his shop and there are trees there. People used to go there to consume alcohol. The accused went to the Pana. Manu and his friend also went to the same place. Thereafter, there arose an altercation between Manu and Pakkuvetty as Manu felt that they had come there to consume alcohol. Pakkuvetty searched the body of the accused to ascertain whether he had concealed alcohol. He stated that he had stated all these aspects to the police. In his cross-examination, he stated that the police had questioned him three days after the incident. He stated that he was aware of all these aspects when he had initially given the 161 Statement to the police. According to him, the distance from his shop to the Pana is about 10 metres. He stated that Manu had taken the cigarette from his shop without informing him. He stated that in the earlier statement furnished to the police he had not stated that Pakkuvetty had searched the body of the accused. He stated that he had not mentioned to the police that he would be in a position to identify the accused if he were to see them later. He denied that he had stated to the police that he had opened the shop only at 4 p.m. as the temple festival was going on at the Endalayappan Temple. This portion was marked as D3. He stated that when he had given his statement to the Police he had not mentioned that the accused and the deceased had exchanged threats.

22. PW4 is the Ward Member of Attingal Municipality and an attesting witness to Ext.P2 inquest report.

23. PW5 is the brother-in-law of PW1 and one of the maternal uncles of Manu. He stated that he resides in close proximity to Manu's residence. He stated that he received a telephone call from Manu’s house and reached there immediately. He transported the injured Manu in his car to KTCT Hospital, Kaduvappalli. Thereafter, Manu was shifted to the Medical College Hospital in an ambulance. PW5 testified that he noticed blood oozing from the back of Manu's head. He stated that to his knowledge Manu had no enemies.

24. PW6 was running a hollow-brick manufacturing unit near the residence of the deceased. He was cited by the prosecution to establish that he had seen a person passing near his establishment shortly after the occurrence. He deposed that he usually closed his establishment at about 9.00 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. and thereafter proceeded home through the road in front of Manu's residence. On the date of the incident, he noticed several persons gathered at Manu's residence and, upon enquiry, learned that Manu had sustained injuries and had been taken to the hospital. He further stated that at about 9.30 p.m. he had seen a person walking hurriedly along the public road. He stated that he was not in a position to identify the individual.

25. PW7 was a salesman employed at QRS Home Appliances, Attingal. According to the prosecution, prior to the occurrence, the first accused had purchased a music system from the said establishment and had received, as a promotional gift, a kitchen set containing, among other items, a knife. PW7 deposed that the music system was purchased in the year 2016. He further stated that the police had later visited the shop along with the accused. He identified MO8 as the knife forming part of the kitchen set that had been supplied to the accused. When Ext.P3, the copy of the invoice issued in the name of the accused, was shown to him, he identified the same. He also stated that the printout contained the name of the accused. The computer-generated copy of the invoice was marked as Ext.P4.

26. In cross-examination, PW7 admitted that the very same promotional gift had been distributed to not less than 100 customers. He further stated that he had no acquaintance with the accused either prior to or subsequent to the purchase. According to him, the promotional gift was handed over on the very same day on which the music system was purchased. However, his attention was drawn to his previous statement before the police, wherein he had stated that the gift had been handed over a week later. It was also elicited that MO8 did not possess any distinctive or identifying feature which would enable him to identify if it were placed among similar knives.

27. It is pertinent to note, at this juncture, that Ext.P3 is a computer-generated printout of an invoice dated 13.09.2016, generated from the computer system maintained by QRS Retail Ltd. The said document was seized by the Investigating Officer under Ext.P7 mahazar dated 22.12.2016. Ext.P4 is a two-page computer-generated printout containing the names of individuals to whom the promotional gift sets had been distributed. This document was also seized under Ext.P7 mahazar. Since Exts.P3 and P4 are electronic records generated from a computer maintained by QRS Retail Ltd. on the request of the police, their admissibility into evidence is governed by Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Compliance with the requirements of Section 65B, including the production of the requisite certificate by the person competent to issue the same, was therefore mandatory. A perusal of the records, however, reveals that neither Ext.P3 nor Ext.P4 is accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of the certificate contemplated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the admissibility of Exts.P3 and P4 is rendered doubtful.

28. PW8 was the Manager of QRS Home Appliances. He stated that he had handed over the Ext.P3 invoice and Ext.P4 printout to the investigating officer. He identified MO8 knife and MO9 kitchen set.

29. PW9 was examined to prove that, on the date of the occurrence, he had seen Manu proceeding home on his motorcycle and that the first accused was following him. However, he did not support the prosecution case. He denied having seen either Manu or the accused on the relevant date.

30. PW10 is an attesting witness to Ext.P6 recovery mahazar. The prosecution case is that, based on the disclosure statement made by the first accused, the investigating officer proceeded to the accused's residence on 21.12.2016 and recovered the clothes allegedly worn by him at the time of the occurrence as well as the kitchen set kept there. These articles were seized under Ext.P6 mahazar. PW10, however, did not support the prosecution case. He denied witnessing any seizure from the residence of the first accused or seeing the investigating officer taking the accused to his residence. Nevertheless, he admitted having witnessed the recovery of a knife from the vicinity of a pond known as Kambarakulam at the instance of the first accused. He stated that the knife was a small one and if the same is shown to him, he will be in a position to identify the same. He stated that the mahazar was signed by him at the police station. When MO8 knife was shown to him, he stated that the said knife was not the one recovered by the police.

31. PW11 was examined to prove that he had occasion to see the first and second accused. He deposed that approximately one week prior to Manu's death, while proceeding for fishing along with a friend, he saw both accused persons together at a rocky area known as Vellaramkunnupara. On their return journey, they again saw the accused at the same location.

32. PW12 is an attesting witness to Ext.P7 mahazar, under which Ext.P3 invoice and Ext.P4 gift voucher were seized.

33. PW13 is an attesting witness to Ext.P8 mahazar, under which Ext.P9 photograph of the deceased Manu was seized.

34. PW14 is an attesting witness to Ext.P10 scene mahazar. His evidence reveals that on 07.12.2016, following Manu's death, police officers and a scientific assistant visited the residence of the deceased and seized blood-stained soil, a bath towel, a pillow, and a pair of chappals from the scene of occurrence. These articles were seized under Ext.P10 mahazar dated 7.12.2016.

35. PW15 is an attesting witness to Ext.P11 recovery mahazar relating to the recovery of the weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence. According to him, the investigating officer, acting on the disclosure statement made by the first accused, proceeded to a pond known as Kambarakulam. The accused led the police party to the location, retrieved a knife concealed among the bushes, and handed it over to the investigating officer. MO8 is the knife so recovered and seized under Ext.P11 mahazar.

36. PW16 is the Village Officer who prepared Ext.P12 scene plan and issued Ext.P13 possession certificate in respect of the property on which the residence of PW1 is situated.

37. PW17 is the Municipal Secretary of Attingal Municipality. He issued Ext.P14 ownership certificate in respect of the residential building where the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. This would show that the property stands jointly in the names of PW1 and his wife.

38. PW18 is the Scientific Assistant attached to the District Crime Records Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram. He inspected the scene of occurrence on 17/12/2016 and collected bloodstains using MO10 to MO13 cotton gauze. He noticed bloodstains on the wall of the residential building and observed a distinct bloodstain pattern known as an "arterial spurt" on the wall near the spot where the motorcycle was found lying. PW18 explained that an arterial spurt occurs when a major artery is severed by a sharp-edged weapon. In such cases, blood is projected with considerable force onto nearby surfaces, creating a characteristic arc-shaped pattern. According to him, the bloodstain pattern observed at the scene was consistent with such an arterial spurt, indicating the infliction of a deep injury by a sharp weapon.

39. PW20 was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Attingal. On 07.12.2016, at about 8.00 a.m., PW1 appeared before him and furnished Ext.P1 First Information Statement. Based on the said statement, PW20 registered the crime and prepared Ext.P17 First Information Report. Omissions in the statements of the First informant were brought out during cross-examination.

40. PW21 was the Sub Inspector of Police, Attingal, who took over the investigation immediately after the registration of the crime. He conducted the inquest over the body of Manu and thereafter proceeded to the scene of occurrence along with PW18. PW21 prepared Ext.P10 scene mahazar. Subsequently, he forwarded Ext.P18 report to the jurisdictional Court, incorporating the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, the case had been registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as one involving an unnatural death, and the First Information Report had accordingly been forwarded to the Sub Divisional Magistrate. After coming to the conclusion that the case was one of homicide, the offence under Section 302 IPC was incorporated. Thereafter, a request was filed by PW21 seeking transfer of the FIR from the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Attingal. The body of Manu was handed over for the conduct of a post-mortem examination. Considering the gravity of the offence, PW21 handed over further investigation to PW23, the Circle Inspector of Police.

41. PW22 was the Circle Inspector of Police, Kadakkavoor, and the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 1607 of 2016 of Kadakkavoor Police Station. Ext.P25 is the First Information Report in the said crime. On 12.12.2016, PW22 arrested the first accused in connection with that crime. During interrogation, the first accused is stated to have disclosed his involvement in the present offence as well. PW22 recorded Ext.P26 statement of the accused, which contained his disclosure regarding certain material objects. Thereafter, PW22 forwarded Ext.P26 statement dated 13.12.2016, along with a copy of Ext.P25 FIR, to PW23. In cross-examination, PW22 was asked whether the accused was arrested on 11.12.2016, to which he responded that he would be able to answer only after seeing the records. It was brought out that the disclosure leading to the recording of Ext.P26 was made on 13.12.2016. He stated that though an attempt was made to recover the weapon as per the disclosure, he was not successful. It was brought out that Ext.P26 is a printed document and its print out was generated using a computer. He stated that though Attingal Police Station is just 6 km away from the Kadakkavoor Police Station, Ext.P26 was sent by ordinary post.

42. PW23 was the Circle Inspector of Police, Attingal, and the Investigating Officer in the present case. He stated that he took over the investigation and then questioned the witnesses. On 13.12.2016, the 2nd accused in the crime was arrested. Ext.P27 report was then sent to the court adding Section 120B and 34 of the IPC. A formal request was made before the Learned Magistrate, Attingal on 15.12.2016 and custody was granted from 20.12.2016 to 23.12.2016. On the basis of the disclosure statement given by the accused, the shirt, lungi and the cover in which MO8 is kept was seized from the residential home of the accused. He further stated that on the basis of the disclosure statement given by the accused, MO8 knife was seized as per Ext.P11 mahazar. The relevant portion of the disclosure is Ext.P11 (a). Ext.P3 invoice and Ext.P4 computer printout containing the names of individuals who had received the gift from QRS were seized from the shop. He stated that MO8 was kept by him in safe custody and seeking sanction from the Court, Ext.P35 report was submitted. He stated that the seized items were sent to the Forensic Lab and Ext.P43 report reveals that the seized items showed the presence of blood on them. Presence of blood was detected in MO15 Kaily, MO16 Shirt and MO8 knife.

43. We have narrated in detail the sequence of events and the evidence let in by the prosecution to connect the appellant with the murder of Manu. As there were no direct eye witnesses to the incident, the learned Sessions Judge relied on a chain of circumstantial evidence to arrive at a finding of guilt.

44. We shall narrate the circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions Judge:

                  a) The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence let in by PW3, the father-in-law of Manu concluded that approximately 10 to 20 days prior to the murder, there was an altercation between the accused and Manu and that the accused had ample motive and hostility to such an extent as to put an end to the life of Manu.

                  b) Homicidal Nature of Death, as is revealed from the evidence of PW19.

                  c) The learned Sessions Judge held that the prosecution had clearly established that the accused had purchased a music system from a home appliance shop and received a kitchen set (MO9) containing a specific steel knife (MO8) as a gift. To hold so, the learned Sessions Judge relied on the evidence of PW7 and PW8 and Exts.P3 and P4 in arriving at that conclusion.

                  d) The recovery, on the basis of the disclosure statement given by the accused, of the shirt and kaily allegedly worn at the time of occurrence, together with the knife cover and MO8 knife, were taken as yet another strong circumstance to connect the accused with the crime.

                  e) Ext.P43 report from the Forensic Science Laboratory confirmed that the blood found on the recovered knife and the accused’s clothing matched the 'A+' blood group of the victim. Non furnishing of a proper explanation was taken as an additional circumstance linking the accused with the crime.

                  f) The learned Sessions Judge believed the version of the prosecution that the accused had committed another murder after the present incident for the purpose of mobilizing money to facilitate his abscondance. This was taken as yet another circumstance linking the accused with the crime.

45. Insofar as circumstance No.(b) is concerned, we have also held that the evidence let in by the prosecution has established that the death of Manu was homicidal. The only question is whether the authorship of the murder can be placed on the appellant.

46. Before we deal with the other circumstances, it would be profitable to have an idea of the chronology of the events.

47. If the prosecution version is believed it was on 13.09.2016, that the appellant had purchased a music system from QRS and obtained a gift set which contained MO8 knife. The alleged altercation between Manu and the accused is alleged to have occurred at about 5.45 pm on 20.11.2016 as spoken to by PW3 Rajan. This incident, according to the prosecution, established the motive for the crime. It was on 6.12.2016 that the appellant is alleged to have followed Manu to his residence and hid himself near the compound wall and when Manu attempted to park his motorbike, the accused inflicted a fatal, 6cm-deep stab wound behind Manu's left ear with the MO8 knife. It was at 8 am on 7.12.2016 that on the basis of Ext.P1 First Information Statement, Ext.P17 FIR was registered by PW20 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. under the caption "unnatural death". The prosecution alleges that on 09.12.2016 the 1st accused allegedly committed the murder of a lady named Sarada within the limits of Kadakkavoor Police Station purportedly to mobilize funds for absconding. On 12.12.2016, the 1st accused was arrested by Kadakkavoor police (PW22) in connection with the second murder. On 13.12.2016, during interrogation for the second crime, the accused allegedly made a disclosure statement (Ext.P26) admitting his involvement in Manu's murder. It was on 14.12.2016 that PW23 had recorded the formal arrest of the 1st accused in the instant case. After obtaining police custody, and on the basis of the disclosure statement given by the appellant, PW23 recovered the weapon of offence (MO8 knife) from bushes near the Kambarakkulam pond. It was on 21.12.2016 that on the basis of another disclosure statement, the police seized MO15 lungi and MO16 shirt and the remainder of the kitchen set (MO9) from the residence of the accused.

48. We shall now consider the circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions Judge. A careful scrutiny of the records reveals that, immediately after the incident on 06.12.2016, no one had any idea as to the identity of the assailant. On the contrary, the materials on record indicate that everyone initially believed the incident to be a motor vehicle accident. It was only after the post-mortem examination that the true nature of the injuries became apparent, revealing that the injury sustained by Manu could not possibly have been caused in a motor vehicle accident but was unmistakably a stab injury.

49. We find that the report adding Section 302 of the IPC and for deleting Section 174 Cr.P.C. reached the learned Magistrate only on 13.12.2016 as is evident from the endorsement in Ext.P19. This date is pertinent because the alleged confession given by the appellant before PW22, the Inspector of Police Kadakkavoor also was on 13.12.2016. PW22 has stated that the appellant was arrested in Crime No.1607/2016 in connection with the murder of one Sarada on 12.12.2016. Thus, until the alleged confession was made before the police officer, the involvement of the appellant in the present crime had not surfaced. Furthermore, the alleged confession did not itself lead to the recovery of any incriminating material.

50. The evidence of PW23 shows that he reached the scene immediately after registration of the crime, prepared the scene mahazar, and examined the available witnesses. From the case records we find that multiple statements of PW3 were recorded by PW23. In the first statement which was recorded on 9.12.2016, PW3 does not mention about the altercation between Manu and the appellant which is alleged to have taken place on 20.11.2016. An additional statement of PW3 was recorded by the investigating officer where he mentions the altercation which took place more than two weeks back. It has come out that Rajan (PW3) has no previous acquaintance with the appellant. During cross examination, it was brought out that he had further embellished his version in court and added that the friend of Manu had searched the accused which led to exchange of words. PW3 is the father-in-law of the deceased. While that circumstance, by itself, is not sufficient to discard his testimony, the possibility of embellishment with a view to ensuring the conviction of the alleged assailant cannot altogether be ignored.

51. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of the Apex Court in its celebrated judgment in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras ( [1957 SCR 981]) . It was held as under:

                  “11. … Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:

                  (1) Wholly reliable.

                  (2) Wholly unreliable.

                  (3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

                  12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way — it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.”

52. Having carefully evaluated the testimony of PW3, we are of the considered view that his evidence falls within the third category identified in Vadivelu Thevar (supra). There are, undoubtedly, situations where only a solitary witness is available to prove a disputed fact, and the present case is one such instance. However, once a witness falls within the category of being neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court is duty-bound to seek corroboration in material particulars from independent and reliable evidence before acting upon such testimony.

53. The witness who would have been able to provide a credible version of what had transpired on 20.11.2016 is Jijin @ Pakkuvetty. If the version of PW3 is to be believed, he was with Manu, and it was Jijin who had searched the body of the accused, leading to the altercation. Though Jijin was cited as CW9 in the final report, he was not examined. In Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing [(2001) 6 SCC 145], the Apex Court has observed as under:

                  19 ”…[I]t is true that if a material witness, who would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness who though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been examined it would not have supported the prosecution case. On the other hand if already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced, non-examination of such other witnesses may not be material. In such a case the court ought to scrutinise the worth of the evidence adduced. The court of facts must ask itself — whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such other witness, and if so, whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the court. If the answer is positive then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may arise. If the witnesses already examined are reliable and the testimony coming from their mouth is unimpeachable the court can safely act upon it, uninfluenced by the factum of non-examination of other witnesses.”

54. We have already held that the testimony of PW3 does not inspire our confidence. In that backdrop, the non-examination of Jijin, who was undoubtedly the most material witness to the alleged altercation, assumes considerable significance and adversely affects the prosecution case. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding a witness who alone could have convincingly established the genesis of the alleged motive. In that view of the matter, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish that any altercation took place on 20.11.2016, or that the appellant harboured such animosity towards Manu to such an extent as to enter into a conspiracy with the second accused to commit the murder.

55. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the alleged purchase of a music system from QRS Retail by the appellant. The specific case of the prosecution was that MO8 knife formed part of the promotional gift set handed over at the time of the purchase of a music system. To establish this circumstance, the prosecution examined PW7, a salesman employed at QRS Home Appliances, Attingal. PW7 deposed that the appellant had visited the shop, purchased a music system and, pursuant to the promotional scheme then in force, was given a kitchen set containing, among other things, MO8 knife. Through PW7, the prosecution produced Ext.P3, a computer-generated retail invoice dated 13.09.2016, and Ext.P4, a two-page computer-generated printout containing the names of customers to whom the promotional gift sets had allegedly been distributed. These documents were not contemporaneously prepared during the investigation. On the other hand, they are electronic records generated from the computer system maintained by QRS Retail Ltd. at the request of PW23, several months after the alleged transaction and after the commencement of the investigation.

56. It is now well settled that electronic records stand on a distinct footing from conventional documentary evidence. Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act recognises electronic records as documentary evidence, while Section 2(1)(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 defines an "electronic record" to include data, record or data generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form. The admissibility of such electronic records is governed exclusively by Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 65A provides that the contents of electronic records may be admitted as evidence if the criteria provided in Section 65B is complied with. The computer-generated electronic records in evidence are admissible at a trial if proved in the manner specified by Section 65-B of the Evidence Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 65B makes it admissible as a document, paper printout of an electronic record stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 65B. Section 65B(4) mandates that where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of Section 65B, the electronic record must be accompanied by a certificate identifying the electronic record, describing the manner in which it was produced, furnishing the particulars of the device involved in its production, and certifying that the conditions prescribed under Section 65B have been duly complied with.

57. In Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal ( [(2020) 7 SCC 1]) , the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court authoritatively held that the certificate contemplated under Section 65B(4) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of secondary electronic evidence. The Hon’ble Court categorically held that oral evidence cannot be permitted to substitute the statutory certificate and that the mandatory requirement under Section 65B cannot be diluted on considerations of convenience or necessity.

58. What is most pertinent is that in the present case, the prosecution was well aware of this legal requirement. While producing the Call Detail Records relied upon to establish telephonic communication between the appellant and the second accused, the investigating agency ensured that the electronic records were accompanied by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Ext.P39 is the Section 65B certificate relating to the call data records marked as Ext.P38 and issued by Idea Cellular. For reasons best known, the very same procedure was not followed while producing Exts.P3 and P4, though they are also electronic records generated from the computer system maintained by QRS Retail Ltd. Neither Ext.P3 nor Ext.P4 is accompanied by the certificate mandated under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of the mandatory certificate, PW7's oral testimony cannot advance the prosecution case and make the electronic printouts admissible. Consequently, we hold that Exts. P3 and P4 are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon to establish either the alleged purchase of the music system or the prosecution case that MO8 knife formed part of the promotional gift said to have been issued to the appellant.

59. The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of MO8 knife and the clothes allegedly worn by the appellant at the time of the occurrence, pursuant to his disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. This, coupled with the detection of human blood in the clothes and the knife by the scientific assistant attached to the Forensic Science Laboratory, was taken as a formidable link to connect the appellant with the murder.

60. The records reveal that the formal arrest of the appellant in the present case was effected on 14.12.2016. An application seeking police custody was filed on 15.12.2016, and it was only on 20.12.2016 that police custody was granted. On the basis of the disclosure statement allegedly made by the appellant and as led by him, the investigating officer reached Kambarakkulam and recovered MO8 knife from beneath shrubs on the bank of the pond under Ext.P11 recovery mahazar. On the next day, i.e., on 21.12.2016, on the strength of another disclosure statement allegedly made by the appellant, the investigating officer proceeded to the residence of the appellant and recovered MO15 lungi and MO16 shirt, which were stated to have been hanging on a clothesline inside the appellant's bedroom. A kitchen set (MO9) was also recovered from underneath the bed. Ext.P6 recovery mahazar specifically records that both the shirt and the lungi contained dried blood stains.

61. Ext.P36 is the property list (T-19/17) relating to MO8 knife. Though it bears the date 20.12.2016, the endorsement thereon reveals that it reached the jurisdictional court only on 20.01.2017. Ext.P37 is the property list (T-20/17) relating to MOs 9, 15 and 16. This document reached the jurisdictional Magistrate only on 20.01.2017. Ext.P42 is the forwarding note issued by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Attingal, under which MO8 knife, MO15 lungi, MO16 shirt and the cotton gauzes containing the sample blood were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Ext.P43 is the report forwarded by the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, enclosing the report prepared by the Scientific Officer (Biology) dated 07.02.2018. The report further reveals that the material objects were forwarded to the Laboratory by the court only on 01.03.2017. In this context, it is relevant to note that PW23 had filed Ext.P35 report before the learned Magistrate seeking permission to retain custody of MO8 knife so as to enable him to show it to witnesses, including the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination. The endorsement on Ext.P35 shows that the said report itself reached the jurisdictional court only on 07.01.2017.

62. The above chronology discloses several glaring discrepancies which, in our considered opinion, strike at the very credibility of the prosecution case. As noticed earlier, the occurrence took place on 06.12.2016. According to the prosecution, information regarding the involvement of the appellant surfaced only through the disclosure allegedly made by him before PW22 on 13.12.2016. Though the appellant was formally arrested on the following day, police custody was obtained only on 20.12.2016 and 21.12.2016, leading to the alleged recoveries. PW22 stated that an attempt to effect recovery was made, but it was not successful. Even more difficult to accept is the prosecution case that, nearly fifteen days after the occurrence, the appellant had retained the very clothes allegedly worn during the commission of the offence, bearing visible dried blood stains, hanging on a clothesline inside his bedroom. According to the prosecution itself, the appellant had been arrested in another murder case on 12.12.2016, almost six days after the alleged commission of the present offence. It defies ordinary human conduct and probabilities to believe that a person who had allegedly committed a brutal murder would preserve bloodstained clothes in such an open and conspicuous manner, making them readily available for seizure by the investigating agency. Equally disturbing is the unexplained delay in producing the recovered material objects before the jurisdictional court. It is trite that the sanctity of the chain of custody assumes great significance where reliance is sought to be placed on scientific evidence. Prompt production of recovered articles before the Magistrate is one of the safeguards against the possibility of tampering, substitution or manipulation. In the present case, although MO8 knife was allegedly recovered on 20.12.2016 and the clothes on 21.12.2016, both the property lists reached the jurisdictional Magistrate only on 20.01.2017, nearly one month later. The prosecution has offered no satisfactory explanation whatsoever for this substantial delay. The significance of this omission is further compounded by Exhibit P35, wherein the investigating officer sought permission to retain custody of MO8 knife. Significantly, even this report reached the court only on 07.01.2017, thereby indicating that the alleged weapon continued to remain in the custody of the investigating officer for a considerable period after its recovery without the permission from the learned Magistrate. The evidentiary value of a forensic report is inseparably linked with the integrity of the chain of custody. Unless the prosecution satisfactorily establishes that the seized articles remained in safe, sealed and untampered custody from the moment of seizure until their examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory, the scientific opinion rendered on such articles cannot be accorded much evidentiary value. In the peculiar facts of the present case, the prolonged and wholly unexplained custody of the alleged weapon and the clothes with the investigating officer lends considerable force to the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the possibility of manipulation or contamination cannot be completely ruled out. Consequently, the prosecution cannot derive any substantial advantage merely because Exhibit P43 Forensic Science Laboratory Report records that the blood detected on MO8 knife and the clothes was of the same group as that of the deceased.

63. The final circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that, after committing the murder of Manu, the appellant allegedly committed yet another murder with the object of mobilising funds so as to abscond. We find that the appellant had challenged the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in the said case by filing Criminal Appeal No. 2330 of 2024 before this Court. By judgment dated 26.06.2025, this Court acquitted the appellant of all the charges. Consequently, the very foundation of the prosecution's reliance on the subsequent crime as an incriminating circumstance no longer survives.

64. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the quality of the prosecution evidence is wholly insufficient to establish any of the circumstances relied upon by it. None of the six circumstances has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, there is no question of treating them as links forming a complete and unbroken chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the appellant and ruling out every hypothesis consistent with his innocence. It is trite that suspicion, however grave, can never take the place of legal proof. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that the conviction of the appellant rests on wholly insufficient and unreliable evidence and cannot be sustained under law.

Resultantly, this appeal will stand allowed. The finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed against the appellant, in S.C. No. 1674 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Thiruvananthapuram, is set aside. The appellant/1st accused be set at liberty forthwith if his continued incarceration is not required in connection with any other case.