1. This appeal is preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No.828/2015 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kollam. The appellant stood for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted and sentenced him in the following manner:

                  i. Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 302 IPC with a default clause.

                  ii. Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 201 IPC with a default clause.

The Prosecution case

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased (Mini) resided along with the accused, Vijayarajan, from 01.04.2014. While so, on 09.12.2014 at about 10.30 p.m., at the courtyard of the house bearing No.VII/300 of Kundara Panchayath, where they resided together, the appellant committed the murder of Mini by catching hold of her neck, pushing her down. The prosecution further alleges that the accused kicked her multiple times in the stomach and stamped on her, causing her death. It is also alleged that the accused dragged Mini's dead body to the eastern side of their house and disposed of it inside the septic tank to conceal evidence.

Registration of crime and the investigation.

4. PW22 (P.J. Habeeb Ahammed), Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Kundara registered Ext.P18 FIR on the basis of Ext.P17 FIS lodged by the accused himself. PW23 (N. Suneesh), the Sub Inspector of Police, Kundara conducted the initial part of the investigation. On 14.12.2014, PW23 recorded the statement of CW4. On 15.12.2014, the accused, Vijayarajan, contacted him from his mobile No. 8606132101 to the official number of PW23 - 9497980193 – and made a self-introduction. Thereafter, the accused told him ‘don’t enquire about Mini. She was murdered and the body was dumped in the septic tank.’

5. Thereafter, PW23 (N. Suneesh), along with the police party proceeded to the scene of occurrence, inspected the septic tank and found the dead body of the deceased Mini. Further investigation of the case was conducted by PW24 (J. Umesh Kumar), the Circle Inspector of Police. As directed by PW24 (J. Umesh Kumar), PW23(N. Suneesh) detected the accused on the basis of tower location on 16.12.2014 from Kollam. PW23 (N. Suneesh) handed over the accused to the Circle Inspector at about 2 p.m. in Kundara Police Station.

6. On 16.12.2014, PW24 (J. Umesh Kumar), along with his party, visited the scene of the occurrence. PW19 (R. Vijayakumar) conducted the inquest and prepared Ext.P1, the inquest report. At that time, PW16 (Gopika G.R.) Scientific Assistant was also present. Subsequently, PW24 prepared Ext.P13, scene mahazar, as shown by the accused. The samples collected by PW16 (Gopika G.R.) were seized in accordance with the seizure mahazar. Thereafter, the body was forwarded to Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram for postmortem examination. The teeth and bone marrow collected by PW14 (Dr. Saritha S. R) were seized as per Ext. P3 mahazar. The accused was arrested on 16.12.2014 at 3 p.m., after the preparation of Ext. P19 series documents, including the arrest memo, custody memo, and inspection memo.

7. At about 3.10 p.m. PW24 (J. Umesh Kumar) seized a mobile phone and some letters from the pocket of the shirt of the accused through Ext.P2 mahazar. He identified the letters seized as Ext.P20 series (Two in numbers). He has also seized MO-1 gandas worn by the accused. Thereafter, he submitted Ext.P21 report before the Jurisdictional Court incorporating Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.

8. Thereafter, PW24 (J. Umesh Kumar) recorded the confession statement of the accused. On the basis of the confession statement of the accused and as led by him, PW24 (J. Umesh Kumar) proceeded to the Vishnu Bhavan where the accused allegedly resided along with the deceased and seized MO-8 series wooden logs (two in numbers). He has also seized the dresses (MO-10 series) worn by the accused kept in a bucket beneath the tap on the northern side of his house through Ext.P14 recovery mahazar.

9. He identified the lever used for lifting the slab of the septic tank as MO-7. Thereafter, the accused was produced before a doctor for a medical examination. The blood samples, nail clippings, scalp hair, etc., collected by the doctor were seized as per Ext.P4 seizure mahazar. He forwarded the gold ornaments (MOs-2 to 6) found on the deceased (Mini) to the jurisdictional court. He also identified the dress worn by the deceased as MO-9 series, which was seized at the time of the inquest. On 19.12.2014, the call details of the mobile phone used by the accused were also collected from BSNL. These details were seized as per Ext. P5 seizure mahazar. His investigation revealed that the FIS lodged by the accused was false; therefore, Ext. P25 report was submitted before the jurisdictional Magistrate, transposing the informant as the accused.

The Committal and Proceedings Before the Trial Court

10. The Jurisdictional Magistrate, after completing the initial proceedings, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Kollam. The Sessions Court made over the case to the Additional Sessions Court-I, Kollam for trial and disposal.

11. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, framed the charge under Sections 201 and 302 of the IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

12. Before the trial court, PWs. 1 to 25 were examined and Exts.P1 to P28 were exhibited and marked. MOs. 1 to 10 were identified and marked. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined and Exts. D1 to D4 series were marked. After a full-fledged trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid.

The Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant

13. Adv. B. Raman Pillai, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the trial court has erred in convicting the appellant without duly appreciating the evidence on record. It is contended that the prosecution has failed to establish and prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is incomplete, with several missing links that undermine the integrity of the chain of circumstances relied upon. It is also submitted that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the facts established should be consistent with the only hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and should exclude any other possible inferences.

14. The prosecution has failed to allege and prove the motive for the commission of the crime. Reliance was placed on the dictum laid down in the Apex Court in Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 2010 SC 85)  wherein the Apex Court observed that the absence of motive in a case is more favourable to the defence.

15. The recovery effected on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused is not legal and proper. The learned counsel further pointed out that the investigation of this case is faulty and there are several lapses in the investigation. The learned counsel pointed out that the scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution to connect the accused/appellant to the crime cannot be used against him to fasten penal liability on him.

16. The learned counsel pointed out that PWs. 1 to 3 had only hearsay knowledge of the incident, despite being presented as crucial witnesses by the prosecution. It is submitted that PWs. 1 to 3 are highly interested witnesses, entirely focused on supporting the prosecution's allegations.

17. Placing reliance on Shanthamalleshappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2019 SC 530) , it is argued that when there are material contradictions in the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. The learned counsel further contended that the extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the accused to PW23 (N. Suneesh), the Sub-Inspector of Police, is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Additionally, the Ext. P20 series, comprising suicide notes, is claimed to be concocted and fabricated by the prosecution.

18. The learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the defence version in its correct perspective. The definite case of the defence is that the accused was residing in Chakravarthy Lodge and not at Vishnu Bhavan as falsely alleged by the prosecution. The deceased Mini along with her son was a tenant of DW1.

The Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor

19. Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The sequence  of  circumstances  culminating  in  the  homicide has been comprehensively demonstrated, thereby conclusively indicating the culpability of the accused. The trial court has duly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, and there appears to be no justification for interference with its findings. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused committed the murder of Mini, with whom he was in a live-in relationship, and subsequently concealed the corpus delicti in a septic tank with the intent to evade legal liability.

The Evidence Let in by the Prosecution

20. PW1 (Syamraj) testified that the deceased, Mini, is the mother of his wife Meenu (PW2). The deceased Mini was residing along with the accused as husband and wife at Kakkolil, Kundara. The marriage of the accused with the deceased Mini was solemnised in a temple. The relationship between the accused and the deceased became strained and the accused used to manhandle the deceased. The deceased used to contact his wife, Meenu, through a mobile phone. The last call was on 09.12.2014 at about 9.15 p.m. At that time, the deceased spoke to her daughter, Meenu and gave her several advice.

21. On the next day, when PW2 called the deceased, her mobile phone was switched off. PW1, along with Meenu (PW2) and Midhun (PW3) proceeded to the house of the accused on 10.12.2014. The accused told them that Mini had gone to the house of a relative at Mynagapally. The enquiry made by them revealed that the deceased Mini has not reached Mynagapally. Thereafter, they lodged a complaint before the Kundara Police Station. On 16.12.2014, the police recovered the dead body of Mini from the septic tank situated in the backyard of the house of the accused. The police reached the place of occurrence and prepared inquest. According to PW1, the accused committed the murder of Mini and placed her body in the septic tank.

22. PW2 (Meenu Krishnan) would testify that PW1 (Syamraj) is her husband and Mini is her mother. The accused (Vijayarajan) is the second husband of her mother. Their marriage was solemnised on 01.04.2014 in some temple at Thiruvananthapuram. She has not attended the marriage. The first husband of the deceased, Mini, namely Krishnankutty, is the father of PW2 and her brother, PW3 (Midhun Krishnan). It is further stated that her parents were separated several years back. The marriage of her mother to the accused (Vijayarajan) was solemnised approximately three months after her marriage to PW1 (Syamraj).

23. PW2 further stated that the accused and her mother were residing at Vishnu Bhavan at Kakkolil, Kundara. Vishnu Bhavan is the house of the accused. The accused contacted her through mobile phone prior to his marriage. Initially, the accused and the deceased lived happily. However, later, some issues arose between them. Thereupon, the accused used to assault and manhandle the deceased. When she tried to intervene, the accused also attempted to beat her.

24. PW3 (Midhun) is the son of the deceased. He stated that his mother (Mini) had resided along with the accused in his house at Kakkolil. On 10.12.2014 at about 8.30 a.m., he contacted his mother over mobile phone. At that time, her phone was switched off. Thereafter, he rushed to the scene of occurrence. When he reached there, the accused was sitting inside the house. He asked the accused where his mother was. The accused replied that Mini has gone to Mynagappally to meet her aunt. Thereupon, he contacted his mother’s aunt residing at Mynagappally. She replied that the deceased Mini did not reach there. In the meanwhile, Shivarajan (PW4), the brother of accused, reached there.

25. Thereafter, he went to his school. From there, he called his sister Meenu (PW2). On the same day, he along with his brother-in-law went to the Kundara Police Station and lodged a missing complaint. They along with the police party, visited the house. The accused at that time maintained his stand that the deceased went to Mynagappally. The Police Officers instructed them to report in the Police Station the next day morning at 10 o'clock. In response, they reached the Police Station. At that time, the police officers recorded the statement of the accused.

26. On 16.12.2014, while PW3 was writing the examination, he got the information that his mother had passed away and her dead body was seen in the septic tank. He was taken to his house. In cross-examination, he would say that he got hearsay information as to the death of his mother.

27. PW4 (Shivarajan) is the brother of the accused. He deposed that the accused had gone abroad. Initially, the accused was married to Geetha Kumari (PW5), and a child was born in that wedlock. Subsequently, the marital relationship was broken. He stated that the accused never resided with the deceased. The accused resided at Chakravarthy Lodge after his return from the Gulf. The witness did not support the prosecution’s case and was thus declared as hostile.

28. PW5 (Geetha Kumari) is the former wife of the accused. She stated that her marriage with the accused was solemnised on 08.12.1996. She had a son named Vishnu Raj in that relationship. Their marriage was dissolved as per the order of the Family Court dated 18.03.2016. She testified that her marital relationship with the accused was not peaceful. They resided together at Vishnu Bhavan, Kakkolil. Her husband used to manhandle her for silly reasons.

29. Later, she received information that the accused had a live-in relationship with another woman named Mini. She further stated that on 15.12.2014, the accused attempted to murder her. She claimed that his plan was to kill her using a chopper. She lodged a complaint regarding the incident at the Karunagappally Police Station.

30. PW6 (A.C. Chacko) is an auto rickshaw driver. He testified that the accused and the deceased are personally acquainted with him. He further stated that he provided assistance to the deceased in securing a rented accommodation from the brother of the accused. He did not support the prosecution story. PW7 (Mohanan J.) is an electrician by profession. He was an attestor to Ext.P1 inquest report. He was present while the dead body of the deceased was taken out from the septic tank.

31. PW8 (Jayachandran) is a casual employee at the District Hospital. As directed by the police, he lifted the body of the deceased from the septic tank. The body was three to five days old. PW9 (Biju E.) is the Senior CPO of Kundara Police Station. He was an attestor to Ext.P2 mahazar through which a mobile phone, two letters and gandas worn by the deceased were recovered. He was an attestor to Ext.P3, P4 and P5 mahazars.   PW11 (Johnson A.) is the Village Officer who prepared Ext.P6 scene plan. PW12 (Shajahan S.) is the Secretary of Kundara Grama Panchayath. He produced Ext.P7 ownership certificate to the police. As per Ext.P7, the owner of the house bearing No.XII/300 is the accused Vijayarajan.

32. PW14 (Dr. Saritha S. R.) is the Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. She conducted the autopsy along with Dr. Anoop K. Thankappan and issued Ext.P8 postmortem certificate. She has noted as many as 3 injuries on the body of the deceased. Injuries noted in Ext.P8 are as follows:

                  1)       Contusion 30x15x0.5 cm on front of chest across midline just below collar bones.Fracture of ribs II to VIII on right side of their back aspect. Fracture separation of vertebral column between 7th and 8th thoracic vertebrae. The spinal cord underneath liquefied and seen mixed with blood.

                  2)       Contusion 4x3.5x0.5 cm on left side of forehead 5 cm outer to midline and 5 cm above eyebrow.

                  3)       Contusion 4x3.5x0.5 cm on forehead and adjoining areas of nose, its upper extent was 4 cm above root of nose.

                  Superficial injuries others of any could not be made out due to decomposition changes. No other deep soft tissue or skeletal injuries present.

33. According to Dr. Saritha, the reason for the death is the injuries sustained to the chest. Injury No.1 could be caused by a stampede on the back of the victim with sufficient force while he was standing or lying in a prone position.

34. PW15 (Dr. Babu Rajendran) is the Director of Laxmi Trusts Hospital who is a Homeopathic doctor. On 13.12.2014, at about 9 a.m. one Vijayarajan was brought to his hospital by his brother(PW4) and another person. The said Vijayarajan had inflicted a cut injury on his arm and appeared to be weak due to profuse bleeding. The blood pressure of the patient went down to 70/50. After giving first aid, the patient was treated by Dr. Keerthi Priya, an Allopathic doctor. The wounds were sutured and IV fluid was given. He was discharged on 15.12.2014 on his request. The said Vijayarajan told her that he had to appear before the Karunagappally Court in connection with the family dispute. She issued Ext.P10 certificate. He identified the accused in the dock.

35. In cross-examination, he stated that it is not mentioned in Ext. P10 certificate that when the accused was brought to his hospital or when he was discharged. The suturing was done by his daughter, Dr. Keerthi Priya. The dimension of the injury was noted in Ext. P10 certificate but the width of the injury is not noted therein.

36. PW16 (Gopika G.R.) is the Scientific Assistant in DCRB, Kollam. She has collected samples of blood stains in a cotton gauze from the floor of Vishnu Bhavan and also control cotton gauze. She entrusted the sample to the Investigating Officer. PW18 (Saju) is an attestor to Ext.P13 scene mahazar. He also witnessed the seizure of MO-7, lever and MO-8 series two wooden logs. He an attester in Ext.P14 recovery mahazar.

37. PW19 (R. Vijayakumar) is the Additional Tahsildar, Kollam Taluk. As per the direction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, he prepared Ext. P1 inquest report. He stated that the body was recovered from the septic tank. He collected the gold ornaments and the anklet from the body of the deceased and entrusted those objects to the police. PW20 (Dr. Abe Raj) is the Assistant Surgeon of District Hospital, Kollam, who collected the nail clippings, scalp hair and blood samples of the accused and handed them over to the Investigating Officer.

38. PW21 (Sanil Kumar K.K.) is the Alternate Nodal Officer for Law Enforcing agencies and Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Ernakulam deposed that Sri. Subhaiah (CW29), his senior officer, authorised him to give statement. He has produced Ext. P16 CDR certified by Sri. Subhaiah. As per Ext. P16, the call details of the mobile number 8606132101 are shown. As per the call details, there was an outgoing call from 8606132101 to another number 9497980193 on 15.12.2014 at 19.46.55 hours. At that time, the SIM of the mobile number 8606132101 was within Asramam Tower, Kollam.

The Defence version

39. On the side of the defence, DW1 (D. Shivarajan) was examined and Exts. D1 to D4 series were marked. DW1 deposed that the dead body of Mini was recovered from his house. His house was leased out to the said Mini and her son on 01.04.2014. A portion of the house was used as a workshop. Ext. D2 rent deed was executed between the parties. Later, he came to know that several persons used to visit Mini in the rented house during the night. Therefore, he requested Mini to vacate the house. At that time, Mini told him that she would vacate the house after the expiry of the lease. He purchased the house from his younger brother, the accused, on 06.07.2013 vide Ext. D3 sale deed. After the execution of Ext.D3 sale deed, his brother is residing at Chakravarthy Lodge, Kundara. During the relevant time, his brother was an employee of his workshop.

40. During the examination under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., the accused stated that he had worked abroad. While so, he got information that his wife eloped with a person and he came back from the Gulf. He lost his job and source of livelihood. Hence, he sold his house to his brother Shivarajan (DW1) who started a workshop therein. He became an employee of the said workshop. A portion of his house was leased to the deceased Mini.

41. It is further stated that after the closing of the workshop, several persons visited the house of Mini to meet her during the night. His brother demanded vacant possession of the room from the deceased. The accused further stated that the relatives of the deceased lodged a complaint before the police. The Police Officers came to their workshop and took him along with one Alexander Thankachan. The Police Officers threatened them that they would implicate them in the murder case of Mini.

42. It is further stated that on the next day, he inflicted a cut injury on his arm. He was taken to hospital on 15.12.2014. The Circle Inspector of Police came to the hospital, forcibly discharged him and obtained a certificate from the doctor. He is innocent and falsely implicated in the case by the police.

Judicial Evaluation

43. The first point to be considered by this Court is whether the death of Mini is homicidal. PW14 (Dr. Saritha), who conducted the autopsy of the deceased has noted 3 injuries. According to Dr. Saritha, the cause of death is the injuries sustained on her chest and injury No.1 could be caused by a stampede on the back of the victim with sufficient force. The evidence of PW14 would clearly prove that the death of Mini is homicidal. We agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge on this point.

The motive

44. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that the accused and the deceased resided together as husband and wife at Vishunu Bhavan, Kakkolil, Kundara.

45. He pointed out that no evidence is adduced by the prosecution as to what the motive was for the alleged commission of the crime by the accused. He submitted that the absence of motive, in a case which rests purely on circumstantial evidence, is very fatal to the prosecution.

46.    The material witnesses in this case, PWs 1 to 3, would state that the deceased Mini resided with the accused at Vishnu Bhavan, Kakkolil. Their marriage was solemnised in a temple. They would assert that the relationship between the deceased and the accused was strained and the latter used to manhandle the deceased. According to PW1 (Syamraj), the son-in-law of the deceased, his wife PW2 (Meenu Krishnan) talked to the deceased on 09.12.2014 at about 9.15 p.m. When Meenu attempted to contact the deceased on her mobile phone on 10.12.2014 at 8.30 a.m., her mobile phone was switched off. When PW3 reached the scene of occurrence, the accused was present at Vishnu Bhavan. He could not give a satisfactory explanation for the absence of the deceased. The explanation of the accused was that the deceased Mini went to Mynagappally to meet her aunt. But when PW3 contacted the aunt of the deceased residing at Mynagappally, she would say that the deceased did not reach there. Thereafter, PWs. 1 and 3 lodged a missing complaint in the Kundara Police Station.

47.    On going through the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, we find that there is no whisper as to the motive of the accused to do away with the life of the deceased. In our view, the absence of proof of motive for the alleged crime is fatal to the prosecution case.

48.    The learned counsel for the appellant would then point out that there are several other missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence which would disprove the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel pointed out that the prosecution has even failed to prove that the accused and the deceased resided together. The material witnesses never said that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, prior to the incident. It is pertinent to note that the definite case of the accused is that he is residing at Chakravarthy Lodge and they never resided together at Vishnu Bhavan, Kakkolil.

49.    According to DW1 (Shivarajan), the brother of the accused, he has leased out his house to the deceased on 01.04.2014. Another portion of the house was retained by him and he is conducting a workshop therein. Ext.D2 is the rent deed executed between himself and the deceased, Mini. On a perusal of Ext.D2, the rent deed, it could be seen that Ext.D2 was executed by Mini to DW1 (Shivarajan). It is stated in Ext.D2 rent deed that the house was taken for her personal residence. There is no mention in the said deed about the accused.

50.    According to DW1, he purchased the house from his younger brother, the accused, on 06.07.2013 vide Ext.D3 sale deed. The accused is an employee of his workshop. The accused had taken the same stand during his examination under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

51.    The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the prosecution must prove the basic and foundational fact that the accused and the deceased resided together at Vishnu Bhavan during the relevant time. None of the neighbours were examined to prove that they resided together or that they were last seen together immediately prior to the incident. Additionally, no evidence is forthcoming to indicate that the accused left the place of occurrence or absconded immediately after the incident. It is pertinent to note that PWs.1 to 3 have no direct knowledge about the fact that the accused and the deceased resided together at Vishnu Bhavan.

52.    PW15 (Dr. Babu Rajendran), a Homeopathic Doctor, gave evidence to the tune that the accused was brought to the hospital on 13.12.2014 by his brother. The accused was very tired due to profuse bleeding from a cut injury inflicted on his vein. His daughter, Dr. Keerthi Priya, an Allopathic Doctor, sutured the wound. The accused was admitted and treated in his hospital for two days. He also proved Ext. P10 wound certificate.

53.    The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the police had threatened the accused saying that they would implicate him falsely in the crime.

Due to the threat of police, he attempted to commit suicide by inflicting a cut injury on his wrist.

54. The learned counsel for the appellant would further argue that PWs. 1 to 3, the material witnesses, have only hearsay knowledge that the accused and the deceased resided at Vishnu Bhavan as husband and wife.

55. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the case on hand, two views are possible; one pointing out the guilt of the accused and the other showing the innocence of the accused. In such circumstances, the latter view is to be preferred to the former.

56. On a careful analysis of the evidence on record, we find that there are several missing links in the evidence relied on by the prosecution.

                  1.       No witness said that the accused and the deceased were last seen together at Vishnu Bhavan, Kakkolil.

                  2.       The material witnesses, PWs. 1 to 3, had only hearsay knowledge that the accused and the deceased resided together at Vishnu Bhavan.

                  3.       The accused has not absconded and remained there in Vishnu Bhavan after the incident.

                  4.       Ext. D2 rent deed would indicate that the deceased leased out the house as her personal residence.

                  5.       No witness spoke about the motive for the commission of the alleged crime.

57. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that, perhaps, the only link of evidence connecting the accused with the crime is the recovery of MO-7 iron lever and MO-8 series two wooden logs at the instance of the accused. It is submitted that the recovery of the material objects was not proved by the prosecution by adducing satisfactory evidence.

58. PW24, the Investigating Officer, deposed that MO-7 lever was recovered from the southern side of the house underneath a staircase and MO-8 series wooden logs were seized from a place near the septic tank as per Ext.P14 recovery mahazar. According to the prosecution, MO-7 iron lever and MO-8 series wooden logs were used for lifting the slab of the septic tank. PW18 (Saju) is the attestor to Ext.P14 recovery mahazar. He would say that he does not know what is stated in Ext.P14 recovery mahazar. He would further say that during the alleged seizure, he was standing on the road. Going through the evidence of PW24, Investigating Officer and PW18, independent witness to the recovery, we are of the view that the recovery of MO7 iron lever and MO-8 series wooden logs is not properly proved by the prosecution.

59. In Kali Ram v. State of H.P. (1973 (2) SCC 808) , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that, if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case; one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. Relevant paragraph of Kali Ram (supra) is extracted hereunder:

                  “25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused must have the benefit of that doubt. Of course, the doubt regarding the guilt of the accused should be reasonable it is not the doubt of a mind which is either so vacillating that it is incapable of reaching a firm conclusion or so timid that it is hesitant and afraid to take things to their natural consequences. The rule regarding the benefit of doubt also does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resort to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. As mentioned by us recently in the case of State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, Crl. Appeal No. 7 of 1972, dated 06-08-1973 : (reported in AIR 1973 SC 2407) a criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the offence with which he is charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.”

60.    In Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa (1991 Supreme(SC) 221) , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the Court has to be watchful and ensure that conjectures and suspicions do not take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that the various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused Court has to be watchful and, avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and the legal proof. At times, it can be a case of may be true. But there is a long mental distance between may be true and must be true and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions.

61. It is a fundamental principle of criminal law that mere suspicion, irrespective of its degree, cannot constitute or substitute for proof. This doctrine has been consistently reaffirmed through a series of judicial precedents, establishing that proof must be grounded in admissible evidence demonstrating guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that suspicion alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction.[see Narasappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 10 SCC 770], Anil Shamrao Sute and Another v. State of Maharashtra [2013 (12) SCC 441 ], angili @ Sanganathan v. State of Tamil Nadu[2014 KHC 4580], Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 4 SCC 522, Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2020) 11 SCC 174, Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh 2024 (3) SCC 481, Raghunatha v. State of Karnataka [2024 KHC OnLine 8140], Renuka Prasad v. State Represented by Assistant

Superintendent of Police [2025 KHC 6458], Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha [2025 KHC OnLine 6528]]

62. In State of Chhattisgarh v. Ashok Bhoi (2025 KHC OnLine 6220) , the Apex Court observed that it is true that Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape on fanciful doubts is not doing justice according to law. However, it is also well settled that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof. In the case based on circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of circumstances must be clearly established by the prosecution by leading clinching and reliable evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn, should be the guilt of the accused and no other hypothesis against the guilt.

Conclusion

After a careful and meticulous analysis, and upon weighing and testing the evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove motive in this case. No evidence is forthcoming to prove the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence during the relevant time. Nobody has seen the accused and the deceased together immediately prior to the incident. The trial court, without noticing the several missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, held that the prosecution had successfully discharged its burden to prove the charge against the accused. While finding the guilt of the accused, the trial court has missed out and overlooked numerous circumstances referred to in the foregoing paragraphs. The trial court has failed to appreciate the defence evidence in its correct perspective. Consequently, we hold that the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and warrants interference. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside.

In the result,

                  1.       Criminal Appeal No.1390 of 2019 is allowed.

                  2.       The impugned judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kollam in S.C. No.828 of 2015 is set aside.

                  3.       The appellant/accused is acquitted, and he is set at liberty forthwith, if his continued incarceration is not required in any case.

                  4.       The bail bond, if any, executed by the accused stands cancelled.

                  5.       Fine, if any, paid by him shall be refunded.