K. V. Jayakumar, J.

1. This appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No. 594 of 2018 on the files of the Additional Sessions Judge-II, North Paravur, who was charged with having committed offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. By the judgment under challenge, the appellant was found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹75,000/- with a default clause. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of ₹5,000/- with a default clause, for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324 IPC.

Prosecution case:

3. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that, on 01.07.2015 at about 2 p.m., in the compound of Recca Valley Club, Kakkanad, the appellant, Perumal, had hacked on the neck of the deceased Jayalakshmi with a chopper and committed her murder. The prosecution further alleges that in order to destroy the evidence, the accused had hid the dead body of Jayalakshmi inside the bushes.

4. The prosecution further alleges that the accused and the deceased, Jayalakshmi, are hailing from Thiruvannamalai District, Tamil Nadu. The deceased Jayalakshmi is married and had three children. Her husband abandoned her. While the deceased was working in a shop, the accused and the deceased fell in deep love and the deceased eloped with the accused and came to Vazhakala in Kakkanad and stayed in the rented house of PW3, C.R. Murukan.

5. The police identified the body of the deceased Jayalakshmi only on the next day ie., 02.07.2015. After the incident, the accused absconded for about two years.

The Registration of FIR and the Investigation

6. On the basis of Ext.P1 FIS lodged by PW1, Shaji, PW16, K.K.Madhavan, registered Ext.P10 FIR under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, he visited the place of occurrence in the Recca Valley compound, wherein he found the dead body of a lady lying in the grass and bushes near the road. The lady was wearing a saree and blouse. He has noted a wound on the neck below the right ear on her body.

7. PW20, C. J. Martin, took up the investigation on 02.07.2015 and visited the place of occurrence along with the Scientific Assistant. He conducted the inquest of the body and prepared Ext.P2 inquest report. He has noted a large gaping wound on the right side of the neck below the ear. The body was lying in a supine position.

8. PW20 recovered the dresses and ornaments found on the body as per Ext.P7 mahazar. Thereafter, he has submitted Ext.P11 Section adding report, to incorporate Section 302 of IPC, before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The samples and the material objects collected were also forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Since the accused absconded, the Investigating Officer had sent a police team to Tamil Nadu in search of the accused.

9. Thereafter, on 28.07.2016, PW21 (S. Jayakrishnan) took over the investigation. Later, the accused was arrested from Thiruppathy on 20.06.2017 and brought to Ernakulam. Ext.P15 series are the arrest memo and the inspection memo prepared at the time of the arrest. He interrogated the accused and recorded his confession statement. On the basis of the disclosure statement, MO-2 chopper hidden by the accused in the bushes near the Recca Valley Club was recovered. The said chopper was forwarded to the Court as per Ext.P20 forwarding note. PW21 completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet.

The Committal Proceedings before the Trial Court

10. After completing the initial steps, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Ernakulam. The learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the Additional Sessions Judge - II, North Paravur. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Sections 302, 201, 324 and 326 of IPC. When the charge was read over to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, on the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 21 were examined and Exts. P1 to P25 were exhibited and marked. MOs.1 to 9 were also identified and marked. 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 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances and maintained that he was totally innocent. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D4 were marked. The learned Sessions Judge, after a full-fledged trial, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant:

11. Sri. K. V. Sabu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge are legally unsustainable. The trial court convicted the accused on a wrong appreciation of evidence.

12. It is further submitted that this case entirely rests on the circumstantial evidence. There are several missing links in the chain of circumstances. The learned Sessions Judge overlooked these vital aspects by convicting the accused. There is no motive to commit the alleged commission of the crime. The recovery of MO2-chopper is proved in accordance with law. According to the prosecution, the chopper was recovered underneath the bushes, after a long gap of two years from the date of the incident. However, the chopper appears to be new without any rust on it.

13. The last seen together theory highlighted by the prosecution is false, fabricated and unbelievable. The trial court attributed much significance to the last seen theory.

14. The learned counsel further submitted that the accused and the deceased were on good terms and there is no reason for the accused to commit the murder of his live-in partner. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is innocent, and the alleged crime was committed by someone else. The prosecution has failed to allege and prove against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor

15. The learned Public Prosecutor, Smt. Neema T.V., would submit that the learned Sessions Judge has properly evaluated the evidence on record and arrived at a proper conclusion as to the guilt, conviction and sentence. The chain of circumstances is fully established and completed, which would unerringly point out the guilt of the accused. The accused and the deceased were last seen together immediately before the incident. The accused had a strong motive to commit the alleged criminal act. The learned Public Prosescutor further submitted that the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence by the Sessions Jude is legally sustainable.

Analysis

16. PW1, Shaji, is the first informant. He testified that on 01.07.2015 evening, while he was proceeding to the Mosque, he saw a gathering of people near the Recca Valley Club, Kakkanad. He made enquiries and found the dead body of a lady in the compound of the Recca Valley Club, 2 to 3 meters away from the southern side of the road. Thereafter, he lodged Ext.P1 FIS before the Thrikkakara Police Station.

17. PW2, Tomychan, is an autorickshaw driver by profession. He had also seen the dead body of the deceased (Jayalakshmi) in the compound of the Recca Valley Club. The deceased was acquainted with him. The body was found on 02.07.2015 at about 8.30 to 9.00 a.m., lying in a supine position. She wore a white saree and a green blouse. He has noticed a deep injury beneath her right ear. He put his signature in Ext.P2 Inquest Report.

18. PW3 (C.R. Murukan) is a house owner at Vazhakkala, wherein the accused Perumal and the deceased Jayalakshmi last resided together. He identified the accused in the dock. According to PW3, the accused and the deceased had taken one room in his house for lease during the year 2015 and stayed there till 02.07.2015. They resided in that house for about three months. No lease deed was executed between the parties, since the tenants demanded the room only for a short period. He further stated that Perumal told him that Jayalakshmi is his wife. He added that they are coolie workers.

19. PW3 further stated that Perumal and Jayalakshmi are Tamilians. On 28.06.2015, the deceased Jayalakshmi went to her father’s house in Tamil Nadu along with her father. On 30.06.2015, Jayalakshmi and her sister Sugandhi (PW17) came back to the rented house and resided there for one day. Sugandhi had three children in her first marriage. The accused had two children in his first marriage. PW3 further stated that on 30.06.2015 the deceased told him that he would vacate the house within two days. According to PW3, on the previous day of the incident, ie, on 30.06.2015, the accused, the deceased and her sister resided in the rented house together. He further asserted that on 01.07.2015 at about 7.00 a.m., the accused Perumal and the deceased Jayalakshmi proceeded to work together. According to PW3, normally they used to go to work together. On that day, they did not come back to the rented house. On 01.07.2015, Sugandhi, the younger sister of the deceased, was in the rented house. She told him that her sister and brother-in-law did not come back. He replied that the delay may be due to their work.

20. The next day, the police came to his house and showed photographs of the deceased on their mobile phone. He identified the photograph as that of Jayalakshmi, who resided in his house. He, along with Sugandhi, went to the place of occurrence in the compound of Recca Valley Club, wherein they saw the dead body of Jayalakshmi lying in a supine position. They have noted a deep injury on the neck beneath the ear. He further stated that he was present during the inquest.

21. In cross-examination, he would say that he does not know which type of coolie work was done by the accused and the deceased. He does not know whether they are doing coolie work together at the same site. He further testified that he did not file any complaint before the police or make any enquiries when PW17 informed him that Jayalakshmi was found missing. Ext.D1 is the case dairy contradiction of PW3. On being interrogated by the police, he stated that on 28.06.2015, Sugandhi came back to Vazhakkala along with the deceased. He denied this, while on the box, and would say that he stated to the police that on 30.06.2015, they came back to the rented house. In cross-examination, he further asserted that the deceased and the accused were on good terms during their stay in the rented house.

22. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out certain omissions in the evidence of PW3, Murukan. He has not stated to the police that normally the accused and the deceased would go to work together. He has not stated to the police that the sister of the deceased told him that they did not come back after work on 01.07.2015. He denied the suggestion that he is speaking falsehood that on 01.07.2015, he saw the accused and the deceased together proceeding for their work.

23. The material contradiction and the omissions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant would clearly indicate that PW3 is not a reliable and credible witness. His version before the Court is much embellished and improved from his previous statement recorded by the police.

24. PW4, Sathyaraj, is a neighbour of PW3 and is a welder by profession. His mother tongue is Tamil, but he could speak Malayalam. On 02.07.2015 at about 9.00 am, he saw the dead body of a lady lying on the road when he reached near Recca Valley Club. He further stated he had seen the lady earlier, both in her rented house and on the way to his workplace. The name of the lady is Jayalakshmi. She resided in the rented house of PW3, Murukan, along with the accused Perumal. He identified the accused in the dock.

25. PW4 further testified that he thought that they were husband and wife. He further asserted that on 01.07.2015 at about 7.00-7.30 a.m., he saw the accused and the deceased proceeding together for work. Thereafter, he had not seen the deceased Jayalakshmi alive. On 02.07.2015, he got information from the police that a lady was lying dead. When he reached the scene of occurrence, the sister of the deceased was there. He does not remember her name. Since the sister of the deceased does not know Malayalam, he translated her version to the police. The police recorded her statement.

26. In cross-examination, he would state that he does not know which type of work the accused and the deceased are doing. He has no close relation or friendship with the deceased or the accused. He does not know which police officers from which station recorded the statement of the sister of the deceased. He further stated that he did not know when Perumal and Jayalakshmi would go to work and return. He denied the suggestion that he was speaking falsehood.

27. PW4, Sathyaraj, was also examined to prove the last seen together theory. But on a scrutiny of the evidence of PW4, it is seen that he has not much acquaintance with the accused and the deceased. Therefore, his version that he had correctly identified them while proceeding together for work on the fateful day cannot be believed.

28. PW5, Selvakumar, is an autorickshaw driver from Velankanni. According to him, the accused came to the auto stand at Velankanni, where he parked and took his auto for hire. At that time, the accused did not specify the place where he had to go; instead, the accused told him that he wanted to go to ‘Veli Oor’(which means a place outside the city or town). The accused further told him that he does not have the money to pay the hire charges. PW5 demanded ₹400/- as an auto charge. However, the accused gave a mobile phone. When PW5 asked him whether the mobile phone was stolen, he answered negatively. PW5 further testified that he did not use the mobile phone. He sold it to his friend Saravanan (PW6) for ₹400. When Saravan had switched on the phone, the Police approached him. The police party, along with Saravanan, came to meet PW5 and showed the photograph of the accused. He identified the photograph as that of the accused.

29. Ext.D3 is the case diary contradiction of this witness. He deviated from his previous statement and deposed in court that three persons, including the accused, approached him for hiring his auto. But in his previous statement, he told police that the accused came alone. In cross-examination, he further stated that, according to him, the accused was not acquainted with him previously, and he had not noted any physical features of the accused when they met at Velankanni. He has not noted the model or features of the mobile phone.

30. The learned counsel has also pointed out certain material omissions in the evidence of PW5. He has not stated in his previous statement that the accused told him that he had no money with him, and the colour of the keypad of the phone is black.

31. PW6, Saravanan, is another auto driver from Velankanni who allegedly purchased MO1-mobile phone from PW5, Selvakumar. According to PW6, PW5 gave MO1-phone free of cost. When he used the phone for about one week, Kerala Police approached him and questioned him. He handed over the phone to the Police. He identified MO1-Micromax mobile phone. While evaluating the evidence of PW5 and PW6, we find apparent inconsistencies and contradictions. According to PW5, he sold the mobile phone to PW6, Saravanan, for Rs.400/-. But the latter would say that the mobile phone was given free of cost.

32. PW7, Samad, is a resident of Vazhakkala, conducting a shop wherein tools necessary for construction works are rented out. His customers are mainly Tamilians who take the tools for daily rent. According to him, he used to write the names of the people hiring the tools. He identified the accused in the dock. He stated that the accused used to hire tools from his shop. According to him, the accused hired a chopper from his shop about two or three years back, and that was not returned. When the accused went to the shop to hire the chopper, he was accompanied by a lady. The transaction was at about 7.00 a.m. He stated that he used to open his shop at 6.30 am.

33. He would say that the customers may not return the tools immediately; occasionally, they return them after some days. When he contacted the accused in the mobile number given by the latter, it was switched off. Later, he came to know that the lady accompanying the accused is no more. The police came to his shop along with the accused and had shown the chopper. He identified the chopper as MO2. He further stated that the police came to his shop after a lapse of about two years. In the meantime, he changed the book, wherein he used to note the details of the customers.

34. On being cross-examined by the defence counsel, he stated that he had not produced his licence to the Investigating Officer. According to him, he has stated the features of the chopper to the police. Likewise, he has stated the physical features of the lady who accompanied the accused. He further stated that there are no specific marks on MO2 (chopper) to identify it.

35. PW8, Biju V.G., is the attestor to Ext.P3 seizure mahazar through which MO2 (chopper) was recovered at the instance of the accused. He would say that he has witnessed the recovery of MO2 (chopper) from the bushes near Mavelipuram road in the compound of Recca Valley Club. PW9, Saji B., is the Village Officer who visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.P4 site plan.

36. PW10, Dr. Biju James, conducted the autopsy of the deceased Jayalakshmi and issued Ext.P5 Postmortem Certificate. He has noted the following injuries on the body of the deceased.

                  ‘15 cm gaping chop wound oblique on the right side of neck 3 cm below the ear. The lower posterior end being 5 cm behind the ear lobe and the upper anterior end being 1.5 cm in front of the ear lobe. Underlying muscles, nerves and all blood vessels were severed. Second cervical vertebrae showed a 0.5 cm long nick.’

37. PW10 opined that the lady died due to a cut injury on her neck. He added that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death. He opined that such injuries would be caused by a weapon like MO2- chopper.

38. PW11, Shafeeq, is the Special Village Officer, Kakkanad. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ext.P6 site plan. PW12, Ibrahimkutty, and PW13, V.P. Rajendran, are the Police Officers who perform scene guard duty.

39. PW14, P.N. Mary Sherin, is the Scientific Assistant who examined the crime scene and collected blood stains, hairs bearing blood stains, blood-stained leaves, and controlled cotton gauze. The samples collected by the witness were handed over to the Circle Inspector of Police.

40. PW15, Eldhose, is the senior civil police officer deployed at the place of occurrence on 02.07.2015. He has noted the dead body of Jayalakshmi in the compound of the Recca Valley Club. He was the attestor to Ext.P7 mahazar, as per which the samples were seized by the Investigating Officer.

41. PW17, Sugandhi, is the younger sister of the deceased Jayalakshmi. She and the deceased Jayalakshmi were born and brought up at Vazhavechoor in Tamil Nadu. Her husband Arjun is working in a company in Tirupur. She stated that her elder sister Jayalakshmi was married to one Mujeeb Rahman, a resident of Chinnasalem. Three children were born to Jayalakshmi in that wedlock. Thereafter, she was separated from her husband. The children were looked after by her parents. Thereafter, the deceased Jayalakshmi had worked as a salesgirl in the company owned by Perumal, the accused. During 2014, deceased Jayalakshmi fell in love with Perumal, and they used to talk over a mobile phone during the night.

42. Knowing about this relationship, their parents interdicted and told her not to continue that relationship. In July 2014, Jayalakshmi eloped with the accused, leaving her children with her parents. She does not know to which place Jayalakshmi had gone. The accused had two children in his first marriage with Amudha. During the subsistence of his marriage, the accused eloped with the deceased. Amudha has lodged a missing complaint at the Police Station about the incident. The police team went to her house and made some enquiries. Even though they made repeated calls on the mobile phone of the deceased, it was switched off.

43. PW17 further stated that the pet name of Jayalakshmi is Ammu. In June 2015, a bus driver named Venkitesh called her and asked her to contact the phone number of a telephone booth at Ernakulam. Accordingly, she contacted that number. Thereafter, her father proceeded to Ernakulam in search of Jayalakshmi. PW17 got a call from her sister and she informed her that their father had reached Ernakulam. The deceased Jayalakshmi asked her to inform their father to wait at the railway station. PW17 passed the message to her father. Accordingly, father waited in the railway station the whole day.

44. PW17 further deposed that on 24.06.2015, father brought Jayalakshmi to their house at Vazhavechoor. She further deposed that a person named Gandhi came and conversed with Jayalakshmi in a car. When the said Gandhi came, she felt that Jayalakshmi was frightened. On 27.06.2015, she, along with Jayalakshmi, reached the house at Ernakulam and resided with her sister. They came back there to take the household articles and packed it. She further testified that Jayalakshmi had to obtain some amount from a person, and she owed a debt to another person. On 01.07.2015 at about 7.00 a.m., the deceased and the accused left for work, and she remained in the house itself. They never returned. She informed the matter to PW3, Murukan, and he consoled her that they would come back. When she contacted the deceased over the mobile phone, it was switched off. On the next day, the police came and showed her the photograph of Jayalakshmi and she identified the deceased. Thereafter, she went to the place of occurrence along with the police. She identified the body lying in a supine position and gave a statement to the police. She further stated that Perumal was present when she gave a statement to the Circle Inspector, Kalamassery Police Station on 02.07.2015.

45. In cross-examination, she would state that the marriage of Jayalakshmi with Mujeeb was an arranged marriage. Since Jayalakshmi eloped with Perumal, her husband’s family had animosity with her. When Perumal realised that Jayalakshmi was going back to Tamil Nadu with her father, Perumal cried and asked, “are you leaving me?”

46. The learned counsel for the appellant has brought to the notice of several material omissions in the previous statement of this witness. For instance, she has not stated the fact that the deceased asked her to inform their father to wait at the railway station. The visit and the conversation between Gandhi and the deceased were also not spoken to the police. It is also not stated to the police that she had seen the deceased and the accused proceeding together for work on the alleged day of the incident. It is also not stated in her previous statement that her relative felt offended when Jayalakshmi eloped with Perumal.

47. On evaluating the evidence of PW17, we feel that her version is improved, exaggerated, modified and embellished. Moreover, her evidence would indicate that there are several persons who bore animosity towards the deceased Jayalakshmi, including the relatives of her husband, and one Gandhi. Her evidence would show that she had some dubious financial transactions. The portion of her evidence that Perumal expressed his sad state of mind when he realised that Jayalakshmi had decided to go back to Tamil Nadu with her father. There is nothing in the evidence of PW17 to indicate that Perumal had any motive to commit the murder of Jayalakshmi. The evidence of PW17 would suggest an inference that the relationship between Perumal and Jayalakshmi was strained.

48. PW18, Rajendran, is the father of the deceased. He would say that his daughter, Jayalakshmi, was in a relationship with one Perumal and that they lived together. He came to Ernakulam to meet Jaylakshmi. He further stated that he visited his daughter and Perumal in the rented house at Ernakulam. When he was about to take Jayalakshmi back to Tamil Nadu, Perumal became very sad and requested him not to do so.

49. In cross-examination, he would say that the incident of the elopement of Jayalakshmi was a great distress to them.

50. PW19, Vinayakan P.T., was the Senior Civil Police Officer of Kalamassery Police Station. He, along with the police party, went to Chennai in search of the accused on 09.07.2015. The police party got information that the mobile phone of the accused was used by one Saravanan (PW6). He, along with the police party interrogated PW6 and on the basis of his statement they questioned PW5, Selvakumar. PW5 identified the photograph of the accused. Thereafter, the mobile phone was seized by the Circle Inspector of Police.

Defence Version

51. On the side of the defence, DW1 (Saroja) was examined. She is the mother of the accused. She was examined to prove the plea of alibi. According to DW1, the accused has been working as an autorickshaw driver at Tirupati during the relevant period.

52. The accused has filed a detailed written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It is stated in the written statement that he and Jayalakshmi were in love, and they started residing together in a rented house at Vazhakkala from April 2015. He used to drive an auto rickshaw, and Jayalakshmi had gone for coolie work. On 23.06.2015, the father of the deceased came to their house at Vazhakkala and brought back Jayalakshmi to Thiruvannamalai the next day. He vacated the house on 25.06.2015 and went to Thiruvannamalai and he never came back to Kerala. Thereafter, he went to Tirupati and settled there along with his relatives. He worked as an auto rickshaw driver at Tirupati. In the meantime, his wife (Amudha) came back and started to reside with him. According to the accused, on 18.06.2017, the police officers reached Tirupati and took him to Kalamassery Police Station. The police officer named Vinayakan (PW19) brutally tortured him in custody, and thereafter, he was arrayed as an accused. He is falsely implicated in this case only because of the fact that he resided with Jayalakshmi in the rented house at Vazhakkala for about three months.

Death of the deceased - whether homicidal?

53. PW10, Dr. Biju James, who conducted the autopsy, has noted a 15 cm gaping chop wound on the neck below the ear. According to Dr. Biju James, the said injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. PWs. 1 and 3, who reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident, had also noted a deep injury beneath the right ear. The learned Sessions Judge, after a close evaluation of evidence, has rightly held that the death of Jayalakshmi is a homicide.

54. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has miserably failed to allege and prove motive for the commission of the crime. The motive alleged by the prosecution is that the deceased Jayalakshmi had left the accused and decided to go along with her father. The said decision of the deceased provoked the accused to do away with her.

55. In Suresh v. State of Haryana ((2018)18 SCC 654) , the Hon’ble Apex Court, relying on Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra ((1973)3 SCC 219) observed that motive is an important aspect in a case based on circumstantial evidence.

56. In Vinod Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025 KHC 7124) , the Apex Court held that the absence of motive is very relevant in cases based on circumstantial evidence and should be considered as a factor in evaluating the strength of the prosecution’s case.

57. In Jan Mohammad v. State of Bihar ((1953)1 SCC 5) , the Apex Court observed that motive is an important element in a chain of presumptive proof where the evidence is purely circumstantial, but it may lose importance in a case where there is direct evidence by witnesses implicating the accused.

58. No witnesses had spoken about the alleged motive. None of the witnesses would depose that the relationship between the deceased and the accused was strained. PW17, Sugandhi, the sister of the deceased, would suggest an inference that their relationship was very cordial and smooth. She stated that when the father of the deceased was about to bring her back to Tamil Nadu, the accused asked the deceased ‘are you leaving me?’ and cried. The version of Sugandhi would support the defence case that the accused had no reason to commit the murder of his live-in partner.

59. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to note that there are several missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, which would point out the innocence of the accused. The learned counsel has pointed out that there is absolutely no discussion in the trial court judgment on these aspects.

60. In Suresh (supra), the Supreme Court, relying on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra ((1984)4 SCC 116) , Hanumant v. State of M.P.6, Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar ((1955)2 SCC 150) and Charan Singh v. State of U.P. (1959 SCC Online SC 67) held that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain, be fully established, consistent only with the guilt of the accused, and exclude every other hypothesis.

61. In Manoj @ Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 KHC 8037) , the Apex Court reiterated that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused, and there should be no circumstance which may reasonably be considered consistent with the innocence of the accused. Even in the case of circumstantial evidence, the Court will have to bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in a given case and weigh them as an integrated whole. Any missing link may be fatal to the prosecution case.

62. The learned Sessions Judge has relied on the following circumstances to arrive at a conclusion as to the guilt of the accused.

                  a.       The accused and the deceased Jayalakshmi eloped from their native place in Tamil Nadu and resided in a rented house at Vazhakkala, owned by PW3, C.R. Murukan.

                  b.       The deceased Jayalakshmi, due to the persuasion of her family, decided to leave the accused on 01.07.2015, and the deceased and the accused left their house together for work.

                  c.       Jayalakshmi did not come back to her rented house on that day.

                  d.       On 02.07.2015, the dead body of the deceased was found near the Recca Valley Club, Kakkanad.

                  e.       The accused has failed to explain as to what happened to his live-in partner. He has a bounden duty to explain Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the matters which are within his special knowledge.

                  f.       MO2-chopper was recovered at the instance of the accused from the bushes near the place of occurrence.

63.    One of the circumstances relied on by the prosecution to sustain the conviction against the appellant is that the accused was last seen together with the deceased on 01.07.2015 at about 7.00 to 7.30 a.m. by PW3-Murukan, PW4-Sathyaraj and PW17-Sugandhi. Even though PW3 would say that he is the owner of the house wherein the deceased and the accused resided together, no rent deed or rent receipts were produced to prove the transaction. The version of PW3 appears to be not natural and truthful. There are material contradictions and omissions in his evidence.

64. PW4, Sathyaraj, would indicate that he had not much acquaintance with the deceased. He could not even identify the deceased by her name. He does not know which type of work the deceased and the accused were doing.

65. PW17 Sugandhi is the sister of the deceased. She has deviated from her previous statement and made a much improved and embellished version before the Court. She did not state before the police that a person named Gandhi came to see the deceased and conversed with her. On seeing the said Gandhi, Jayalakshmi appears to be frightened. Likewise, she did not state before the police that the accused had dubious financial dealings with some persons.

66. The embellished version of the witnesses who spoke about the last seen theory of the prosecution appears to be not reliable and credible.

67. Yet another circumstance relied on by the learned Sessions Judge is the recovery of MO1-mobile phone from PW6, Saravanan. According to PW5, Selvakumar, the accused hired his autorikshaw and instead of paying the hire charge, he gave a mobile phone. PW5 has handed over MO1-mobile phone to PW6, Saravanan. When PW6 switched on the phone and inserted his SIM card, the police officers from Kerala identified the location and approached him.

68. The versions of PW5 and PW6 are contradictory and inconsistent. According to PW5, he sold MO1 mobile phone to PW6, Saravanan, for Rs.400/-. However, PW6 deposed that the mobile phone was given to him free of cost by PW5.

69. Yet another circumstance relied on by the Sessions Judge is the recovery of MO2- chopper from the bushes near the place of occurrence in the compound of Recca Valley Club. But the recovery of MO2 was effected after the lapse of two years from the date of occurrence. The prosecution narrative is that the accused, after committing the murder, concealed the weapon in the bushes nearby. After the lapse of two years, MO2 chopper was recovered from the bushes within 100 metres from the alleged scene of occurrence. Admittedly, the police officers and the material witnesses reached the place of occurrence and inspected the place. It is difficult to believe that none of them noticed the presence of the weapon very close to the place of occurrence. It is also pertinent to note that MO2 chopper, recovered after a long gap of about two years, was found to be a new one without any rust on it. The recovery of MO2 weapon, which, according to the prosecution, is a vital link, is also very doubtful.

Conclusion

70. On a careful evaluation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we feel that the prosecution has failed to aver and prove the charge against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged motive for the commission of the crime. The available evidence would indicate that the accused Perumal and the deceased Jayalakshmi were living a peaceful life.

71. No evidence is available to indicate what prompted the accused to put an end to the life of his live-in partner. Even if the deceased took a decision to go back to Tamil Nadu along with her father, that day itself would not have provoked a man of ordinary prudence to commit a heinous offence of this nature. The theory of last seen together, propounded by the prosecution, is highly improbable and unbelievable. The recovery of MO2 weapon, after a lapse of two years, from a place very close to the scene of occurrence, lacks credibility. Yet another significant aspect is that there are several circumstances in this case, pointing out the involvement of some other persons in the crime. The evidence of PW17, Sugandhi, that on seeing a person named Gandhi, the deceased got frightened would point out that would suggest an inference that someone else, other than the accused might have committed the crime. It is pertinent to note that the time gap between the last seen together and the alleged crime is too long and therefore, the possibility of an intervention by the third parties cannot be ruled out.

72. In Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa (1991 SCC OnLine SC 155) , the Apex Court held 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 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.

73. In Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra (2024 KHC OnLine 6568) , the Apex Court reiterated that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted solely on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

74. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is deficient to sustain conviction against the accused. The accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt and he is thereby found not guilty and acquitted.

In the result,

                  1.       Crl.Appeal No. 1182 of 2019 is allowed.

                  2.       The impugned judgment in S. C. No. 594 of 2018 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, North Paravur is set aside.

                  3.       The appellant/accused is hereby acquitted. He shall be released forthwith, if his custody is not required in any other case.