Palani vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2025

[Cites 28, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Palani vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2025

This Criminal Appeal is preferred, challenging the judgment of the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, in S.C. No.365 of 2014. 2. The appellant, Palani, is the sole accused in this case. The offences alleged against the appellant/accused are under Sections 302, 397 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 of the IPC. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹25,000/- under Section 302 IPC. The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC, and was found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.

The prosecution case 4. The prosecution case is that the accused, with the intention to rob gold ornaments of his wife, the deceased Saraswathy, on 20.12.2013 at 5.30 a.m., committed her murder by beating her with MO-2 wooden rod and by hitting her face against MO-1 stone, at the courtyard of their house bearing No. XVIII/196 in the Kurian Colony area of Kumily Grama Panchayat. The victim died due to the impact of the severe injuries inflicted on various parts of her body. The prosecution alleges that the accused snatched the gold ornaments worn by the deceased. It is further alleged that 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 4 the accused made a rope knot with MO-16 plastic rope on her neck and tied the other end of the rope to a standing orange tree adjacent to the courtyard of their house. The alleged motive for the commission of the heinous crime is that the accused had demanded the gold ornaments of his wife on 20.12.2013 during the early hours, and she had turned down the demand. 5. The prosecution further alleges that the accused took away the dress worn by him at the time of the occurrence and also the cell phone of the deceased so as to cause the disappearance of evidence. 6. On that day, at about 9.30 a.m., PW1 (Suresh) came to the scene of the occurrence on hearing the cries of PW5 (Selvarani), daughter-in-law of the deceased Saraswathy, wherein he found the deceased in a sitting posture. One end of a rope (MO-16) was tied on her neck and the other end on an orange tree. He noticed serious injuries on her face. Immediately, PW1 lodged Ext.P1 FIS before the Kumily Police Station. 7. On the basis of Ext.P1 FIS lodged by PW1, PW17 (Pious K. Thomas), the Sub Inspector of Police registered Ext.P13 FIR. Thereafter, PW19 (Reji M. Kunnipparamban), the Circle Inspector of Police, Kattappana, holding the charge of Kumily Police Station, took up the investigation.

8. PW19 proceeded to the scene of occurrence at about 1.30 p.m. and conducted the inquest and prepared Ext.P2 inquest report. He has seized the dresses worn by the deceased, a mobile phone cover, 7 teeth, blood-stained wooden rod and a stone with hairs stuck on it. He identified MO-1 stone and MO-2 wooden rod. He has also identified the dress and the other items seized during the inquest. He has also identified MO-16 (plastic rope), which was tied on the neck of the deceased. He forwarded MO-15 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 5 series (teeth) and MO-16 to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, along with the dead body.

9. The further investigation was conducted by PW20 (M.K. Binukumar). PW20 deposed that he arrested the accused on 21.12.2013, after preparing Ext.P17 arrest memo. He has seized two mobile phones from the accused through Ext.P16 inspection memo. He identified those mobile phones as MO-17 series. He has also seized Ext.P4 series, bus tickets and train tickets. As per Ext.P3 seizure mahazar, PW20 had seized a shirt and currency notes amounting to ₹60,255/- from a plastic cover found in possession of the accused. He identified MO-10 shirt and MO-18 plastic cover.

10. Thereafter, he questioned the accused and recorded his confession statement. On the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused that he had pledged the gold ornaments in Thekkady Finance, Kumily, PW20 had seized the said gold ornaments from Thekkady Finance as per Ext.P8 seizure mahazar.

11. He has identified MO-11, a 'Thara' model chain with a cross locket, weighing 17 grams, MO-12, another 'Thara' model chain, weighing 10 grams, MO-13, a pair of earrings and MO-14 series, ear chains (മാട്ടി). 12. Thereafter, on 21.12.2013, at about 6.45 p.m., PW20 seized Ext.P9 pledge register from PW12 (Thomas Xavier), the Manager of Thekkady Finance. Ext.P9(a) is the relevant page of the register wherein it is stated that the pledge was done by Palani, Pottenkattu Vettil, Murukkady, for an amount of ₹63,000/-. He had also seized Ext.P6 pawn ticket. 13. On the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused, MO-9 dhoti was seized from beneath the steel almirah of the house bearing 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 6 No.XVI/559, XVIII/196 of Kumily Grama Panchayat. He has also identified MO-1 stone and MO-2 wooden rod. He identified the dress worn by the deceased, the currency notes, and the ornaments seized. 14. PW22 (Ashad S.) completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate. After completing the preliminary steps, committed the case to the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The Sessions Court made over the case to the II Additional Sessions Court for trial and disposal.

Proceedings in the trial court 15. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, has framed charge under Sections 302, 392 and 201 of the IPC. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 16. Before the trial court, PWs.1 to 22 were examined and Exts.P1 to P32 were marked. MOs.1 to 26 were identified and marked. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances put to him and maintained his plea of innocence. No defence evidence was adduced. On the side of defence, Ext.D1 was marked. 17. The learned Sessions Judge, after a careful evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, has convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.

The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant 18. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused, Sri. Joseph Joy, assailed the judgment of the trial court, urging several grounds. It is 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 7 submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the alleged crime. The learned counsel further submitted that this is a case wherein there is no direct evidence. In a case of this nature, which is solely based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the motive for the commission of the crime.

19. The learned counsel pointed out that the trial court ought not have relied on the extra judicial confession allegedly given by the accused to PW5 and PW6.

20. The learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of gold ornaments from Thekkady Finance, Kumily. It is further submitted that, at any rate, the trial court ought to have granted the benefit of doubt to the accused. The trial court ought not have invoked the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act to sustain the conviction against the appellant. The recovery of MO-9 dhoti is also not proved by the prosecution.

21. It is further submitted that the trial court has not properly considered the defence of alibi. The learned counsel further submitted that there are material inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The trial court has overlooked the vital contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence.

The submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor 22. The learned Senior Public Prosecutor, Smt. Neema T. V., submitted that the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is legally sustainable and no interference is warranted in this matter. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that the prosecution has 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 8 succeeded in proving the charge against the appellant/accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances is complete and leads to only one hypothesis as to the guilt of the accused. The trial court has rightly applied the presumption under Section 114(a) of the Indian Evidence Act to sustain conviction against the accused.

The evidence let in by the prosecution 23. PW1 (Suresh C.) is a neighbour of the deceased Saraswathy. He stated that the accused (Palani) is the husband of the deceased Saraswathy. They have two sons. The elder son is residing 50-60 metres away from their house. The younger son is residing in Tamil Nadu. He further stated that the accused, Palani, is a drunkard and used to pick quarrels with the deceased Saraswathy. On 20.12.2013 at about 9.30 a.m., he heard the cries of PW5 (Selvarani) from the house of the deceased. He reached the scene of the occurrence, wherein he saw the deceased Saraswathy in a sitting posture with brutal injuries on her face. One end of the rope was tied on her neck and the other end on an orange tree. He has also noticed a stone (MO-1) and a blood-stained wooden stick (MO-2) nearby.

24. The witness further stated that he contacted the local people and informed the Police. Thereafter, he lodged Ext.P1, FIS. The injuries might have been caused by the accused Palani. He could not see any ornaments on the body of the deceased. He identified MO-1 stone (കാട്ടുകല്ല്‌) and MO-2 wooden stick (കാട്ടുകമ്പ്). He asserted that there was an altercation between the husband and wife, a week prior to the alleged incident, when Palani demanded the gold chain of Saraswathy. On the previous day of the incident, he heard a hue and cry from the house of Palani.

                                                        2025:KER:88839
CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021              9


     25.   In cross-examination, PW1 deposed that the accused used to

quarrel with the deceased Saraswathy, demanding cash for the purchase of liquor. A week prior to the incident, when he visited the house of Saraswathy along with his wife, the deceased told his wife that she had kept some gold ornaments intended to be used to meet the expenses of the delivery of Selvarani (PW5).

26. PW2 (Benny Joy) is a witness to Ext.P2 inquest report. He identified MO-1 and MO-2 weapons and the dresses worn by the deceased, seized at the time of the inquest.

27. PW3 (Kuruvayyar) is the brother of the deceased Saraswathy. He identified the accused in the dock. He came to know about the incident when one Murali called him. Immediately, he proceeded to the spot and saw the deceased on the eastern side of the house with a rope tied on her neck. He has also seen blood-stained stone (MO-1) and a wooden stick (MO-2) nearby. He would also state that Palani used to assault and physically abuse the deceased, Saraswathy. Often, he intervened and mediated the matter. He asserted that, a week prior to the incident, the accused demanded gold from Sarasawathy and the said request was turned down by the deceased. 28. PW4 (Rajesh) is the son of the deceased and the accused. He would say that he is residing about 50 metres away from the house of his parents. He stated that his father is a drunkard and used to assault his mother. His mother died on 20.12.2013. When the accused was in need of money to purchase liquor, he used to compel the deceased to give cash and gold ornaments. He has also identified the gold ornaments of the deceased as MOs. 11 to 14. According to him, MO-11 is a 'Thara' fashioned gold chain with a golden Cross, and MO-12 is a small chain of the same design.

2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 10 He has also identified MO-13 as the earrings and MO-14 series as her ear chains (മാട്ടി). He asserted that there were quarrels between his parents a month prior to the incident. A week prior to the incident, the accused demanded the gold chain of his mother for pledging. When his mother refused to give, there was a commotion. He saw the deceased on 19.12.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. in her residence. He identified the dresses worn by the accused on the previous night of the incident as MO-9 and MO-10. He has also identified the dresses worn by his mother as MOs. 4 to 7. 29. On 20.12.2013, morning at about 10.00 a.m., one Subin called PW4 and informed him that his mother, Saraswathy, was murdered. He rushed to the spot and saw his mother with fatal injuries on her face, covered with blood. He has also identified MO-1 blood-stained stone, and MO-2 blood-stained wooden stick with hairs stuck on it. He identified MO-15 series teeth of his mother. He stated that the immediate cause for the commission of the crime was the refusal on the part of the mother to hand over gold ornaments to the accused. He also identified MO-16 plastic rope. When he reached the spot, the accused was not there. He further testified that his mother has kept the gold ornaments to meet the delivery expenses of his wife, Selvarani (PW5).

30. PW5 (Selvarani) is the wife of PW4 (Rajesh). She stated that she used to call her mother-in-law 'Atha' (അത്ത). She also spoke in the similar lines as that of her husband. She had last seen her mother-in-law on 19.12.2013. At that time, the accused was lying on a cot after drinking alcohol. She had also identified the dresses worn by the deceased, the accused and the ornaments of her mother-in-law.

     31.   On 20.12.2013 at about 9.30 a.m., her uncle called her and
                                                         2025:KER:88839
CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021               11

asked whether there was any issue in the house of Saraswathy. Immediately, she contacted the mobile number 9526987037 from her phone. The accused answered the call. When she asked about Saraswathy, the accused stated that she had a headache and disconnected the phone. PW5 rushed to the house of Saraswathy and knocked on the door. But there was no response. She again called the mobile phone of the deceased. She contacted the mobile number of the accused several times. The accused attended the call and replied that he committed the murder of Saraswathy by inflicting blows on her head and tied her in an orange tree. The accused also asked her 'to go and see'. She further stated that she proceeded to the eastern side of the house and saw her mother-in-law lying in a pool of blood with fatal injuries on her face. She also spoke about the motive for the commission of the crime. 32. PW6 (James) is the brother-in-law of the deceased Saraswathy. He also spoke about the disorderly behaviour of the accused and the frequent altercations between the accused and his wife. He saw the deceased and accused on the previous day of the incident in their house. He identified the dresses worn by the deceased and the accused. He stated that on 20.12.2013, he got a call from the mobile phone of the accused. Palany confessed to him that he committed the murder of Saraswathy, and the body was hanged in an orange tree. He repeated the confession once again when he contacted the accused on the mobile phone of the deceased (Saraswathy). 33. PW7 (Palayya Gopi) is a neighbour of the deceased. He got the information about the death of the deceased from one Jamal. He heard commotion on 20.12.2013 at about 5.00 a.m. 34. PW8 (Manikandan) is another neighbour of the deceased. When he got the information about the incident as to the death of 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 12 Saraswathy, he visited her house. He, along with PW9 (Regi), PW10 (Suresh), Benny and Binu, proceeded to Madurai in search of the accused, accompanied by CW21 (Saji - a Police Officer). They saw the accused at Madurai Railway Station. They took the accused to the Police Station. He identified MO-17 series mobile phones and MO-18 plastic cover seized by the Police as per Ext.P3 recovery mahazar from the accused. 35. PW9 (Regi) and PW10 (Suresh) had also accompanied PW8 (Manikandan) to Madurai in search of the accused. 36. PW11 (Shibin Mathew) is the Assistant Manager of Thekkady Finance, Kumily. He testified that on 20.12.2013 at about 9.00 a.m., the accused came to his office and pledged certain gold ornaments. He identified those ornaments as MO-11 to MO-14 series. He demanded ₹70,000/- from his concern. However, considering the rate of gold on that date, ₹63,000/- was given. Ext.P6 is the receipt issued by him during that transaction. Ext.P9 is the register of the Thekkady Finance, wherein the name and particulars of the accused were entered. Later, the Police had seized the gold ornaments, the receipt and the register. 37. PW12 (Thomas Xavier) is the Manager of Thekkady Finance, Kumily. He proved Ext.P9 register showing the details of the pawnors who pledged the ornaments in his financial institution. He has also identified the ornaments pledged in his institution.

38. PW13 (James) is an auto rickshaw driver. He would depose that in the year 2013 at about 6.15 a.m., the accused boarded his auto rickshaw from Murukkady to Kumily. He carried a cover along with him. 39. PW14 (Siby Mathew) is the attestor to Ext. P8 seizure mahazar, through which the gold ornaments pledged by the accused were recovered 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 13 by the Police. He identified the ornaments and Ext.P9 Pawn register of Thekkady Finance. PW15 (Roy Thomas) is the Village Officer, Kumily. He prepared Ext.P11 scene plan.

40. PW16 (Dr. Jiju V.S.) is the Police Surgeon of the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased Saraswathy. He has noted as many as 17 injuries in Ext.P12 postmortem certificate. The ante-mortem injuries noted by PW16 are as follows:

1.Crushed lacerated wound 10x7cm, bone deep involving face and deforming the face its upper extent at root of nose. The facial muscles, nasal bones, cartilages, maxillary bones hard palate ad mandible were fractured and fragmented. The blood vessels, nerves and soft tissue were seen crushed. The body of mandible was seen fractured between the left canine and premolar teeth and right lateral incisor and canine teeth. The teeths were seen dislocated from their sockets and lower lateral incisors, lower left canine upper two canines and upper right Ist premolar teeth were brought separately and were blood stained. The above teeth could be well articulated with the corresponding sockets of upper and lower jaws contusion 5x4x0.5cm on left temporalis muscle. Brain showed diffuse subarachnoid haemorrhages.

2.Lacerated wound 4x1x1cm, oblique, on right side of forehead, its lower inner end 1cm outer to midline and 4.5cm above eyebrow.

3.Contusion 5x4.5x1cm on right side of face over cheek eminence.

4.Lacerated wound 1x1cm on right ear lobule.

5.Lacerated wound 1.2x1cm on left ear lobule.

6.Contusion 15x8x1cm involving left side of face, ear and neck its upper extent 6cm outer to outer corner eye.

2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 14

7.Lacerated wound 1x0.5x0.5cm on left corner of eye.

8.Lacerated wound 2x1x1cm on left side of chin 2cm outer to midline and 1.5cm below lower lip margin.

9.Abraded contusion 19x10x1cm on left side of back of shoulder and arm 9cm outer to midline and 5cm below top of shoulder.

10. Fracture of 3 to 7 ribs seen on front aspect in midclavicular line and 1 to 8 ribs on back aspect with surroundings soft tissue infiltration on left side.

Fracture of 2 to 8 ribs present on back aspect in posterior axillary line on right side. Right lung showed laceration 3x2x1cm involving lower lobe chest cavity contained 500ml of fluid blood. Lungs were pale and collapsed.

11. Abrasion 2x1cm on lower outer quadrant of left breast in 5 '0' clock position.

12. Abraded contusion 7x6x1cm on back of right elbow and forearm 15cm above wrist.

13. Contusion 4x3x0.5cm on front of right hand 3cm above root of thumb.

14. Abraded contusion 4x3x0.5cm on back of left hand 3cm below wrist.

15. Abrasion 2x1cm on front of right leg 13cm below knee.

16. Contusion 5x3x1cm on outer aspect of right leg 13cm below knee.

17. Faint pressure abrasion 10x2cm on right side of neck, transverse, its front inner extent 4cm outer to midline 3cm below angle of jaw bone and back extent 8cm below mastoid eminence. On flap dissection neck structures were normal.


     41.     PW16 opined that the cause of death was due to the injury
                                                          2025:KER:88839
CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021               15

sustained to the head, chest and face. He further stated that injury Nos. 1 and 2 could be caused by hitting with a heavy blunt object like MO-1 stone. According to him, injuries No. 1 and 10 were fatal injuries. Injuries No. 9, 10, 12 and 16 could be caused by a blow with a wooden piece.

Defence Version 42. The defence case is a plea of alibi. According to the appellant, he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. During the relevant time, he was in Tamil Nadu.

Whether the death is homicidal?

43. PW16 (Dr. Jiju V.S.), the Police Surgeon of Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, conducted the autopsy of the deceased, and he has noted as many as 17 ante-mortem injuries on her body in Ext.P12 postmortem certificate. According to Dr. Jiju, the cause of death is the injury sustained to the head, chest and face. He clarified that the injuries No. 1 and 2 would be caused by a hit with a heavy blunt object like MO-1 stone. Injuries No. 1 and 10 are fatal injuries. There is overwhelming evidence to indicate that the death was homicidal. On going through the evidence PW16 (Dr. Jiju V.S.), we agree with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the death of Saraswathy was homicidal.

44. The first submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no motive for the accused to do away with his wife. The motive alleged by the prosecution is that the accused is a drunkard, used to torture his wife, both physically and mentally, and often persuaded his wife to hand over her gold ornaments for pledging and to raise money to purchase alcohol.

                                                                     2025:KER:88839
CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021                        16

45. PWs 3, 4 and 5 would categorically state that the accused was a drunkard and used to torture the deceased, demanding gold ornaments and cash for the purchase of liquor. According to them, a week prior to the incident, the accused demanded gold ornaments from Saraswathy, and his request was turned down by the deceased. PW6 (James), the brother-in-law of the deceased, also spoke about the disorderly behaviour of the accused towards his wife.

46. In Tarseem Kumar v. The Delhi Administration1, the Apex Court observed in Paragraph 8 as follows:

"8. Normally, there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is why investigating agency as well as the Court while examining the complicity of an accused try to ascertain as to what was the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime in question. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on basis of the materials produced before the Court, the motive loses its importance. But in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance. Of course, if each of the circumstances proved on behalf of the prosecution is accepted by the Court for purpose of recording a finding that it was the accused who committed the crime in question, even in absence of proof of a motive for commission of such a crime, the accused can be convicted. But the investigating agency as well as the court should ascertain as far as possible as to what was the immediate impelling motive on the part of the accused which led him to commit the crime in question. In the present case, no motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder of Gulshan, has been suggested or established on behalf of the prosecution."

47. In Suresh v. State of Haryana2, the Hon'ble Apex Court, relying on Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra3, (1973) 3 SCC 1 1994 Supp (3) SCC 367 2 (2018) 18 SCC 654 3 (1973) 3 SCC 219 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 17 219, observed that motive is an important aspect in a circumstantial evidence case.

48. On a careful analysis of the evidence of PWs. 3, 4 and 5 and in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the above-referred judgments, we are of the view that there is overwhelming evidence to prove the motive for the commission of the crime. 49. The next submission by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is no direct evidence to prove the charge against the appellant. The chain of circumstances relied on by the prosecution would not convincingly establish the guilt of the accused. 50. Before we proceed further, it would be profitable to consider the law laid down by the Apex Court with regard to the circumstantial evidence.

51. In Suresh (supra), the Supreme Court, relying on precedents such as Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra4, Hanumant v. State of M.P5., Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar6 and Charan Singh v. State of U.P.7 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. 52. In Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra8, reiterating the Golden Principles, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when a case is governed by circumstantial evidence, the evidence must point singularly to the guilt of the appellant, closing out the possibility 4 (1984) 4 SCC 116 5 (1952) 2 SCC 71 6 (1955) 2 SCC 150 7 1959 SCC OnLine SC 67 8 2023 KHC 6605 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 18 of all other hypotheses.

53. Guided by the principles referred to above, we have evaluated and tested the evidence on record.

54. Admittedly, the incident was in the residence of the accused and the deceased. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident. According to the prosecution, the accused committed uxoricide on 20.12.2013 at about 5.30 a.m. by hitting her with MO-1 stone and MO-2 wooden rod in the courtyard of their house.

55. PW1 (Suresh) is a neighbour of the deceased Saraswathy. On hearing the cries of PW5 (Selvarani), he rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw the deceased in a sitting position with brutal injuries on her face. He asserted that one end of MO-16 rope was tied on her neck and the other end on an orange tree. He has also noted MO-2 wooden stick and MO-1 blood-stained stone, near the place of occurrence. He further stated that there were frequent altercations between the accused and the deceased, and he had noted such altercations on the previous day of the incident and a week prior to the incident. According to him, the accused used to pick quarrels with Saraswathy, demanding cash and gold ornaments for the purchase of liquor. PW7 (Palayya Gopi) heard the sound of a commotion on 20.12.2013 at about 5.00 a.m. 56. PWs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the relatives of the deceased. They reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. They categorically gave evidence to the tune that the accused is a drunkard, used to torture his wife, demanding cash and gold ornaments. PW3 (Kuruvayyar), the brother of the deceased, had identified MO-1 stone and MO-2 wooden stick allegedly used for the commission of the death/offence. PW4 and 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 19 PW5, the son and the daughter-in-law of the deceased Saraswathy, would say that they had seen the deceased and the accused together on the previous day of the incident at about 7.30 p.m., wearing gold chains and other gold ornaments. They have also identified MO-11 to MO-14 series gold ornaments as that of the deceased Saraswathy. PW6 (James), the brother-in-law of the deceased, asserted that he often mediated the issues between the deceased and her husband. But the accused continued his disorderly behaviour towards his wife.

57. PW8 (Manikandan), PW9 (Regi) and PW10 (Suresh), along with CW21 (Saji), the Police Constable, proceeded to Madurai in search of the accused. The accused was found at Madurai Railway Station, and the Police brought him to the Police Station. The evidence of PWs. 8, 9 and 10 would clearly prove that the accused absconded from his house, immediately after the incident.

58. PW11 (Shibin Mathew), the Assistant Manager of Thekkady Finance, Kumily, asserted that the accused came to his office and pledged, MO-11 to MO-14 series, gold ornaments for an amount of ₹63,000/-. PW12 (Thomas Xavier), the Manager of Thekkady Finance, has also identified the ornaments pledged by the accused. PW14, the attestor of Ext.P.8 Seizure mahazar, gave evidence that he has seen the recovery of the gold ornaments from the Thekkady Finance, Kumily. The version of PWs. 11, 12 and 14 would cogently prove that the accused pledged the ornaments at Thekkady Finance, on the alleged day of occurrence. PW20 (M.K. Binukumar), the Circle Inspector of Police, seized the Ext.P9 pledge register from Thekkady Finance on the subsequent day of the incident.

     59.   It is pertinent to note that no evidence is adduced by the
                                                            2025:KER:88839
CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021                  20

accused to prove his defence of alibi. The defence of the accused was a plea of alibi, that is, he was in Tamil Nadu during the relevant period. In State of Haryana v. Sher Singh and Others9, Rajendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another10 and Pappu Tiwary v. State of Jharkhand11, as well as in a catena of other decisions, the Apex Court has observed that the burden of proving alibi is on the shoulders of the accused. He has to discharge his burden by a lesser standard of preponderance of probabilities.

60. In the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge rightly held that no evidence was forthcoming to prove the plea of alibi. 61. Likewise, no explanation is offered by the appellant as to how the incident happened in his house. In Ranjit Kumar Haldar v. State of Sikkim12, the Hon'ble Apex Court, relying on judicial precedents in Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer13, Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra14, Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh15, State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Singh16, Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra17 and Ram Gulab Chaudhary v. State of Bihar18, reiterated that the general rule is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act was introduced not to relieve the prosecution of their duty, but it is designed to meet the situation in which it would be impossible or difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are especially within 9 1981 (2) SCC 300 10 2007 (7) SCC 378 11 (2022) 17 SCC 664 12 (2019) 7 SCC 684 13 AIR 1956 SC 404 14 (2006) 10 SCC 681 15 (1972) 2 SCC 80 16 2014 (12) SCC 211 17 2007 (10) SCC 445 18 2001 (8) SCC 311 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 21 the knowledge of the accused. Section 106 is not a presumption of guilt, but allows an adverse inference if the accused fails to explain exclusive facts, which are especially within his knowledge.

62. The alleged incident, according to the prosecution, was on 20.12.2013 at 5.00 a.m., in the courtyard of the house of the deceased and the accused. They were seen together the previous night by their son, Rajesh (PW4), and daughter-in-law, Selvarani (PW5). Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that the accused will have to explain the matters which are within his special knowledge. In the instant case, no attempt was made by the accused to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

63. The trial court, after a detailed evaluation of evidence, has arrived at a conclusion as to the guilt of the accused on the basis of the following circumstances:

1) The deceased was found dead with fatal injuries in the vicinity of the courtyard in her house.

2) The accused and the deceased alone were staying in their house bearing No.XVIII/196 at Kurian colony in Kumily Grama Panchayat.

3) PWs. 3, 4, 5 and 6 gave evidence that the accused is a habitual drunkard and used to torture his wife, demanding money and gold ornaments for the purchase of liquor.

4) The accused has absconded immediately after the incident.

5) The gold ornaments worn by the deceased were found missing from the body of the deceased.

6) PWs. 11, 12 and 14 gave evidence to the tune that the accused had pledged MO-11 to MO-14 series gold ornaments in Thekkady 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 22 Finance, Kumily on 20.12.2013.

7) The police seized the gold ornaments pledged by the accused on

21.12.2013, on the basis of his disclosure statement.

8) The accused travelled in the auto rickshaw of PW13 from Murikkady to Kumily, immediately after the incident.

9) Human blood was detected from MO-1 dhoti worn by the accused, which was recovered by the Police on the basis of the disclosure statement of the accused.

10) The accused made extra judicial confession to PWs. 5 and 6 that he committed the murder of his wife.

11) The blood-stained weapons (MO-1 and MO-2) were recovered from the place of occurrence.

64. The trial court placing reliance on the dictum laid down in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh19, M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra20, Chandmal v. State of Rajasthan21 and Sharad v. State of Maharashtra22, held that the chain of circumstances are so complete and fully established by the prosecution, leading to the one and only conclusion as to the hypothesis of guilt of the accused.

65. The trial court, considering the cumulative effect of the circumstances narrated above, had come to the conclusion that the accused had committed uxoricide for his personal gain. The trial court rightly held that the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution evidence 19 AIR 1952 SC 343 20 AIR 1963 SC 2000 21 AIR 1978 SC 917 22 AIR 1984 SC 1622 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 23 would unerringly lead to only one hypothesis as to the guilt of the accused. We, even after a close scrutiny of the evidence, do not find any reason to arrive at a different conclusion.

66. The learned counsel for the appellant would then point out that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PWs. 1, 3, 4 and 5 with respect to the description of the weapons used for the commission of the crime. According to the learned counsel, those contradictions and discrepancies are material, significant and relevant. 67. The learned counsel pointed out that according to PWs1 and 3 the weapons used are 'കാട്ടുകല്ല്‌' and 'കാട്ടുകമ്പ്' , but according to PW4- Rajesh, the weapons used for the commission of the crime are only stone and stick. The contradictions pointed out with respect to the description of the weapons allegedly used cannot be considered as material and significant. Those contradictions are minor and irrelevant. 68. The learned counsel has also pointed out certain inconsistencies with regard to the description of the gold ornaments seized by the police from Thekkady Finance, Kumily. It is pertinent to note that the gold ornaments seized by the police from Thekkady Finance, Kumily (MO11 to MO14 series), were identified by PWs. 4 and 5 (Rajesh and Selvarani) as those of the deceased.

69. The contradictions and discrepancies highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellant are immaterial and irrelevant and never affect the core of the prosecution case.

70. Yet another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the defence plea of alibi was not properly considered by the learned Sessions Judge. Admittedly, no evidence is adduced by the accused 2025:KER:88839 CRL.A NO. 180 OF 2021 24 to discharge the burden of his plea of alibi. Mere assertion that he was away from the place of occurrence, in Tamil Nadu, by itself is insufficient to prove the defence of alibi.

Conclusion 71. We have re-assessed and judicially evaluated the evidence let in by the prosecution, both oral and documentary. The chain of circumstantial evidence in this case is complete, which would lead to only one hypothesis as to the guilt of the accused. The trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a proper conclusion, in our view. We do not find any good grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge as to the finding of guilt, conviction and the sentence. The appeal is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed, in our view. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE Sd/-

K. V. JAYAKUMAR JUDGE BR/ Sbna

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court