Karuppaswamy vs State Of Kerala on 19 August, 2025

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Karuppaswamy vs State Of Kerala on 19 August, 2025

This appeal is preferred by the sole accused in S.C. No.290/2012 of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act/ Additional Sessions Court, Mannarkkad dated 17.05.2019. The appellant stood for trial for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for the sake of brevity) and under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('the SC/ST (POA) Act' for the sake of brevity). 2. The learned Special Judge found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The learned Special Judge found the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

                                                                 2025:KER:62116
Crl.Appeal No.498/2020               3

                                    

The prosecution case

     3.    The appellant, Karuppaswamy, is alleged to have committed the

murder of his own brother-in-law namely, Sundaran, on 15.11.2000. The appellant, Karuppaswamy, belongs to Valayan community, which comes under OBC category. The deceased Sundaran, a tribal man, fell in love with the sister of the accused, Sarasa, and they started to live together as husband and wife. 4. The prosecution case is that the deceased Sundaran used to harass his wife, Sarasa. The prosecution alleges that, on several occasions, the deceased had also attempted to molest Pappathi, the wife of the accused. On 14.11.2000, when the accused came back after watching a cinema, his wife Pappathi made complaints about the molestation by the deceased, Sundaran. Thereafter, the appellant took Sundaran to their common employer CW-16, Ramaswami, to discuss the said issue. Ramaswami, asked them to come on the subsequent day to resolve the issue. The prosecution further alleges that on the next day morning, i.e., on 15.11.2000, at about 12.30 pm, the accused picked up a chopper, went to the house of one Vathan @ Rangan and hacked the deceased with MO-1 chopper.


     5.    Thereafter, the appellant went to the Congress party office at
                                                               2025:KER:62116
Crl.Appeal No.498/2020              4

Kottathara and made a confession to PW-1 that he killed Sundaran and the body is lying in the veranda of the house of Vathan @ Rangan (CW-9). The said confession was in the presence of Viswanathan (PW-10) and Avarachan (CW-3).

6. PW-1 (Rajan) and others rushed to the house of Vathan @ Rangan, and they found Sundaran lying in a pool of blood with cut injuries on his neck. The appellant proceeded further with the chopper, and he made a confession to PW-3, Sreenivasan, the brother of the deceased Sundaran. The prosecution further alleges that the appellant went to the house of Ramaswami and made a confession to CW-17, Sasikala, the daughter of Ramaswami. Thereafter, the accused went to Kottathara and stood in the bus waiting shed with MO-1, blood stained chopper.

7. PW-1 (Rajan) went to Sholayur Police Station and lodged Ext.P1, first information statement. PW5, the Sub Inspector of Police, Agali Police Station (T.K. Subramanyan), got information about the incident and he contacted Sholayur police. PW5 proceeded to the bus waiting shed at Kottathara, arrested the accused, and seized the blood-stained chopper. Then, he proceeded to the house of Vathan @ Rangan, where the dead body of 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 5 Sundaran was lying.

8. On the basis of Ext.P1 FIS given by PW-1 (Rajan), Sholayur police registered the case as Crime No.87/2000 under Section 302 of IPC at 3.20 pm on 15.11.2000. PW-13, the Circle Inspector of Police, Agali, took up the investigation on 15.11.2000 itself. He conducted Ext.P14 inquest in the presence of witnesses.

9. On 16.11.2000, he prepared Ext.P7 scene mahazar. PW-13 (P.V. Prasannan) conducted the investigation, and the charge sheet was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Mannarkad, on 05.07.2001. The proceedings before the trial court 10. After completing the initial steps, the case was committed to the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act/ Additional Sessions Court, Mannarkkad. The learned Special Judge framed the charge after hearing both sides. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. PWs-1 to 13 were examined by the prosecution and Exts.P1 to P27 were marked. Material objects 1 to 15 were identified and 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 6 marked. DW-1 was examined as defence witness. The learned Special Judge, after a full-fledged trial, convicted the accused under Section 302 of IPC, as aforesaid.

The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant 11. Miss Gowri Menon, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court convicted the appellant without properly appreciating the evidence. The prosecution has failed to aver and prove the charge against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete, and there are several missing links. The prosecution has failed to allege and prove the motive for the commission of the crime.

12. Miss Gowri would further submit that the trial is vitiated by non-examination of material witnesses. The trial court ought not have believed the version of the interested witnesses. Further, it is argued that the trial court ought not have acted upon the extrajudicial confession without corroboration. The learned Special Judge has failed to consider the evidence of DW-1, the wife of the appellant (Pappathi), that she was not subjected to molestation by the deceased. It is further contended that the prosecution has not initiated any 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 7 steps to collect the scientific evidence. The blood samples of the accused and the deceased were not taken. The plea of alibi was also not considered by the trial court. The theory of 'last seen together' was also not proved by the prosecution.

The submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor 13. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the prosecution has proved the charge against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The extrajudicial confession of the appellant immediately after the incident to PWs 1, 3, and 10 is reliable and credible. The appellant was arrested with MO-1 blood-stained chopper immediately after the incident. The chain of circumstances leading to the murder is fully established and would unerringly point out the guilt of the accused. The trial court evaluated the evidence in the correct perspective, and no interference is warranted in this matter. The compendium of prosecution case 14. PW-1 (K. Rajan) was the Sholayur Mandalam President of the Congress party. He stated that around 18 years back, he was sitting in the Mandalam Committee Office of the Congress party at Kottathara along with 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 8 Avarachan, Viswanathan, and Soman. The accused came to the office and told them that he had hacked and killed Sundaran due to some personal issues. The accused told him that the body of the deceased Sundaran was lying in a house nearby. They rushed to the spot, where they found the dead body of Sundaran lying in the veranda of a house in a pool of blood. He lodged Ext.P1 FIS. He would further say that he does not know the motive behind the incident. PW1 was declared hostile, and Exts.P2 to P4 contradictions were marked.

15. PW-2 (Pazhaniyammal) deposed that she is residing at Walayar colony in Kottathara. Her house is near to the house of Vathan @ Rangan (CW-9). She is a coolie worker. The accused, Karuppaswamy, is also residing in the same colony. She would further say that on the alleged day of occurrence, she went to pluck Tulsi and came back to her house only at 6.00 pm. She came to know about the death of Sundaran only after she returned home. She also did not support the prosecution, and her case diary contradictions were marked as Exts.P5 and P6.

16. PW3 (Sreenivasan) is the younger brother of the deceased. On 15.11.2000, he had gone to work and came back at noon. At that time, one 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 9 Murukan told him that Karuppaswamy had hacked Sundaran. Before he proceeded to the place of occurrence, the appellant approached him holding a chopper in his hand and confessed that he had hacked Sundaran and requested for pardon. He identified MO-1 chopper. He rushed to the place where the body of the deceased was lying. He had seen the body of the deceased Sundaran lying in a pool of blood. The witness would further say that the deceased and the accused used to quarrel frequently. PW4 (Selvaraj) is an attestor to Ext.P7 scene mahazar.

17. PW-5 (T. K. Subramanyan) is the Sub Inspector of Police, Agali Police Station, who arrested the accused from the Kottathara bus waiting shed. On 15.11.2000, he was informed that the accused committed the murder of Sundaran by hacking. He contacted Sholayur Police Station and came to know that PW1 had lodged Ext.P1 FIS and the Sholayur police registered Crime No.87/2000. He proceeded to Kottathara, wherein he found the accused standing in the bus waiting shed, carrying a blood-stained chopper in his left hand. After ascertaining the identity, he arrested the accused after preparing Ext.P8 arrest memo and Ext.P9 inspection memo and seized MO-1 chopper from the accused as per Ext.P10 mahazar. The arrest intimation was given to 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 10 the wife of the accused. He identified the accused in the dock and also the MO-1, chopper.

18. Thereafter, he proceeded to the house of Vathan @ Rangan along with the accused, wherein he found the body of the deceased lying in a pool of blood. He made arrangements for seen guard duty. 19. Then, he recorded the confession statement of the accused at 6.15 pm. He seized the MOs.2 and 3, dresses worn by the accused, through Ext.P11 mahazar.

20. In cross-examination, he would say that in column 8(a) of the inspection memo, he has not recorded anything. He denied the suggestion that, since the accused had not possessed any weapon, he kept column 8(a) of Ext.P9, inspection memo, blank. He would further say that the distance between the Agali Police Station and Sholayur Police Station is about 25 kilometres.

21. PW-6 (K.G. Udayan) is a witness to Ext.P10 seizure mahazar. He would say that he witnessed the seizure of the chopper from the accused. He also identified the accused. While being cross-examined, he would say that he does not know what was written in Ext.P10 seizure mahazar. The police 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 11 obtained his signature from his shop.

22. PW-7 (C.J. George) was a police constable of Agali Police Station. He would state that PW5, the Sub Inspector of Police, brought the accused to Agali Police Station on 15.11.2000, at about 6.00 pm. The Sub Inspector seized the dresses (MOs. 2 and 3) worn by the accused as per Ext.P11 seizure mahazar. He was an attestor to Ext.P11 mahazar.

23. PW-8 (Dr. P. B. Gujral) was the District Police Surgeon, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased and issued Ext.P12 post-mortem certificate. He had noted the following ante-mortem injuries in the post-mortem certificate.

1. Incised wound 6.5 x 1.8x4.5 cm, transversely oblique on left side and left half of front of neck, lower front round cut end 3.5 cm to the left of midline and 4 cm above left collarbone. Upper back sharp cut end was 7.5 cm below left ear lobule and 9 cm outer to midline front of neck. At the back end the wound had a tailing for 0.5 cm. Both edges of the wound were contused at its front two third for a length of 4 cm. From the rounded front end contused abrasion 1.6x0.3 cm seen directed to the front, of which the front end was at 1.8 cm outer to midline and 4 cm above the inner end of collar bone. The wound was directed backwards, upwards and to the right. The wound cut the subcutaneous 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 12 tissues, all the muscles, vessels and nerves under neath, including the left sternomastoid muscle. Common carotid artery and internal jugular vein. The wound then cut the left transverse process of fourth cervical vertebra obliquely and partially cut the vertebral body.

2. Superficial incised wound 1.2 x 0.2 cm with contused edges transversely oblique on left side of neck with upper back end 1.1 cm above back end of previous injury.

3. Incised wound 1.2x0.2x0.6 cm, transversely oblique on left side of neck, lower back rounded end 7 cm below ear lobule with contused abrasion 2 x 0.2 cm extending downwards and backwards, and front upper sharp cut end continuing as superficial încised wound for 3.5 cm reaching 1 cm to the left of midline and 4.5 cm below chin. The wound was directed upwards, backwards and to the right.

4. Superficial incised wound 6.5 cm long, transversely placed, both ends sharp cut, back end 4 cm below left angle of jaw and front end 5 cm below chin in midline.

5. Incised wound 1.8 x 0.2 x 0.4 cm, transverse, on front of neck in midline, 0.5 cm below adam's apple, right sharp cut end 1.2 cm outer to midline. The wound cut the thyroid cartilage in its full thickness. The left sharp cut end of the wound continued as contused abrasion 3.1 x 0.3 cm downwards and to left, to continue with another incised of which both ends were round cut and of size 1.2 x 0.5 cm and edges contused.

6. Incised wound 1.1 x 0.4 cm, superficial in line with the left end of 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 13 previous injury separated by a skin tag of 0.2 cm width.

7. Contused aberration 2.4 x 0.4 cm on front of right shoulder, 4 cm below top of shoulder and 15 cm outer to midline.

8. Contused abrasion 0.5 x 0.3, placed 0.5 cm above previous injury.

9. Multiple contused abrasions over an area of 1.5 x 1 cm on inner aspect of right elbow.

10. Multiple contused abrasions over an area of 2 x 1 cm on inner aspect of left elbow.

11. Superficial incised wound 1.8 x 0.2 cm in front of left wrist, both ends of the wound sharp cut.

24. According to PW8, the cause of death is air embolism due to a cut injury to the neck. He further opined that all incised wounds, including the fatal injuries, could be caused by MO-1, weapon. 25. PW-9 (M.N. Sreekumar) is the Special Village Officer of Kottathara. He prepared Ext.P13 scene plan. While being cross-examined, he would state that there are several residential houses near the place of occurrence. There is a slum near the place of occurrence. 26. PW-10 (Viswanathan) is a worker of the Congress party. He would state that in the year 2000, while he was sitting in the party office along 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 14 with PW1, Soman, and Avarachan, the accused came to the party office and confessed that he had hacked his brother-in-law, Sundaran, to death. The accused further stated that the incident occurred in the house of Vathan @ Rangan (CW-9). PW10 and others rushed to the place of occurrence. He would add that the deceased and the accused used to quarrel after consuming liquor. 27. PW-11 (K.N. Mani) is a witness to Ext.P14 inquest report. He would state that the police conducted the inquest in his presence. He added that there were some disputes between the deceased and the accused. PW-12 (Raman) did not support the prosecution story.

28. PW-13 (P. B. Prasannan), the Circle Inspector of Police, Agali, took up the investigation on 15.11.2000. He is the Investigating Officer in this case. He visited the place of occurrence and conducted the inquest. On 16.11.2000, he prepared Ext.P7 scene mahazar. The place of occurrence is the veranda of the house bearing No.1/126 in Sholayur Panchayat. He seized MO-4 shirt, MO-5 trousers, and MO-6 lungi of the deceased as per Ext.P7 scene mahazar. He had also seized MO-7 series currency notes and MO-8 series coins. He had forwarded the material objects for chemical examination.

                                                                  2025:KER:62116
Crl.Appeal No.498/2020                15

Ext.P21 is a copy of the forwarding note. Ext.P22, the chemical analysis report, was also proved through him.

29. In cross-examination, he would state that column 8(a) of Ext.P9, the inspection memo, was left blank. He has not taken the blood samples of the deceased and the accused for chemical analysis. He denied the suggestion that the scene of occurrence is a slum area, but would admit that there are several houses near the place of occurrence.

The defence version 30. On the side of defence, DW-1 was examined. DW-1 (Pappathi) gave evidence to the tune that there were no issues between the deceased and the accused. The deceased never assaulted or molested her. She went to pluck tulsi on the day of the alleged incident.

31. DW-1 would further state that her husband is falsely implicated in this case.

32. The accused filed a written statement taking the plea of alibi. According to the accused, he was engaged in some agricultural work in the estate of one Ramaswami. He stated that he does not know Malayalam. He 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 16 has not made any confession to PW-1 on 15.11.2000. He further stated that there were no issues between himself and the deceased. Death, whether homicidal 33. PW8 (Dr. P. B. Gujral) conducted the autopsy of the deceased, Sundaran, and noted as many as 11 ante-mortem injuries. He opined that the cause of death was air embolism due to a cut injury on the neck. PW8 opined that all the ante-mortem injuries were fatal and could have been caused by a weapon like MO-1 chopper. PWs. 1 and 10 reached the place of occurrence immediately after the incident and had seen the deceased lying in a pool of blood. There is overwhelming evidence to prove that the death of Sundaran was homicidal.

The conclusions of the learned Special Judge 34. The learned Special Judge took the view that extra extrajudicial confession can form the basis of a conviction, if it comes from witnesses who are unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and if the words spoken by the witnesses are clear and unambiguous. The trial court believed 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 17 the evidence of PW1 (K. Rajan) and PW3 (Sreenivasan), to whom the accused made confession. The trial court was of the view that their evidence is corroborated by PW10 (Viswanathan) on material particulars. 35. The learned Special Judge, believing the version of material witnesses, PWs. 1, 3, and 10, found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

36. Now, we shall proceed to evaluate the evidence on record on the basis of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The motive 37. The first submission by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the motive, which is a driving force of a crime, is not proved by the prosecution. According to the prosecution, the relationship between the appellant and the deceased was strained, since the deceased used to torture his wife, Sarasa, who is the sister of the appellant. Moreover, it is further alleged that the deceased attempted to molest DW1, the wife of the appellant. Due to this animosity, the appellant is alleged to have committed the offence. However, DW1, the wife of the accused, would state that she was never 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 18 molested by the deceased, and there were no issues between the deceased and the accused. PW3 (Sreenivasan), the brother of deceased, testified that the deceased and the accused used to quarrel frequently. 38. In Vinod Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)1, 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. In Jan Mohammad v. State of Bihar2, the Apex Court observed that, it 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.

39. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged motive for the commission of the offence.

40. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the trial court has arrived at the conclusion mainly on the basis of the 1 2025 KHC 7124 2 (1953) 1 SCC 5 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 19 extrajudicial confession of the accused to PWs. 1 and 3. The learned Special Judge took the view that the evidence of PWs. 1 and 3 is corroborated by PW10 (Viswanathan).

41. Before further discussion, it may be useful to refer the law laid down by the Apex Court on this point. In State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram3, the Apex Court has occasion to consider the evidentiary value of extrajudicial confession. Paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 reads as follows:

19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the Court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any Court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness 3 (2003) 8 SCC 180 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 20 which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility.

20. If the evidence relating to extra judicial confession is found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction. The requirement of corroboration as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-accused, is a matter of prudence and not a invariable rule of law. It is improbable, as rightly held by the High Court that the accused would repose confidence on a person who is inimically disposed towards him, and confess his guilt.

Similarly, PW-3 is a close relative of PW-4 and as records reveal, a person of doubtful antecedents being a history sheeter. Though that alone cannot be the ground to discard his evidence, the totality of circumstances cast an indelible shadow of doubt on his evidence. It is to be noted that accused examined himself as DW-1. Though it was the prosecution version that there was also extra judicial confession before informant Sahi Ram (PW-6) that was disbelieved by both the Trial Court and the High Court in view of the fact that he stated differently from what was allegedly stated by him during investigation. He disowned that the accused made any confessional statement before him. Though the prosecution during cross-examination of the accused (DW-1) suggested that he had made extra judicial confession before PW-6, significantly not even such a suggestion was given in respect of PW-3 & 4.

21. Coming to the bloodstains on the cloth which were allegedly seized on being pointed out by the accused, the forensic laboratory report indicated that there were blots of human blood on the shirts and trousers of the accused. There was no effort to find out the blood group. In fact, the High Court noted this position and observed that presence of PW-4 at the time of 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 21 recovery is doubtful as he has been found to be an unreliable witness. It was observed that even if it is accepted that there was existence of blood, this circumstance is not such from which it can be found that the accused was perpetrator of the crime. In the aforesaid report (Ex.61) it was clearly stated that the blood group of blood found on the clothes could not be determined. Neither the blood group of the deceased nor that of the accused was determined. I that background, the High court held that the possibility of the blood being that of the accused cannot be ruled out. In view of the findings recorded by the High Court about the non-acceptability by evidence relating to alleged extra judicial confession, the conclusion the High Court cannot be said to be one which are unsupportable. We decline interfere in the appeals, and the same are dismissed.

42. In Raja Ram (supra), the Apex Court observed that an extrajudicial confession, if made voluntarily in a fit state of mind, can form the basis for conviction. The extrajudicial confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The evidentiary value of such a confession would depend on the circumstances of each case and the credibility of the witnesses who speak about such confession. If such a confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, or not even remotely inimical to the accused, the words spoken by the witness are clear and unambiguous to convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime, the confession can be accepted and acted upon.

                                                                   2025:KER:62116
Crl.Appeal No.498/2020                22

                                      

      43.   In the instant case, the accused has allegedly made confession

to PWs. 1 and 3. PW1 (Rajan) testified that around 18 years back, the appellant came to the Congress party office, while he was sitting there, and confessed that there was an issue between himself and Sundaran and he hacked Sundaran to death. The said confession was made in the presence of PW10, Avarachan and Soman. When they rushed to the place of occurrence, they saw the dead body of the deceased Sundaran in a pool of blood in the veranda of a house. He lodged Ext.P1 FIS to Sholayur Police Station. This witness did not fully support the prosecution case. He would say that he has not stated the cause of death to the police. He further testified that he was an accused in three criminal cases before the JFCM Court, Mannarkkad and a warrant was issued against him. PW-3 (Sreenivasan) is the brother of the deceased. According to him, while he was returning from his workplace at noon, he saw the accused. The accused made a confession to him that he hacked and requested for pardon.

44. PW-10 (Viswanathan) also stated that while he was sitting in the party office along with PW1, the appellant confessed that he committed the murder of Sundaran by inflicting injuries on the neck (കഴുത്ത് അറുത്ത് കൊന്നു). In 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 23 cross-examination, he stated that the accused made his confession in the Tamil language and he stated this fact before the police. He has stated this fact in his previous statement.

45. It appears that the version of PW-1 about the alleged confession is not reliable and credible, even though he stated that the appellant had made a confession to him; later, he turned hostile to the prosecution and deposed that he was not aware of the cause of death. Moreover, PW1 is an accused in two or three cases before the JFCM, Mannarkkad. PW3 is the younger brother of the deceased. PW3 would state that the accused spoke in Tamil to him about the alleged incident.

46. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the alleged confession made by the appellant is not proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is a Tamilian, and he made the alleged confession in Tamil, but the witnesses are Malayalis. PW1 would state that he did not know Tamil and later added that he knew some Tamil. He would further state that the accused used to speak in Tamil. In such circumstances, the prosecution has to prove that the alleged confession made by the appellant in the Tamil language was properly understood by the 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 24 witnesses.

47. In Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu4, the Apex Court observed in paragraph 22 of the judgment as under:

22. Upon a proper analysis of the above - referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra - judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra - judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused. The Principles

i) The extra - judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.

ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

iii) It should inspire confidence.

iv) An extra - judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

v) For an extra - judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.

48. Therefore, on a careful evaluation of the evidence of prosecution, we are of the considered opinion that the extrajudicial confession cannot form 4 2012 (6) SCC 403 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 25 the sole basis for convicting the appellant, unless corroborated by other evidence on material particulars.

49. The next submission by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has failed to examine the material witnesses and mainly relied on the evidence of the related and interested witnesses. 50. Admittedly, the prosecution case is that the incident occurred in the veranda of the house of Vathan @ Rangan (CW-9). Ext.P13 scene plan would indicate that it is near to a slum area and there are several thatched houses nearby. Even though the incident took place at the house of Vathan @ Rangan, he was not examined by the prosecution. The wife of Vathan @ Rangan, Pappal, was also cited by the prosecution. She was also not examined. In the case on hand, we found that the extrajudicial confession suffers from material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. Likewise ,Avarachan and Soman, who were allegedly present along with PW1 in the Congress party office, were also not examined by the prosecution. PW13, the Investigating Officer, would say that there are several residential houses near the house of Vathan @ Rangan, the place of occurrence. It is very close to a slum area.

                                                                 2025:KER:62116
Crl.Appeal No.498/2020                26

                                      

      51.    Since the incident happened in the veranda of the house of

Vathan @ Rangan, he is the most competent person to speak about the incident. He was not examined by the prosecution. His wife, Pappal, was even though cited not chosen to be examined by the prosecution. The non-examination of the material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case, in our view.

52. It is pertinent to note that, admittedly, the incident was near a slum area where there are several thatched houses. None of the witnesses in the vicinity was examined by the prosecution.

53. Ramaswami, the employer of the deceased and the appellant, was also not examined. Sasikala, the daughter of Ramaswami, to whom the accused allegedly made confession, was also not examined by the prosecution. The non-examination of Sarasa, the wife of the deceased, is also very significant in this case.

53. Ext. P13, scene plan, would also indicate that the place of occurrence is a slum, wherein there are several adjoining thatched houses. The admitted case of the prosecution is that the incident was on the veranda of the house of the Vathan @ Rangan at about 12.30 pm, in broad daylight.

                                                                                 2025:KER:62116
Crl.Appeal No.498/2020                        27

Therefore, somebody must have seen the incident or heard the hue and cry of the deceased. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution story is highly improbable and unbelievable.

54. The next submission by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the version of PW-5 (T.K. Subramanyan), Sub Inspector of Police, Agali, who arrested the accused and seized MO-1 chopper, MOs. 2 and 3 dresses worn by the appellant, is not trustworthy. According to PW5, the accused was standing in the bus waiting shed at Kottathara carrying MO-1, blood stained chopper in his left hand. The contention of the appellant is that if that be so, the said fact might be recorded in Ext.P9 Inspection Memo. But column 8(a) of the inspection memo is kept blank. Column 8 of the Inspection Memo reads thus:

8. Particulars of body search

(a) Wearing apparels/Valubles/ ധരിച്ച വസ്ത്രം മാത്രം.

Weapons/Other items.

(b) Injuries, if any ഇടതു കൈ മുട്ടിലും, ഇടതു കൈ ചെറുവിരലിലും, മോതിര വിരലിലും, ഇടതു വാരിയിലും, മുതുകിൽ ഇടതു കൈ പലകയിലും മറ്റും ചെറിയ പഴയ പരിക്കുകൾ.

55. On a perusal of column 8(a) of the Inspection Memo, it could be seen that only the dress worn by the accused was found at the time of the 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 28 preparation of the Inspection Memo. Even though there was a column to indicate other items found during the body search, such as valuables, weapons, etc., it is noted that only the dress worn by the accused was found. 56. If the accused was carrying the weapon of offence in his hand as alleged by the prosecution, that fact might have been noted in column 8(a) of the Inspection Memo. The absence of entry with regard to the weapon of offence allegedly carried by the accused, in column 8 of Ext.P9 Inspection Memo casts serious doubts on the prosecution story. 57. Yet another contention of the appellant is that no scientific evidence was collected by the prosecution to link the accused with the crime. Admittedly, the blood samples of the deceased and the accused were not collected by the prosecution. Ext.P22 chemical analysis report would indicate that human blood was detected in MO-1 chopper and the dresses worn by the accused and the deceased, but no evidence is forthcoming as to whose blood was found on the material objects. In the absence of evidence as to whose blood was found, whether it is that of the accused or the deceased, the mere detection of human blood by itself assumes no significance to sustain a conviction.

                                                                        2025:KER:62116
Crl.Appeal No.498/2020                    29

                                          

       58.   The last but not least submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that the chain of circumstances is not fully established by the prosecution. He has pointed out several missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence.

59. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra5, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not reasonably support any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Paragraphs 152, 153, and 154 of Sharad Sarda (supra) read thus:

"152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952 SCR 1091 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 CriLJ 129). This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the 5 1984 KHC 145 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 30 cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1969 (3) SCC 198 : 1970 SCC (Cri) 55) and Ramgopal v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1972 SC 656 : (1972 (4) SCC 625). It may be useful to extract what Mahajan, J. has laid down in Hanumant case (1952 SCR 1091 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 CriLJ 129) : It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973 (2) SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033 :1973 CriLJ 1783) where the following observations were made :

[SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047].

Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 31 and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

154. These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence."

60. In Hansraj v. State of Chhattisgarh6, the Apex court held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of events leading to the prosecution of the convict must conclusively be established with certainty and there shall be no room for any second opinion which may lead to the innocence of the accused.





6
    (2025) 3 SCC 350
                                                                      2025:KER:62116
Crl.Appeal No.498/2020                    32

                                          

        61.     The Apex Court in Ramanand v. State of U.P.7 observed in

paragraph 50 as under:

50. There cannot be any dispute to the fact that the case on hand is one of the circumstantial evidence as there was no eyewitness of the occurrence. It is settled principle of law that an accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards the involvement and guilty of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eyewitness in the case. It is also equally true that an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence subject to satisfaction of the expected principles in that regard.

62. We have evaluated the evidence guided by the dictum laid down in the above cases.

1) The prosecution has failed to prove the 'last seen together theory'.

2) Even though one Pazhaniyammal (PW-2) and Raman (PW-12) were examined to prove that the accused and the deceased last seen together near the place of occurrence on 15.11.2000. They did not support the prosecution narrative.


7
    (2023) 16 SCC 510
                                                               2025:KER:62116
Crl.Appeal No.498/2020              33

3) The alleged recovery of MO-1 chopper from the accused is also doubtful, since it was not recorded in column No.8(a) of the Inspection Memo.

4) Moreover, PW6, the independent witness to Ext.P10 seizure mahazar did not fully support the prosecution case. He would say that he was not aware of the contents of Ext.P10 seizure mahazar and the police obtained his signature from his shop. He would further add that he has not seen the preparation of Ext.P10 seizure mahazar.

Conclusion

62. 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 reasonable doubt. 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.

Before parting with this matter, we deem it appropriate to place on record our sincere appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by a 2025:KER:62116 Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 34 young and promising member of the Bar, Adv. Gowri Menon. Her assimilation of the facts was commendable, the research was thorough, the submissions were precise, and the clarity with which the issues were presented deserves due appreciation. In the result,

1. Criminal Appeal No.498/2020 is allowed.

2. The impugned judgment of the learned Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act/ Additional Sessions Court, Mannarkkad in S.C.No.290 of 2012 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.

                                                         Sd/-

                                                 RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
                                                                JUDGE

                                                         Sd/-
                                                            K. V. JAYAKUMAR
                                                              JUDGE
BR

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court