Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Sunil @ Saji on 6 January, 2009
Bench: K.Balakrishnan Nair, M.C.Hari Rani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRL.A.No. 364 of 2005(D)
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUNIL @ SAJI, S/O.KESAVAN,
... Respondent
2. VARGHESE @ JOY, S/O.MANI,
For Petitioner :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
For Respondent :SRI.JOICE GEORGE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :06/01/2009
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-----------------------------------------
CRL.APPEAL NO. 364/2005
-----------------------------------------
Dated 6th January, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The State has come up in appeal, feeling aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents/accused in S.C. No.198/2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc II), Thodupuzha.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: Accused 1 and 2, the respondents herein, were residing in the neighbourhood of Somol, the wife of PW1. They hatched a conspiracy to steal the gold chain worn by her and with that common intention, they entered the kitchen of PW1 on 10.8.2001 at about 2.45 p.m., strangulated her to death by tying and pulling a plastic rope around her neck. Thereafter, they stole her gold chain weighing 15.730 gms., made in anarkali fashion worth about Rs.6000/-. Thereby, the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 392, 449 and 302 read with Section CRA 364/05 2 34 of the I.P.C. The first information was lodged by PW1. PW16, the Sub Inspector of Police recorded Ext.P1 F.I. Statement and registered Ext.P1(a) FIR. PW17, the Circle Inspector of Police completed the investigation, including preparation of inquest report, questioning of witnesses, etc. PW18 verified the records and presented the charge before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nedumkandam. The learned Magistrate committed the case for trial to the Sessions Court. The said court made it over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc II), Thodupuzha for trial.
3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. From the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 18 were examined and Exts.P1 to P19 were marked. As court exhibits, Ext.C1 certificate of the goldsmith regarding the weight of the gold chain was marked. Material objects MO1 to MO16 series were also produced and marked. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, acquitted the accused of all the charges. Hence this appeal by the State.
4. This was a case sought to be proved by circumstantial CRA 364/05 3 evidence only. The prosecution relied on the following circumstances to prove its case:
(1) Accused found near the scene of occurrence:- Accused 1 and 2 were found crossing a tea estate, adjacent to the house of the deceased by about 3 p.m on 10.8.2001, the date on which Somol was killed at 2.45 p.m. They were seen crossing the tea estate by PW7, to reach a nearby pathway.
(2) Recovery of the gold chain worn by the deceased:- MO1 gold chain was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement of the 1st accused. It was found buried at the bottom of a cardamom plant in the residential compound of his father, having an extent of 10 cents. The 1st accused was also residing in the house along with his father. The same was recovered from the place pointed out by the 1st accused. The disclosure statement that "the chain is covered by a paper and buried at the root of a cardamom plant standing near a 'venga' tree in front of the house where I am staying. If I am taken there, I will take it out" was proved through PW17. The said recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was made in the presence of witnesses as per CRA 364/05 4 Ext.P7 mahazar. PW7 is the witness to Ext.P7 recovery mahazar. (3) Identification of the gold chain by near relatives of the deceased:-
PW1, the husband of the deceased, PW4 mother of the deceased and PW5 son of the deceased have identified MO1, as the chain worn by the deceased Somol.
(4) The finding in Ext.P18 report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram:- MO15 is a plastic rope having a length of about 72 cms., recovered as per Ext.P6 scene mahazar by PW17 in the presence of PW11. It was forwarded by the investigating officer to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court as item No.18 in Ext.P15 property list. PW8 Dr.R.Vinod Kumar collected items 1 to 9 under his seal and signature and they were forwarded as items 1 to 9 to the Magistrate's Court by the investigating officer along with Ext.P15.
The chemical analysis report showed that item No.1 cellophane tape pressing from the neck of the deceased contained fibrils of the plastic rope, item No.18. Cellophane tape pressing from the hands of the deceased contained fibres, which are similar to those in item Nos.12, 23, 24 and 25 of Ext.P15. Item No.12 was the nightie worn by the CRA 364/05 5 deceased and seized as per the inquest report. Items 23 and 24 were the shirt and kylee of the 1st accused, produced as per Ext.P3 seizure mahazar. Item 25 is the shirt produced by the 2nd accused and seized as per Ext.P4 mahazar. PW7 has witnessed the seizure as per Exts.P3 and P4 made by PW17 investigating officer. The packet containing nail clippings from the deceased taken by PW10 doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination, is item 21 in Ext.P15 list. The results of the analysis in Ext.P18 would show that the nail clippings of the deceased contained fibres, which are similar to items 12, 18, 23, 24 and 25 mentioned above. The nail clippings from the accused, collected as per items 10 and 11 by PW9 Dr.Suresh Babu, contained fibres similar to those in item 12 (nightie worn by the deceased) and fibrils of the plastic rope in item 18 (recovered as per the scene mahazar). One broken human scalp hair, item 6 (collected by Dr.R.Vinod Kumar) in Ext.P15 was similar to the sample scalp hair of the second accused, collected as per item 11 by PW9. Two human scalp hairs collected as per item 8 by the Scientific Assistant Dr.R.Vinod Kumar mentioned in Ext.P15 are identical to the scalp hairs of the second accused, collected CRA 364/05 6 by PW9 and mentioned as item 11 in Ext.P15.
(5) The findings in Ext.P5 post-mortem certificate:- The post-mortem certificate and the deposition of PW10, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination would show that the deceased Somol died due to constricting force applied to the neck.
(6) Recovery of the dress worn by the accused:- Material objects 5 and 8 were the shirt and kylee (lungi) of the 1st accused, which were produced by him on his arrest, as the dress worn by him on the date of occurrence. M.Os.6 and 7 were the shirt and dhothi worn by the second accused on the date of occurrence and produced by the said accused on his arrest and questioning. They were seized respectively under Exts.P3 and P4 mahzars. PW7 is the witness to those mahazars and he has deposed that those were the dress worn by the accused, when he saw them at 3 p.m., on the date of occurrence, passing through a tea estate by the side of the house of the deceased.
5. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dealt with the above circumstances in the following manner:
CRA 364/05 7
(1) The learned Judge believed the version of PW7, but rightly observed that the same is not sufficient to find the accused guilty. (2) The learned Judge did not believe the case of the prosecution regarding the recovery of MO1 gold chain, made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, for the following reasons: The learned Judge was of the view that PW12, who was the witness to Ext.P7 mahazar, was aware of the concealment of the article before its recovery, as he along with all the people in the locality were waiting by the side of the road to see the police bringing the accused to the place of concealment of MO1. The learned Judge was of the view that many people knew of the concealment allegedly made by the accused. PW12 also did not say that the police were being taken to the place as shown by the accused and therefore, held that the evidence given by PW12 and PW17, the investigating officer regarding the recovery of MO1 did not inspire confidence.
(3) Regarding the third point concerning identification of MO1, the learned Judge did not accept the prosecution case. The learned Judge noted that though P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 identified MO1, there is CRA 364/05 8 contradiction regarding the weight of MO1, as per their versions.
PW4, the mother of the deceased, who stated that it was she who bought and gifted MO1 to the deceased, deposed that it was weighing 2.700 gms at the time of purchase. As per the weighing done by the court, it was 15.650 gms. So, it cannot be decided with certainty whether the gold chain worn by the deceased at the time of her death was MO1, as alleged by the prosecution.
(4) Regarding Ext.P18, the learned Judge held that it is not reliable for more than one reason. The learned Judge observed that PW8, the Scientific Assistant stated that he visited the place of occurrence about 11 a.m. He is not certain whether the post-mortem examination was conducted after his visit. He submitted a list along with the materials collected from the scene before the investigating officer, which would definitely show the details of the materials collected from the place of occurrence. The said list is not produced before the court. The production of that list is very essential in this case, it was held. PW8 was unable to state whether the body of the deceased was found in the place of occurrence itself at the time of his examination. There is CRA 364/05 9 evidence to show that the body was taken to another place for want of light. PW8 also stated that a large gathering was present in the house to see the body of the deceased, even before he completed the work of collection of materials. The learned Judge doubted whether in such circumstances, even if the materials are collected properly, the same has any evidentiary value. The learned Judge also noticed that there is no evidence to show that the sealed and packed materials were produced before the court in time. Ext.P17 would show that they were produced belatedly. The accused were arrested on 14.8.2001. The learned Judge doubted whether the nail clippings taken on the 4th day after the incident have got any impact on the evidence. PW9, the doctor who took samples from the body of the accused was not certain as to how many packets were taken by him and sealed before entrusting them to the investigating officer. But, the said witness asserted that only two packets were delivered by him to the investigating officer. But, Ext.P18 reveals that numerous sealed packets were forwarded at the instance of PW9 alone to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. The forwarding note Ext.P17 would show that CRA 364/05 10 the articles were produced before the court only on 24.10.2001. There is no evidence to show that the sealed packets were kept by PW17 safely before they were produced before the court. There is no evidence to show that the articles were kept by competent person under safe custody till they were produced before the court. For the above reasons, it was held by the learned Judge that it is quite unreliable to act upon Ext.P18 to connect the accused with the offence. (5) Ext.P5 post-mortem certificate and deposition of PW10 were relied on by the trial court to find that Somol was killed by constriction of throat.
(6) The learned Judge held that the dress were not recovered by the police under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The mahazars Exts.P3 and P4 would show that they were produced before the Police by the accused after their arrest. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the recovery of M.Os.5 to 8, to rope in the accused, as attempted by the prosecution, it was held.
6. Based on the above findings, the trial court acquitted the accused. Now, we will consider whether the findings of the learned CRA 364/05 11 Additional Sessions Judge on point Nos.2, 3, 4 and 6, which went against the prosecution, are wrong and perverse, warranting interference by the appellate court. We will deal with the above points one by one.
Point No.(2): The recovery of MO1 gold chain under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was not believed by the trial court for the reason that PW12 and others of the locality were aware of the place of concealment of the gold chain by the accused in advance. We think that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has mis-read the evidence of PW12 on the point. A reading of the evidence would not show that he knew the place of concealment. He only stated that on coming to know that the police are coming along with the accused to make recovery, the local people gathered there. There is nothing unusual or strange about the people in a village waiting for the accused and the police party, on getting word that they are coming. PW12 has not deposed that he or other persons knew in advance about the place of concealment. So, we find no reason to disbelieve the version of PW17 regarding the recovery.
CRA 364/05 12
Point No.(3): P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 have identified MO1 gold chain. PW4, who is the mother of the deceased, deposed that it was she who purchased the said gold chain and gave it to her daughter, the deceased. Normally, ladies will remember the weight of the chain worn by them or purchased by them and given to somebody else. So, we can safely assume that the statement made by the mother of the deceased regarding the weight of the gold chain purchased by her, can be acted upon. She has stated that the gold chain weighs 2.700 gms. This is the statement made in the cross-examination. But, as per the weighing done in the court, it was having a weight of 15.65 gms. In the chief examination, PW4 has stated that the chain will weigh about 3 sovereigns. In the re-examination also, she has stated that the weight of the gold chain will come to about 3 sovereigns. So, when she spoke in the cross-examination that the weight of the gold chain is 2.700 gms., she must have meant 2.7 sovereigns. The said weight is something close to 3 sovereigns. A chain weighing 2.700 sovereigns will have the weight of about 22 gms. But, the ornament recovered actually weighed only 15.65 gms. No one had a case that a portion of CRA 364/05 13 the gold chain was missing. So, if we believe the version of PW4 regarding the weight of the gold chain purchased by her and given to her daughter, it has to be concluded that the chain recovered (MO1) was not the chain worn by the deceased, though it was similar to her lost chain. So, we agree with the conclusion of the trial court that the identification of MO1 by P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 cannot be acted upon.
Point No.4: We notice that from the evidence of PW8 itself, so many persons were present at the scene of occurrence and they came there to see the dead body. So, the collection of materials like hairs from the scene, which was visited by so many persons, cannot be relied on. Further, in this case, the materials collected by the Scientific Assistant (PW8) on 11.8.2001 was forwarded to the court only on 24.10.2001. If those materials were forwarded to the court before the arrest of the accused on 14.8.2001, the findings in the analysis report could have been safely acted upon. Similarly, the nail clippings and hairs taken from the accused by the doctor (PW9) on the arrest of the accused on 14.8.2001, were sent to the court only on 24.10.2001. The Scientific Assistant (PW8) has stated that he collected the materials CRA 364/05 14 from the scene of occurrence and gave them to the investigating officer along with a list. But, that list was not produced before the court. Same is the case of the materials collected by PW9, the doctor. There was no list concerning those materials produced before the court. Because of the above lacunae, the learned Additional Sessions Judge declined to act upon those materials. We consider that the above view taken by the trial court is a plausible view on the facts. It cannot be said to be perverse or one, which no man in his senses will take. So, we uphold the view of the trial court that Ext.P18 report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory cannot be acted upon.
Point No.(6): The trial court held that the recovery of the dress worn by the accused as per Exts.P3 and P4 mahazars cannot be treated as a recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The said view is correct, but those facts are relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. But, in view of our findings on other points, our finding on point No.(6) does not have much relevance. Therefore, we do not propose to deal with this point in detail.
7. Since we held that the identification of MO1 by the witnesses, CRA 364/05 15 P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 cannot be acted upon and that Ext.P18 report of the Forensic Science Laboratory cannot be relied on, two very important links connecting the accused with the crime are swapped. We, therefore, find that the respondents accused are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. So, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
Nm/