Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Like in other cases based upon circumstantial evidence, so also in this, the pertinent point that needs consideration is as to whether the circumstances led by the prosecution unmistakably point towards the guilt of the appellants and all the circumstances are such that no other conclusion, but for the appellants being guilty is possible. The facts leading to the question posed above need a necessary mention.

(Editor's Note : Paras 3 to 6 omitted being appreciation of evidence)

7. The other evidence in the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution pertains to recovery of the dead body. The first informant P.W.1 in that connection stated before Court that he had seen the dead body on 5.7.2002. He further stated that after 12 noon A2 was also present in the place (well) from where the dead body was recovered. There does not appear to be any other evidence with regard to recovery of the dead body from the well. The first informant, however, admitted in his cross-examination that the dead body was recovered on 6.7.2002. This major discrepancy which gives lie to the recovery of the dead body on the alleged statement made by P.W.1 has been explained by the learned trial Judge as a slip of tongue. We are not prepared to accept this to be a slip of tongue. It is stated by P.W.1 that he had seen the dead body on 5.7.2002 and A2 was arrested after 12 noon and further that the dead body was recovered on 6.7.2002. P.W. 2 did not give any evidence to support the prosecution version whereas P.W.3 turned hostile and was cross-examined. The investigating officer P.W.19 admits in his evidence that A2 was arrested only on 5.7.2002 at 6 p.m. The alleged recovery of the dead body is on 6.7.2002. From this kind of discrepant evidence on material aspects pertaining to recovery of dead body supported by none other than the real brother of the deceased and not at all supported by any other recovery witness would not inspire any confidence. The mere fact that the dead body was recovered from the well in the boundary areas of the house of A1, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would not be of much significance. It may be recalled at this stage that the witness of inquest of the dead body, i.e. P.W.4 stated that the well was situated in a property which has no compound wall or fence and further that the nearby areas were full of wild growth. The investigating officer P.W.19 stated that Parammel Thotti Paramba where the well is situated is an open space. The dead body was found in the unused well in the compound of the house of the first accused. Some 150 metres on the north-east of the scene of occurrence there was the house of Vishnu Master. Some 100 metres away on the west was the house of Purameri Kunjumon and some 150 metres south-west was the house of Subramanian whereas some 150 metres on the south was the house of Padmavathi Amma and from there 25 metres on the south was the house of Ramachandran. Some 3 metres on the north of the scene of occurrence was the wild growth. The well may be in the compound of A1, but it appears to be a dry and abandoned well, where there is wild growth, and in the nearest vicinity there are houses of many other persons. In the circumstances as mentioned above, even it is assumed that dead body of Ahammed Koya was indeed found from the well belonging to the first appellant it would not be sufficient proof to connect A1 with the commission of crime, as the deceased had number of enemies. The possibility of someone else committing the murder and throwing the dead body into the well of A1 so as to involve him in the crime, cannot be ruled out.