Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is the law on the point that prosecution is not bound to answer each and every hypothesis pointed out by the accused and what is required is that the cumulative effect of the circumstances proved in the case should unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. Bearing the above principles in mind, we shall consider the circumstances relied on by the prosecution.

20. It is alleged in the charge framed against the appellant that he created documents fraudulently, obtained the policy in the name of the deceased without his knowledge making the appellant the nominee in order to whisk away the sum assured (Rs.5,00,000/-) and caused the death of the deceased on the night of 7.11.1998 by  pushing him into 'Njavarikulam'. Exhibit P4 is the proposal form dated 3.11.1998 (produced by P.W.33, Senior Manager of M/s.United India Insurance Company) as per which Ext.P32, original policy was issued in the name of the deceased. According to P.W.33, premium for the said policy was paid by P.W.11, agent of the Company and the receipt for that also was issued to P.W.11. P.W.11 refused to support the prosecution. Evidence given by P.W.10, investigator appointed by the Insurance Company is that after the death of the deceased he met P.Ws.3 and 5 (son and wife of the deceased) and enquired about the policy of insurance in the name of the deceased but they pleaded ignorance about that. P.W.3 stated that on 3.12.1998 P.W.10 came to his house and enquired with him and P.W.5 about the policy in the name of the deceased. Himself and P.W.5 pleaded ignorance. P.W.10 showed them the signature of the proposer (in Ext.P4) and told them that "A.A. Benny" (appellant) was the nominee in the policy. P.W.3 told P.W.10 that it was likely that the signature (of the proposer in Ext.P4) was that of the deceased. It is also the case of P.W.3 that appellant gave a form for getting death certificate of the deceased and P.W.3 and his paternal uncle submitted that application. Death certificate was obtained by the appellant. According to P.W.5 about six months after the death of the deceased, insurance official came to  her house and asked whether the deceased had taken the policy. She told the investigator that no such policy had been taken to her knowledge. Then P.W.5 stated in her evidence that deceased had taken a policy but the police told her that 'Benny' was the nominee. It is also the version of P.W.5 that the deceased had no financial capacity to pay the premium.

24. Another circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the appellant allegedly obtained the death certificate of the deceased from P.W.9, Registrar of births and deaths, Irinjalakuda Municipality. Exhibit P3 is the application for the death certificate and P3(a) is the endorsement which according to P.W.9 was made by the appellant while the latter received the death certificate. P.W.9 identified appellant as the person who received the death certificate and made the endorsement (Ext.P3(a)). But even as per the evidence of P.W.9, appellant was a total stranger to him, he having had no occasion to see the appellant either before or after the day on which the death certificate was allegedly issued as per Ext.P3(a). It is also the version of P.W.9 that usually it is the clerk concerned (and not himself) who issues the certificate, but when parties complain that the clerk did not issue the certificate, he will issue the certificate to the parties. It is not clear what exactly was the reason for P.W.9 himself issuing the certificate in this case. It is brought out in the cross-examination of P.W.9 that his statement that he had told P.W.37 (Investigating  officer) that a person by name 'Benny' obtained the death certificate is an omission in his previous statement to P.W.37. P.W.9 does not remember whether he had told P.W.37 about any features of the person who received the death certificate, sufficient to identify him.

25. P.W.5, wife of the deceased admitted that she signed Ext.P3, application for death certificate and even as per the evidence of P.W.3, that application was preferred by him and his paternal uncle though according to P.W.3 also the death certificate was obtained by the appellant. Exhibit P3(a), the endorsement for receipt of the death certificate was compared by the expert (Q13 is the writings and signature in Ext.P3(a) with the handwriting/signature of the appellant as seen from Ext.P44. Expert opined that he was not able to form any definite opinion regarding the authorship of Q13 (acknowledgment on Ext.P3, i.e., Ext.P3(a). Thus Ext.P44 did not support the case of prosecution that the death certificate was obtained by the appellant. In the above circumstances, we are unable to place reliance on the identification made by P.W.9 that it was the appellant who received the death certificate. It is pertinent to note that as per the evidence of P.W.33, Senior Manager of M/s.United India Insurance Company, death certificate, the copy of FIR and postmortem certificate along with application for claim were submitted to the Company by P.W.11. 

26. Another circumstance relied on by the prosecution is that the appellant allegedly obtained the copy of FIR and postmortem certificate concerning the deceased from the Irinjalakuda police station. It is alleged that the appellant submitted claim form for the sum assured consequent to the death of the deceased along with the death certificate, copies of FIR and postmortem certificate to M/s.United India Insurance Company in his capacity as the nominee under the policy (as regards the appellant allegedly obtaining the death certificate from P.W.9, we have already referred to). P.W.34, Head Constable of Irinjalakuda police station deposed that the appellant came to that police station some time in November, 1998 with a request to issue copy of the FIR and postmortem certificate and he (P.W.34) issued the same. It is contended by the learned counsel that the evidence of P.W.34 is totally unreliable. Learned counsel invited our attention to the cross-examination of P.W.34. As per his version in cross-examination, original of FIR and postmortem certificate will be in the custody of the Sub Inspector and it required the permission of the Sub Inspector to take out the original FIR and postmortem certificate. But P.W.34 did not take any such permission. He would say that in response to the request made by the appellant, he took the original of FIR and postmortem certificate outside the  police station, used a photocopier which was available half a km. away from the police station and obtained copies from the original FIR and postmortem certificate at his cost. According to P.W.34, it is not as if whenever anybody came with such request copies will be supplied. This, according to the learned counsel is sufficient to cause suspicion in the version of P.W.34. But it is not shown why P.W.34 should speak against the appellant. May be, his version that he met the expense for taking copies of the documents is not correct. We have gone through the evidence of P.W.34 and did not find reason to disbelieve him.