Kerala High Court
Karuppaswamy vs State Of Kerala on 19 August, 2025
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2025:KER:62116
Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
TUESDAY, THE 19 DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 498 OF 2020
CRIME NO.87/2000 OF Sholayar Police Station, Palakkad
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DTD 17.05.2019 IN SC NO.290 OF 2012 OF
SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT,
MANNARKKAD
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
KARUPPASWAMY, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.JADAYAN, VALAYAR COLONY, KOTTATHARA-678581.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.ANAND
ADV. GOWRI MENON
SHRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL
SRI.S.SREENATH
SRI.T.M.MUHAMED HAFEES
RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
ADV. NEEMA T. V.: Sr. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADV. HAMDAN MANDOOR K. (FOR PW3)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.08.2025, THE
COURT ON 19.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:62116
Crl.Appeal No.498/2020 2
JUDGMENT
K. V. Jayakumar, J.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
2025 KHC 7124
(1953) 1 SCC 5
2025:KER:62116
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
(2003) 8 SCC 180
2025:KER:62116
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
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
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
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
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
2012 (6) SCC 403
2025:KER:62116
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
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
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
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
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
1984 KHC 145
2025:KER:62116
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
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.
(2025) 3 SCC 350
2025:KER:62116
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.
(2023) 16 SCC 510
2025:KER:62116
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
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
