Kerala High Court

Santhakumari @ Santha vs State Of Kerala on 9 June, 2025

Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan

                                                   2025:KER:40203



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
                               &
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
     MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1947
                     CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020
  CRIME NO.122/2013 OF VALANCHERY POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM
 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.05.2019 IN SC NO.409 OF 2013 OF
       ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT - I, MANJERI


APPELLANT/ACCUSED:

          SANTHAKUMARI @ SANTHA, AGED 63 YEARS,
          W/O.VASU, ARANGAN PALLIYALI HOUSE,
          PAZHANELLIPPURAM, CHEMBRA P.O.,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 304

          (FC NO.9/2019 WOMEN'S PRISON, KANNUR, PIN - 670
          004).

          BY ADV SRI.MANJU ANTONEY

RESPONDENT/PROSECUTION:

          STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH
          COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.

          BY ADVS. 
          SMT.AMBIKA DEVI S, SPL.G.P. (ATROCITIES AGAINST
          WOMEN AND CHILDREN AND WELFARE OF W AND C)
          ADV. RANJITH T R, SR. PP.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 22.05.2025,
THE COURT ON 09.06.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                                         2025:KER:40203
    CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

                                           2



                                    JUDGMENT

K.V. JAYAKUMAR, J.

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned 1st

Additional District & Sessions Judge, Manjeri in S.C. No.409 of 2013.

2. The appellant/accused, Santha Kumari @ Santha, is the sole accused in

this case. The offences alleged against the appellant/accused were under Sections

449, 302, 394 and 201 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions

Judge, as per the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the accused to

imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case

3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell is that, on 04.03.2013, in between

1 p.m and 2 p.m, the accused, Santhakumari, trespassed into the house of the

deceased Kunjilakshmi Amma, with the criminal intention to rob gold ornaments worn

by her, inflicted 28 injuries using MO-1, a chopper, murdered Kunjilakshmi Amma and

robbed 4.5 sovereigns of gold ornaments. It is alleged that the accused had sold

the aforesaid gold ornaments and discharged her debts and other liabilities. It is

further alleged that the appellant/accused washed MO-1 chopper and hid it, so as to

cause the disappearance of evidence.

2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

4. On the basis of the FIS lodged by PW1, the Valancheri police registered

Crime No.122/2013. After the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was

filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur. Later, the case was committed

to Sessions Court, Manjeri, which made over the case to the Additional Sessions

Court for trial and disposal.

Proceedings in the trial court

5. The accused entered appearance before the trial court, and when the

charge was read over and explained to her, she denied the same and pleaded not

guilty.

6. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 33 and marked Exts.P1 to P50. MOs.

1 to 12 were also identified and marked.

7. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. The accused denied the incriminating

circumstances put to her and maintained her stand of innocence.

8. On the side of the defence, DWs.1 and 2 were examined, and Exts.D1 to

D5 were marked. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after a full-fledged trial,

found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 201

and 449 of IPC. The appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for

life and imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302

of IPC. The trial court also imposed sentence for different terms under the other 2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

Sections.

9. Impugning the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the

accused, Santhakumari, preferred this appeal.

10. We have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the

appellant and also, that of the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the records.

Contentions of the appellant

11. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused, Adv.Manju Antoney,

assailed the judgment of the trial court, urging several grounds. It is submitted that

the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the alleged crime. Adv.Manju

Antoney submitted that, this is a case, wherein there is no direct evidence. In a case

of this nature, which is solely based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must

prove the motive for the commission of the crime.

12. The learned counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove

the recovery of the weapon, currency notes, ingot etc. The recovery under Section

27 of the Evidence Act was a manipulated one, which does not have any connection

with the appellant.

13. The scientific evidence adduced by the prosecution is not at all reliable

and credible. The evidence adduced by the prosecution with regard to the discharge

of financial liabilities by the accused appears to be false. The learned counsel argued

that the trial court has overlooked vital contradictions and omissions in the 2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

prosecution story. It is also argued that the prosecution story is false and highly

improbable. It is very difficult to believe that a 61 year old lady has committed the

murder of an 88 year old mother, without the assistance of any other person and

thereafter sold the gold ornaments and cleared her debts on the very same day of

the incident.

Contentions of the prosecution

14. The learned Public Prosecutor, Adv. T.V. Neema, submitted that the

impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is legally sustainable and no

interference is warranted in this matter. Adv.T.V. Neema submitted that the

prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge against the appellant/accused

beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances is complete and leads to only

one hypothesis as to the guilt of the accused. It is further submitted that, this is a

case wherein an 88 year old woman was brutally murdered by the accused,

Santhakumari, aged 61 years old at that time, with an intention of robbing 4.5

sovereigns of gold ornaments worn by the deceased. The learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the accused used to discharge the duties of maid-servant occasionally

in the house of the deceased. In order to discharge the liabilities of the accused, she

committed the brutal murder of the said Kunjilakshmi Amma by inflicting, as many

as, 28 injuries on the vital parts of her body and robbed her gold ornaments. The

learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant/accused sold the robbed 2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

ornaments and discharged her financial liabilities on that day itself.

A Compendium of the Prosecution Evidence

15. PW1, Sathyanarayanan K., is the son of the deceased Kunjilakshmi Amma.

He testified that the deceased, Kunjilakshmi Amma, was residing along with PW9

(Sathi) at Vendalur. On 04.03.2013 at about 4.30 p.m., he got a phone call stating

that his mother, Kunjilakshmi Amma, was lying in a pool of blood in her house at

Vendalur. PW1 rushed to the house of his mother, wherein he found the deceased,

Kunjilakshmi Amma, lying in a pool of blood. He came to know that the gold

ornaments of Kunjilakshmi Amma were also robbed, including two chains and two

bangles.

16. His brother, Ramakrishnan (PW5), gifted a 'Thara' model chain weighing

1¼ sovereigns. Another chain 'Dhalapathy' model was gifted to the mother by PW9,

Sathi. His sister-in-law also gave a bangle weighing two sovereigns, which was later

converted to two bangles weighing one sovereigns each by PW9, Sathi. The total

weight of the gold ornaments would be about 4.5 sovereigns (34 grams).

17. His sister, Sathi, is a teacher at MES Central School, Valanchery. She used

to go to school at 9.00 a.m., and would come back at about 4.30 p.m. It is further

stated that, on the day prior to the incident, i.e., on 03.03.2013, he visited his

mother and had seen his mother wearing the gold ornaments. PW1 lodged Ext.P1

FIS on 04.03.2013. He has also witnessed the inquest. According to PW1, the 2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

accused committed the murder of his mother with the intention of robbing the gold

ornaments.

18. PW1 further stated that the accused used to visit the deceased at her

house at Vendalur frequently. He further stated that, when the police reached the

house for investigation, the appellant/accused was seen perplexed. PW1 further

stated that, when the police came to the house of Santhakumari on 11.03.2013 at

about 11 a.m., the accused tried to run away and fell in the courtyard. The witness

further stated that he witnessed the recovery of Rs.24,500/- from the house of the

accused beneath the pillow. The witness further stated that he saw the recovery of

MO-1 chopper, by the CI of Police from the work area of the house of the deceased.

He identified the accused and MO-1 chopper.

19. PW2, Aboobacker, is a neighbour of the deceased Kunjilakshmi Amma. On

04.03.2013, the witness heard a hue and cry from the house of PW1, Sathi and he

rushed to that house. He saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood in a prone

position. He also understood that the ornaments of the deceased were stolen. He

put his signature in Ext.P2 Inquest Report. He also witnessed the recovery of MO-1

chopper from the work area of the house of the deceased. He identified the accused

in Court. He put his signature in Ext.P3, Seizure Mahazar, through which MO-1

chopper was recovered by police.

20. PW3, Noushad, is the witness to Ext.P4, Scene Mahazar, through which,

MO-2 Bed Sheet, was recovered from the place of occurrence. PW4, Kanakkarayi, 2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

would depose that, she saw the accused just before the incident in an Autorickshaw

between 12 to 12.45 a.m. near the place of occurrence. Later, she came to know

that the mother of Sathi teacher was assassinated. She identified the accused in the

dock as the same woman she had seen travelling in an Autorickshaw on 04.03.2013.

21. PW5, Ramakrishnan, is another son of the deceased. He stated that he

had presented one 'Thara' chain to his mother on her 60th birthday. He knew that

PW1, Sathi, had also gifted a 'Dhalapathy' model chain to her mother. According to

him, the deceased used to wear those ornaments.

22. PW6, Devaki Antharjanam, is a neighbour of PW1 and the deceased. She

stated that she saw the deceased, Kunjilakshmi Amma, at about 12.30 p.m on

04.03.2013 in her house. At that time, she had worn two chains, two bangles, one

ring, and studs.

23. PW7, Vinod Kumar V.G., is a star witness in this case. He would say that

he is running a jewellery shop, under the name and style 'Gopal Jewellery' at

Valanchery. On 04.03.2013 at about 2 to 2.30 p.m., a lady with a medium

complexion, wearing a yellow saree, reached his shop to sell some gold ornaments.

When he asked to show the ornaments, that lady showed two broken chains and two

dented bangles. One of the chains was the 'Dhalapathy' model and the other 'Thara'

model. The bangles weighed about one sovereign each. On enquiry, the lady told

him that those ornaments were brought by her son from abroad, and she is selling

the ornaments to procure Visa. But she could not state from which Jewellery those 2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

ornaments were purchased. On being asked, she stated that her name was Sarojini

and that she was from a place called Perassanoor. The witness further stated that

the lady is acquainted with one Manupal, proprietor of Kalathil jewellery and one

Unni, proprietor of Medical Store.

24. PW7 further stated that he asked the lady to bring her son. He identified

the accused in the dock as the lady who came to his shop for selling gold on

04.03.2013.

25. The next day, he came to know about the murder of Kunjilakshmi Amma

and about the robbery of two chains and two bangles of the deceased. At that time,

he remembered that a lady came to his shop with two chains and two bangles for

sale. He informed the matter to the office of the Circle Inspector. The Circle

Inspector informed him the details of the chain and bangles. The witness told the

Circle Inspector that a lady came to his shop with ornaments of the same description.

26. The police took him to the house of the accused on 11.03.2013 and

identified her in that house. He also identified the MO-3 saree worn by the accused,

when she came to his shop.

27. PW8, Sainudheen. C., has witnessed the recovery of currency notes

beneath the pillow from the house of the accused. He also witnessed two

passbooks, one slip, a yellow coloured saree from the house of the accused. He put

his signature in Ext.P5 Search List, and identified MO-3 saree, MO-4 pillow with its

cover, MO-5 currency notes, Ext.P7 Loan Passbook of Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., 2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

Koppam and Ext. P8, Bank slip of Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Koppam.

28. PW9, Sathi, is the daughter of the deceased Kunjilakshmi Amma. She is a

teacher in MES Central School, Valanchery. Both Kunjilakshmi Amma and PW9

resided in the house of PW9 at Vendalur near Valanchery. She used to go to her

school at about 8.45 a.m and will come back at about 4.30 p.m. Before her

departure to school, she used to lock the front gate and enter the road through the

adjoining property. She did as usual on 04.03.2013 also.

29. PW9 testified that her mother used to wear two gold chains, two bangles,

studs, and a ring. On the fateful day of 04.03.2013, when she came back from

school, she saw her mother lying in a pool of blood in her bedroom. The ornaments

worn by the mother were also stolen. She stated that her mother used to wear a

'Thara' model chain weighing 10 grams and a 'Dhalapathi' model chain weighing 8

grams. She used to wear two bangles, weighing 8 grams each.

30. PW9 further stated that when they got information that the police came to

the house of the accused, Santha on 11.03.2013, she along with PW1 went there at

that time. She saw the accused running away from the house and falling down in

the courtyard. She had also seen the recovery of Rs.24,500/- by the Circle Inspector

from Santha.

31. PW9 stated that on the same day at about 2 p.m., the police officers took

Santhakumari to the house of the deceased and recovered MO-1 chopper from the

work area.

2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

32. PW10, Leela K., is the daughter of the deceased Kunjilakshmi Amma. She

would also say that her mother was assassinated by someone for robbing gold

ornaments.

33. PW11, K.P. Jayasree, is the daughter-in-law of Kunjilakshmi Amma. She

would say that she could identify the ornaments of the deceased Kunjilakshmi Amma.

She further testified that the accused used to prepare food for them from 05.03.2013

to 10.03.2013. During that time, the accused used to make certain comments about

the police that there are several cases in which the police failed to prove, and no

purpose would be served by the investigation of such crimes.

34. PW12, Dileep Seth, who is a dealer of old gold ornaments, is a crucial

witness in this matter. He stated that, on 04.03.2013, in between 2 to 2.30 p.m., one

Kunjippa took the accused to the shop at Valanchery. On enquiry, the accused told

him that she wanted to sell some gold to get Visa to her son. The accused took two

dented bangles and two chains. One of the chains was the 'Thara' model, weighing

10 grams and the other 'Dhalapathy' model, weighing 8 grams. The total weight of

the ornaments was 34 grams. He purchased the gold and paid Rs.76,900/-.

Thereafter, the accused left his shop. On that day, the accused had worn a yellow

saree with designs. He identified the accused in the dock. At about 6 p.m. he

melted the gold and converted it into an ingot.

35. On 05.03.2013, the Circle Inspector Valanchery police station came to him

and asked whether anyone sold gold to him on 04.03.2013. He stated that he 2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

purchased gold from a lady introduced by one Kunjippa. The Circle Inspector

directed him to keep the ingot intact. On 11.03.2013, the police came to his shop

and recovered MO-12 gold ingot, as per Ext.P10 recovery mahazar. He also identified

MO-3 saree worn by the accused.

36. PW13, Vasudevan, is a witness to Ext.P9 Arrest cum Inspection memo.

PW14, Ramachandran, is the witness to Ext.P10 Recovery Mahazar, through which

MO-12 gold ingot was seized by police from PW12, Dileep Seth. PW15, Sarojini,

testified that she saw the accused at about 10.30 a.m. on 04.03.2013 in a bus.

According to PW15, Sarojini, the accused alighted at Alinchuvadu near Valanchery,

they had a small chat in the bus.

37. PW16, Karthyayani, stated that she saw the accused near the place of

occurrence on 04.03.2013 at about 1 p.m. PW17, Savithri, stated that she saw the

accused between 12.30 to 1 p.m. at Alinchuvadu near the place of occurrence. She

identified the accused and also MO-3 yellow saree worn by her at that time. PW18,

Visalakshi, is a relative of the accused, Santhakumari. She stated that she saw the

accused between 4 to 4.30 p.m. on the alleged day of occurrence and had a small

chat with her. She further testified that the accused is a greedy person and that she

would not repay the borrowed money.

38. PW19, Vijayakumari, testified that on 07.03.2013, the accused

Santhakumari repaid Rs.2,500/- (5 currency notes of Rs.500/-) to her towards a

chitty liability. PW20, Paraman, is a relative of the accused. He would say that the 2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

husband of the accused borrowed Rs.14,000/- from him. On 04.03.2013 at about 4

p.m, the accused repaid the said amount at his residence.

39. PW21, Saraswathy, is a witness to Ext.P11 Seizure Mahazer, through which

the Circle Inspector seized Rs.14,000/- from PW20, Paraman, on 12.03.2013. PW22,

Kanakalatha, deposed that on 04.03.2013 at about 3 p.m., the accused remitted

Rs.20,000/- in the Service Co-operative Bank, Thiruvegappura Branch. She is the

Manager of the aforesaid Bank. Ext.P12 is the photocopy of the Chalan and Ext.P13

is the copy of ledger extract.

40. PW23 is the Village Officer, Irumbiliyam, who prepared Ext.P14 sketch of

the place of occurrence. PW24, Hamsa, produced Ext.P15, Ownership Certificate of

the house where the deceased Kunjilakshmi Amma and PW9 Sathi resided. PW25,

Ahamed, is an employee of Koppam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd, Thiruvegappura

Branch. He identified the accused as his customer. On 04.03.2013 at about 3 p.m.,

the accused remitted Rs.20,000/- to her loan account. He produced Ext.P12 copy of

Chalan and Ext.P13, Loan Ledger.

41. PW26, Dr.Prajith T.M., conducted the autopsy of Kunjilakshmi Amma. On

05.03.2013, Dr.Prajith, noted 28 ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased.

According to Dr.Prajith, the deceased died due to multiple blunt force injuries

sustained to the head, resulting in intracranial bleeding. Ext.P17 is the Postmortem

certificate. Dr.Prajith further stated that the injuries could have been caused by a

weapon like MO-1. According to him, the injuries are sufficient to cause death in the 2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

ordinary course.

42. PW27, Dr.Muhammed Ali, examined the accused on 11.03.2013 at about 6

p.m. He noted a fracture at the base of the proximal phalanx of the left little finger.

The fracture was caused while the accused was trying to avoid arrest. PW28,

Mukundan Unni, was the Tester Inspector, Finger Print Bureau, Malappuram. He

collected footprints and fingerprints from the place of occurrence. According to him,

the chance print V5 was found to be identical to the left index finger impression of

the accused.

43. PW30, SHO, Valancheri, recorded the FIS of PW1 and registered Ext.P23

FIR. PW31, Unnikrishnan, is the Scientific Assistant in Regional Forensic Science

Laboratory, Thrissur. He examined the scene of occurrence of the crime and

collected samples therefrom. PW32, Sunitha V.B., is the Assistant Director, Serology

in FSL, Thiruvananthapuram. She examined 8 sealed packets and noted human

blood in some of the samples. PW33 is the Investigating Officer. He questioned the

material witnesses and recorded their statements. He had recovered MO-1 chopper

from the house of the deceased.

Defence Version

44. On the side of the defence, DWs.1 and 2 were examined. DW1 is the

News Editor of Mathrubhumi daily, Malappuram edition. He produced Ext.D5 daily

dated 11.03.2013. Ext.D5 contained a news item with regard to the murder of an old 2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

lady. DW2, Madhusoodanan, is a local reporter of Mathrubhumi daily. Ext.D5 news

item was published in the daily on the basis of his report. In that report, he stated

that the murder was committed by a male. The defence version is that the crime

was committed by a male person and she was falsely implicated.

45. The first submission by Adv.Manju Antoney, learned counsel for the

appellant/accused is that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive for the

commission of the crime. The learned counsel submitted that, this is a case wherein

there is no direct evidence to prove the fact in issue. Therefore, the prosecution has

to establish the motive, which is the driving force behind the crime.

46. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the

appellant/accused had a strong motive to commit the crime. An 88 year old lady was

murdered by the accused for stealing 4.5 sovereigns of gold. This is a murder for

gain. Further, the accused utilized the proceeds of the crime to discharge her

financial liabilities.

47. On perusal of the evidence of PW1, Sathynarayanan and PW9, Sathi, it

appears that the deceased Kunjilakshmi Amma used to wear one 'Thara' model chain,

one 'Dhalapathi' model chain and two bangles. They would also say that the

appellant/accused used to visit the house of Kunjilakshmi Amma occasionally. PW12,

Dileep Seth, a dealer of old gold ornaments, testified that the accused visited his

shop on 04.03.2013 at about 2.30 p.m. to sell one 'Thara' model chain weighing 10

grams and one 'Dhalapathi' model chain, weighing 8 grams. PW12, Dileep Seth 2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

purchased those articles and paid Rs.76,900/- to the accused.

48. PWs.19, 20, 21 and 22 would say that the accused had discharged the

liability immediately after the incident. According to PW19, Vijayakumari, the

appellant/accused had repaid Rs.2,500/- towards a chitty liability. PW20, Paraman,

stated that the accused had repaid Rs.14,000/- borrowed from him by the husband

of the accused on 04.03.2013 at about 4 p.m.

49. PW11, Saraswathy, witnessed the seizure of currency notes by the Circle

Inspector of Police from PW20, Paraman on 12.03.2013. PW22, Kanakalatha, stated

that the accused remitted Rs.20,000/- in Service Co-operative Bank, Thiruvegappura

Branch. She also produced Ext.P12, a copy of challan and Ext.P13, a copy of the

ledger extract.

50. In Vijaysankar v. State of Haryana1, the appellate court opined that,

in each and every case, it is not incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the motive

of the crime. The proof of motive only adds to the weight and value of the evidence

adduced by the prosecution.

51. In the instant case, the evidence of PWs.1, 9, 12, and 19 to 22 would

clearly establish that the appellant/accused was in dire need of money to clear her

liabilities and that prompted her to commit the murder of the deceased Kunjilakshmi

Amma.

             2015 KHC 5191
                                                                         2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

52. The second submission by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the

three recoveries effected by the police officers are illegal, and therefore, no reliance

can be placed on the evidence adduced by the prosecution on the basis of such

recoveries.

53. On the other hand, Adv.T.V. Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor,

submitted that, even if there were some procedural lapses in the recovery effected,

the evidence so collected would come within the purview of Section 8 of the Indian

Evidence Act.

54. According to prosecution, the three recoveries were made under Section

27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Those recoveries pertains to :

1. Recovery of MO-1 chopper.

2. Recovery of MO-12 ingot.

3. Seizure of currency notes, saree etc., from the house of the accused.

55. Adv.Manju Antoney pointed out that, although certain articles were

recovered by the prosecution on the basis of the alleged confession statement of the

appellant, the recovery mahazar prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was

not placed on record and proved in accordance with law. The prosecution has

produced only the relevant portions of the alleged confession statement of the

accused, ie., Exts.P27 to P29. However, the non-production of the recovery mahazars

under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is fatal to the prosecution.

2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

56. PW33, Sidhique, is the Investigating Officer in this case. He stated that

he submitted Ext.P26 advance Search Memorandum to the learned Magistrate, Tirur,

and on 11.03.2013 proceeded to collect material evidence from the house of the

accused.

57. We have gone through Ext.P26, Search Memorandum, wherein the

investigating officer stated that the accused, Santha, was arrested on 11.03.2013 at

11 a.m. The accused stated that she had kept the proceeds from the sale of gold in

her house. Further, in order to collect more evidence, it is essential to conduct a

search of the house of the accused. The Investigating officer proceeded with the

search without obtaining permission from the Court, since the delay in getting

permission would defeat the purpose. Therefore, the Investigating Officer forwarded

an advance Search Memorandum (Ext.P26) to the jurisdictional Magistrate and

proceeded to conduct a search in the house of the accused.

58. As per Ext.P5 Search List, he seized MO-4, a pillow with its cover, MO-5

series, 49 currency notes of Rs.500/- each. Ext.P7 Passbook of Koppam Service

Co-operative Bank, Ext.P8, a printed slip of Koppam Service Co-operative Bank,

Ext.P6, the Passbook of Canara Bank and MO-11, a yellow saree worn by the accused

at the time of the alleged incident.

59. PW33, further stated that, as per the disclosure statement of the accused,

MO-1 chopper, was recovered from the work area of the house of the deceased,

beneath a bunch of coconut leaves. He stated that, MO-1 chopper was recovered as 2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

per Ext.P3, seizure mahazar. As per Ext.P3, seizure mahazar, the alleged recovery of

chopper was at 11 a.m on 11.03.2013, on the basis of the information that the

chopper was hidden in the work area of the house of the deceased. The said

recovery was effected in the presence of two witnesses, namely, K.T. Moidu and

Aboobacker (PW2). PW33 stated that, MO-1 chopper was recovered on the basis of

the exculpatory portion of the disclosure statement of the accused. In Ext.P27, the

relevant extract of the disclosure statement, it is stated that the chopper was

concealed in the work area beneath a bunch of coconut leaves at the house of

Kunjilakshmi Amma. On the basis of Ext.P28, the relevant extract of the disclosure

statement of the accused, recovered MO-12 gold ingot, as per Ext.P10 seizure

mahazar. In Ext.P28, the accused stated that the proceeds from the sale of gold

ornaments were hidden inside a pillow cover, and the saree worn by her at the time

of occurrence was hung in her bedroom. As led by the accused, PW33 went to the

shop of Dileep Seth (PW12) and recovered a gold ingot weighing 34 grams.

60. On the basis of Ext.P29, the relevant extract of the statement, a search

was conducted in the house of the accused, and as per Ext.P5 Search List, articles

were recovered. Thereafter, PW33 submitted Ext.P30, a report, adding the name and

address of the accused.

61. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused placing reliance on the

judgment in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 argued

2022 KHC OnLine 7083 2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

that the procedure of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act adopted

by the prosecution is not proper and correct. The relevant paragraphs of

Ramanand's case (supra) are extracted hereunder:

"53. If, it is say of the investigating officer that the accused appellant while in custody on his own free will and volition made a statement that he would lead to the place where he had hidden the weapon of offence along with his blood stained clothes then the first thing that the investigating officer should have done was to call for two independent witnesses at the police station itself. Once the two independent witnesses arrive at the police station thereafter in their presence the accused should be asked to make an appropriate statement as he may desire in regard to pointing out the place where he is said to have hidden the weapon of offence. When the accused while in custody makes such statement before the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) the exact statement or rather the exact words uttered by the accused should be incorporated in the first part of the panchnama that the investigating officer may draw in accordance with law. This first part of the panchnama for the purpose of S.27 of the Evidence Act is always drawn at the police station in the presence of the independent witnesses so as to lend credence that a particular statement was made by the accused expressing his willingness on his own free will and volition to point out the place where the weapon of offence or any other article used in the commission of the offence had been hidden. Once the first part of the panchnama is completed thereafter the police party along with the accused and the two independent witnesses (panch witnesses) would proceed to the particular place as may be led by the accused. If from that particular place anything like the weapon of offence or blood stained clothes or any other article is discovered then that part of the entire process would form the second part of the panchnama. This is how the law expects the investigating officer to draw the discovery panchnama as contemplated under S.27 of the Evidence Act. If we read the entire oral evidence of the investigating officer then it is clear that the same is deficient in all the aforesaid relevant aspects of the matter.

56. The requirement of law that needs to be fulfilled before accepting the evidence of discovery is that by proving the contents of the panchnama. The investigating officer in his deposition is obliged in law to prove the contents of the panchnama and it is only if the investigating officer has 2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

successfully proved the contents of the discovery panchnama in accordance with law, then in that case the prosecution may be justified in relying upon such evidence and the trial court may also accept the evidence. In the present case, what we have noticed from the oral evidence of the investigating officer, PW - 7, Yogendra Singh is that he has not proved the contents of the discovery panchnama and all that he has deposed is that as the accused expressed his willingness to point out the weapon of offence the same was discovered under a panchnama. We have minutely gone through this part of the evidence of the investigating officer and are convinced that by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the investigating officer has proved the contents of the discovery panchnama (Exh.5). There is a reason why we are laying emphasis on proving the contents of the panchnama at the end of the investigating officer, more particularly when the independent panch witnesses though examined yet have not said a word about such discovery or turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution. In order to enable the Court to safely rely upon the evidence of the investigating officer, it is necessary that the exact words attributed to an accused, as statement made by him, be brought on record and, for this purpose the investigating officer is obliged to depose in his evidence the exact statement and not by merely saying that a discovery panchnama of weapon of offence was drawn as the accused was willing to take it out from a particular place.

64. The conditions necessary for the applicability of S.27 of the Act are broadly as under:

(1) Discovery of fact in consequence of an information received from accused;

(2) Discovery of such fact to be deposed to; (3) The accused must be in police custody when he gave information;

and (4) So much of information as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered is admissible - Mohmed Inayatullah v. The State of Maharashtra: AIR (1976) SC 483 Two conditions for application (1) information must be such as has caused discovery of the fact; and (2) information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered -

Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka: AIR 1983 SC 446.

2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

65. We may refer to and rely upon a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya reported in AIR 1960 SC 1125, wherein, Paragraph - 71 explains the position of law as regards the S.27 of the Evidence Act:

"71. The law has thus made a classification of accused persons into two: (1) those who have the danger brought home to them by detention on a charge; and (2) those who are yet free. In the former category are also those persons who surrender to the custody by words or action. The protection given to these two classes is different. In the case of persons belonging to the first category the law has ruled that their statements are not admissible, and in the case of the second category, only that portion, of the statement is admissible as is guaranteed by the discovery of a relevant fact unknown before the statement to the investigating authority. That statement may even be confessional in nature. as when the person in custody says: "I pushed him down such and such mineshaft". and the body of the victim is found as a result. and it can be proved that his death was due to injuries received by a fall down the mineshaft."

(Emphasis supplied)

66. The scope and ambit of S.27 of the Evidence Act were illuminatingly stated inPulukuri Kottaya and Others v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67, which have become locus classicus, in the following words: "10 It is fallacious to treat the "fact discovered" within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that "I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house" does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added "with which I stabbed A" these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant."

In Ramanand's case (supra), paragraphs 73 and 74 reads thus:

2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

73. Mr. Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the State would submit that even while discarding the evidence in the form of discovery panchnama the conduct of the appellant herein would be relevant under S.8 of the Evidence Act. The evidence of discovery would be admissible as conduct under S.8 of the Evidence Act quite apart from the admissibility of the disclosure statement under S.27 of the said Act, as this Court observed in A. N. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka, 2005 (7) SCC 714:

"9. By virtue of S.8 of the Evidence Act, the conduct of the accused person is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact.The evidence of the circumstance, simpliciter, that the accused pointed out to the police officer, the place where the dead body of the kidnapped boy was found and on their pointing out the body was exhumed, would be admissible as conduct under S.8 irrespective of the fact whether the statement made by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of S.27 or not as held by this Court in Prakash Chand v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1979 (3) SCC 90 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 656 : AIR 1979 SC 400). Even if we hold that the disclosure statement made by the accused - appellants (Exts. P - 15 and P - 16) is not admissible under S.27 of the Evidence Act, still it is relevant under S.8......"

(Emphasis supplied)

74. In the aforesaid context, we would like to sound a note of caution. Although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under S.8 of the Evidence Act, yet the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder. Like any other piece of evidence, the conduct of an accused is also one of the circumstances which the court may take into consideration along with the other evidence on record, direct or indirect. What we are trying to convey is that the conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under S.8 of the Evidence Act, cannot form the basis of conviction."

62. Adv.Manju Antoney argued that no recovery mahazar was prepared by the

Investigating Officer at the time of seizing MO-1 chopper.

63. Adv.T.V.Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, even if 2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

there are procedural lapses in the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence

Act, the fact that the recovery of the chopper, currency notes, and the dress are

relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

64. On perusal of the evidence of PW33, the Investigating Officer, it appears

that no recovery mahazars were prepared while recovering MO-1 chopper, and

MO-12 gold ingot. MO-1 was recovered as per Ext.P3, seizure mahazar, and MO-12

ingot was recovered as per Ext.P10 mahazar. MO-5 currency notes, MO-4 pillow

cover, MO-3 saree were seen recovered through Ext.P5, the Search List. The

Investigating Officer got prior information that PW12, the jeweller has already

converted the ornaments to gold ingot and therefore, the recovery of the ingot would

not come within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The non-preparation

of Recovery Mahazars under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is a serious lapse on the

side of the prosecution, in our view. Therefore, much weight cannot be attributed to

the recovery allegedly conducted under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is

pertinent to note that the procedure to be followed in a recovery under Section 27 of

the Indian Evidence Act, as laid down in paragraphs 53 and 56 of Ramanand's case

(supra), is not followed in the instant case.

65. It is true that the alleged recovery of weapons, clothes, currency notes

and ingots was not in accordance with the procedures, however, such recovery is

relevant as subsequent conduct under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. It would

be useful to extract Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 at this juncture for 2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

easy reference.

"8. Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct.-Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.

The conduct of any party, or of any agent to any party, to any suit or proceeding, in reference to such suit or proceeding, or in reference to any fact in issue or relevant thereto, and the conduct of any person an offence against whom is the subject of any proceeding is relevant, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact, and whether it was previous or subsequent thereto.

Explanation 1. - The word "conduct" in this section does not include statements; unless those statements accompany and explain acts other than statements; but this explanation is not to affect the relevancy of statements under any other section of this Act.

Explanation 2. - When the conduct of any person is relevant, any statement made to him or in his presence and hearing, which affects such conduct, is relevant."

66. In the instant case, the material objects recovered/seized at the instance

of the accused such as chopper, blood-stained saree, currency notes would clearly

influence the facts in issue as motive and subsequent conduct.

67. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is

that, there was a delay in sending MO-1 chopper for forensic examination, and

therefore there is a possibility of tampering. The MO-1 weapon was seized on

11.03.2013, produced before the court on 13.03.2013, but was sent for forensic

examination only on 23.03.2013. Moreover, it is contended that the expert must

state the number of bloodstains found by him on each material object.

2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

68. In order to fortify this argument, the learned counsel referred to the

judgment in Prabhu Babaji Navle v. State of Bombay3. In Prabhu Babaji's case

(supra), the appellate court held that it is duty of the Chemical Examiner to indicate

the number of blood stains found by him on each material object. A mere statement

by the Chemical Examiner that the blood was found on the material objects is not

sufficient.

69. Adv.Manju Antoney further contended that, there is no scientific evidence

connecting the accused to the crime, such as fingerprints, footprints, etc.. But, on

perusal of the evidence of PW28, Mukundanunni, Tester inspector, the Fingerprint

Bureau, Malappuram, it is revealed that the chance print V5, collected from the place

of occurrence was identical with that of the left index finger impression of the

accused.

70. Adv.Manju Antoney submitted that the prosecution story with regard to

the utilization of the sale proceeds of the gold ornaments for discharging the financial

liability of the accused has not been properly proved. On the other hand, the learned

Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW19, PW20, and PW22

convincingly establishes the utilization of the funds by the accused for the discharge

of her debts.

71. The evidence let in by the prosecution would clearly establish that the

1961 KHC 366 2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

accused is hailing from a poor family and she owed debt to several persons and

financial institutions. She had no other source of income except what she earned

from the work as a housemaid. The appellant/accused had cleared most of her

liabilities on the alleged day of the occurrence and immediately thereafter. According

to PW19, Vijayakumari, the accused had cleared a liability of Rs.2500/- on

07.03.2013 towards a local chitty transaction.

72. PW20, Paraman, testified that the appellant/accused had repaid

Rs.14,000/- to him on 04.03.2013 at about 4 p.m. The accused owed a debt to the

said Paraman. It is pertinent to note that PW20 is a relative of the accused. PW33,

the Investigating Officer, on 12.03.2013 seized 28 currency notes of Rs.500/- as per

Ext.P11 from the house of Paraman. PW22, K.K. Kanakalatha, the Manager of Service

Co-operative Bank, Koppam testified that the accused remitted Rs.20,000/- in her

bank on 04.03.2013 towards the discharge of the liability of her husband, Vasu.

73. Ext.P12 is the true copy of the challan, and Ext.P13 is the copy of the loan

ledger of the bank. The evidence of PWs.19, 20, and 22 convincingly prove that the

accused utilized the proceeds from the sale of the gold ornaments robbed by her to

discharge her liabilities.

74. Adv.Manju Antoney argued that the prosecution story that the appellant, a

61 year old lady, has committed a murder of an 88 year old mother without help or

assistance, and that too, by inflicting 28 injuries is highly improbable and

unbelievable under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned counsel 2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

invited the attention of this Court to Section 11 of the Indian Evidence which is

extracted hereunder:

"11. When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant.- Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant-

(1) if they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact; (2) if by themselves or in connection with other facts they make the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue or relevant fact highly probable or improbable."

75. The learned counsel further submitted that the facts which render the fact

in issue highly improbable are relevant under Clause (2) of Section 11. According to

the learned counsel for the appellant/accused, the accused was falsely implicated in

this case on the basis of the statements of the relatives of the deceased.

76. The learned counsel argued that most of the witnesses in this case are the

relatives of the deceased, and therefore, their testimony cannot be believed. In

Baban Shankar Daphal v. State of Maharashtra (2025 KHC 7067), the Apex

Court held that the evidence of a witness ought not be rejected only on the ground

that he is a relative of the injured/deceased, if it inspires the confidence of the Court.

77. The learned counsel has also pointed out certain minor contradictions in

the prosecution evidence, which, according to us, are immaterial, irrelevant, and

insignificant for the adjudication of the fact in issue.

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

appellant/accused is that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of 2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

circumstances leading to the commission of crime.

79. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the

prosecution has clearly established the chain of evidence, which would conclusively

prove the guilt of the accused.

80. In Sharad Birdhichand Sardar v. State of Maharashtra4, the Hon'ble

Apex Court observed that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt 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

conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. Paragraphs 152, 153 and

154 of Sharad Sardar's case (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 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

1984 KHC 145 : AIR 1984 SC 1622 2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

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 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."

2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

81. In Baiju Kumar Soni and Another v. State of Jharkhand5, the

Hon'ble Apex Court opined that, every circumstance must be fully proved and all the

circumstances must form a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude every

hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of Baiju

kumar Soni's case (supra) are extracted below:

"15. In Nizam and Another vs. State of Rajasthan (2016 (1) 550), the law on the point was reiterated while acquitting the accused of the charges under S.302 read with 201 IPC. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision were:

"9. The principle of circumstantial evidence has been reiterated by this Court in a plethora of cases. In Bodhraj v. State of J&K 2002 (8) 45, wherein this Court quoted a number of judgments and held as under: (pp. 55-56, paras 10-11)

10. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1977 (2) 99, Eradu v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316, Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka 1983 (2) 330, State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi 1985 Supp 79, Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1987 (1) 1 and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.1989 Supp (1)

560). The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR (1954) SC 621, it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.

11. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga

2019 KHC 6782 : 2019 (7) SCC 773 2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

Reddy v. State of A.P. 1996 (10) 193, wherein it has been observed thus: (pp.

206-07, para 21)

'21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.'"

10. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra 2006 (10) 681, this Court held as under: (p. 689, para 12) "12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence." The same principles were reiterated in Sunil Clifford Daniel v. State of Punjab 2012 (11) 205, Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police 2012 (4) 124 and Mohd. Arif v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2011 (13) 621 and a number of other decisions."

16. In the light of these settled principles, from the facts and circumstances it is evident:

a) Though PW7 stated that two calls were made from his STD Booth on 12.01.2006 at about 1327 Hours and 1338 Hours to specified mobile numbers, nothing has been brought on record that those two mobile numbers either belonged to PW4 and PW10 or were in any way under their control. In order to establish as a circumstance that on the relevant day threatening calls were received by the said PWs 4 and 10 from the appellants, the important fact which ought to have been established was that those two mobile numbers either belonged to or were under the control of said PWs 4 and 10. Even if we accept the theory that said PW7 had identified the appellants to be the ones who had made two calls, that does not lead us 2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

to infer that the calls must have been made to PWs4 and 10. This circumstance has not been fully established which could be read against the appellants.

b) Though drawing book had been received from the house of appellant no.1 and it was the case of the prosecution that the threatening letter (Exhibit - II) was written on a piece of paper from said drawing book, no attempts were made either to have any forensic analysis or examine handwriting expert to establish that the writing in the threatening letter was either of the appellants or could be associated with them."

82. The learned Public Prosecutor has invited the attention of this Court to the

following circumstances, which would establish the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt:

(1) The accused and the deceased are known to each other. The accused was working as a maid-servant in the Tharwad house of the deceased and she used to visit the house of the deceased - Kunjilakshmi Amma frequently. (2) The children of the deceased, Kunjilakshmi Amma, PWs.1, 9 and 10, gave evidence to the tune that the deceased used to wear one 'Thara' model chain weighing 10 grams, and 'Dhalapathi' model chain weighing 8 grams, and two bangles of 8 grams.

(3) The appellant/accused had a strong motive to commit the murder of the deceased and to rob the ornaments to discharge her financial burdens. (4) PW6, Devaki Antharjanam, saw the deceased at about 12.30 p.m., on 04.03.2013, wearing two gold chains and two bangles.

(5) PWs.15 to 18 had seen the appellant near the place of occurrence just before the alleged incident. According to PW15, Sarojini, she met the appellant/accused at about 10.30 a.m., in a bus. The accused alighted from the bus at Alinchuvadu junction, near the place of occurrence.

2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

(6) According to PW16, Karthiyayini, she met the appellant/accused on 04.03.2013 while proceeding to Vishnu temple, which is close to the place of occurrence. She noticed that, at that time, the accused wore a yellow shaded saree. (7) PW17, Savithri, had seen the appellant/accused in between 12.30 to 1 p.m., just before the incident, while she was returning after taking a bath in the temple pond. PW17, testified that at that time, the accused jumped over a mud ridge and entered the house of Sathi, PW9. She also noticed that the accused was standing in the Varanda of the house of PW9. (8) PW7, Vinod Kumar V.G., the proprietor of Gopal Jewellery, deposed that at about 2 p.m on 04.03.2013, a lady came to the shop to sell two chains and two bangles. One of the chains was the 'Dhalapathy' model and the other 'Thara' model. PW7, noticing that the hooks of the chain were broken and the bangles were dented, asked the whereabouts of the lady. She stated that her name was Sarojini and she wanted to sell the gold for arranging a Visa to her son. PW7, testified that since he felt some suspicion in the behavior of the lady, he advised her to come with her son. When PW7 got information that Kunjilakshmi Amma was murdered, he contacted the Circle Inspector, Valanchery that one lady wearing yellow shaded saree came to his jewellery for selling gold ornaments.

(9) PW12, Dileep Seth, a dealer of old gold ornaments gave evidence that at about 2.30 p.m., on 04.03.2013, he purchased 34 grams of gold ornaments from a lady. He also narrated the details of the ornaments. On 11.03.2013, PW12 identified the lady who sold gold ornaments to him and produced the gold ingot (MO-12). According to PW12, he melted the gold ornaments on the same day itself and converted it into gold ingot.

(10) PW33 seized the MO-12, gold ingot as per Ext.P10 seizure mahazar. (11) PW9, Sathi, deposed that when she came back to her house at about 4.30 p.m., she saw her mother lying in a pool of blood and two chains and two bangles were robbed from the deceased.

2025:KER:40203

CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

(12) PWs.19, 20 and 22 testified that the accused had discharged the debts and other liabilities on 04.03.2013.

(13) According to PW26, Dr. Prajith, who conducted the autopsy, the injuries noted on the body of the deceased would be caused by a weapon like MO-1. PW33, the Investigating Officer, recovered MO-1, the chopper from the work area of the house of the deceased at about 11 a.m. On 11.03.2013, PW33, the Investigating Officer seized 49 currency notes of Rs.500/-, and MO-11 yellow shaded saree from the house of the accused as per Ext.P5, Search List.

(14) PW1 and PW9 stated that, on 11.03.2013, while the police party came to arrest the accused, she tried to run away, fell down in the courtyard of her house and sustained a fracture to her little finger. PW27, the doctor, Muhammed Ali, has also noted the said fracture while the accused was examined by him. (15) PW18, Visalakshi, testified that the accused is a greedy person and she would not repay her debts.

(16) PW28, Mukundanunni, gave evidence that, V5 chance print was found to be identical with that of the left index finger impression of the accused. (17) PW32, Sunitha V.B., the Assistant Director, Serology in FSL, Thiruvananthapuram, noted blood stains in the MO-1 chopper and also in MO-11 saree worn by the accused at the time of the incident of Group-B. The blood group of the deceased Kunjilakshmi Amma was also Group-B.

83. We have re-assessed and judicially evaluated the evidence let in by the

prosecution, both oral and documentary. The chain of circumstantial evidence in this

case is complete, which would lead to only one hypothesis as to the guilt of the

accused. It is pertinent to note that, no explanation is offered by the accused with

regard to the incriminating circumstances. The trial court has appreciated the 2025:KER:40203 CRL.A NO. 718 OF 2020

evidence on record and arrived at a proper conclusion. We do not find much force in

the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant challenging the

conviction. We do not find any good grounds to interfere with the findings of the

learned Sessions Judge with regard to the conviction and the sentence. The appeal

is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed, in our view.

In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-