Kerala High Court
Gopalakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 16 June, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
2025:KER:42403
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JOBIN SEBASTIAN
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 1113 OF 2023
CRIME NO.250/2017 OF THOTTILPALAM POLICE STATION,
Kozhikode
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 19.03.2019 IN SC
NO.1 OF 2018 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT KOZHIKODE- II
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 73 YEARS
S/O MADHAVAN PILLAI, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE,
POOTHAMPARA P.O., THOTTILPALAM, KOZHIKODE,
NOW SERVING IMPRISONMENT IN CENTRAL PRISON,
KANNUR, PIN - 670005
BY ADVS.
SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER
SHRI.K.SHAMSUDHEEN
SMT.K.C.KHAMARUNNISA
KUM.K.SALMA JENNATH
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.RASSAL JANARDHANAN A.
SHRI. GOVIND G. NAIR
SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 2 2025:KER:42403
ADV. SRI. ALEX M THOMBRA, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2025, THE COURT ON 16.06.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 3 2025:KER:42403
JUDGMENT
Jobin Sebastian, J. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed
against the sole accused in S.C. No.1/2018, on the file of the
Additional Sessions Court-II, Kozhikode, for offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 203 of the Indian Penal Code are under
challenge in this appeal.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
The accused and the deceased Mohanan are co-brothers.
As the accused Gopalakrishna Pillai was not having a house to
reside, and his wife Pushpavally who is none other than the
Mohanan’s wife’s sister was a kidney patient, the deceased and his
wife permitted the accused and Pushpavally to reside temporarily in
their house until the accused could arrange an alternative place to
stay. The accused and his wife hence started to reside in the house
of the deceased, eight years prior to the incident in this case. Even
within the said eight years, the accused did not take any genuine
efforts to find out a suitable alternative residence, which led to
growing resentment in the mind of Mohanan towards the accused.
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 4 2025:KER:42403
The Mohanan then started to harass and tease the accused, leading
to quarrels between them, which engendered vengeance in the
accused’s mind. In order to wreak vengeance, on 23.08.2017 at
some time between 8.30 p.m. and 10.15 p.m., while Mohanan and
the accused were alone in the house, inside the courtyard of the said
house and its premises, the accused with an intention to commit
murder, stabbed Mohanan repeatedly using a knife. During the
scuffle when the said knife was slipped out of the hands of the
accused, he took a stone and inflicted fatal injuries on the face,
chest, and various parts of the body of Mohanan, and he succumbed
to those injuries. Thereafter, the accused went to the house of one
Anoop (CW3) and gave false information that Mohanan had fallen
accidentally and sustained some injuries. Hence, the accused is
alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections
302 and 203 of the IPC.
3. On completion of the investigation, the final report was
submitted before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Nadapuram. Being satisfied that the case is one triable exclusively
by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with
all the necessary formalities, committed the case to the Court of
Session, Kozhikode, under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 5 2025:KER:42403
Code. After taking cognizance, the learned Sessions Judge made
over the case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions
Court-II, Kozhikode.
4. On production of the accused before the court, the
learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides under Section 227
of the Cr.P.C., and perusal of records, framed a written charge
against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302
and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. When the charge was read over
and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to
be tried.
5. The prosecution, in its bid to prove the charge levelled
against the accused, has altogether examined 28 witnesses as PW1
to PW28 and marked MO1 to MO3. Exts.P1 to P24 are the
documents exhibited and marked. After the completion of
prosecution evidence, when the accused was questioned under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied all the incriminating materials
brought out against him in evidence. Since it was not a fit case to
acquit the accused under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., the accused was
directed to enter on his defence and adduce any evidence he may
have in support thereof. But no evidence, whatsoever, was adduced
from the side of the accused.
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 6 2025:KER:42403
6. After trial, the accused was found guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 203 of the IPC and convicted.
The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to
pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. In default of the
payment of the fine, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for three years. For offence punishable under Section
203 IPC, the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with a
default clause to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
The substantive sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.
Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed, the accused has come up with this appeal.
7. The law was set in motion in this case on the strength of
the FIS given by one Akhil, who is a neighbour of the deceased.
When the first informant was examined as PW8, he admitted that on
knowing about the incident in this case, he went to the house of the
deceased and then informed the matter to Police. He also admitted
his signature in the FIS recorded by the Police, and the same is
marked as Ext.P3. Apart from admitting that he is a neighbour of
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 7 2025:KER:42403
the deceased and had gone to the house of the deceased, upon
learning of the incident, and subsequently gave a statement to the
Police, PW8 did not depose anything regarding the occurrence when
examined before the court.
8. PW1 is one of the crucial witnesses examined by the
prosecution. On examination before the court, PW1 deposed that he
is a neighbour of the deceased, Mohanan. During the period of
occurrence in this case he was working as a salesman in a shop. It
was on 23.08.2016, Mohanan died. On 23.08.2016, he did not go to
his job. On that day at 4.00 p.m., he visited the house of Mohanan.
Then Mohanan was alone in the said house. After a short while,
Gopalakrishna Pillai, the accused in this case, also arrived there.
Other than the accused and the deceased, the wife and
daughter-in-law of Mohanan and the wife of Gopalakrishna Pillai
were usually residing in the said house. On enquiry, he was told that
Mohanan’s wife and her sister, Gopalakrishna Pillai’s wife, went to
Mohanan’s daughter’s house, while Mohanan’s daughter-in-law had
gone to her parental house. After watching TV for a short while, he
returned to his house. At around 8 p.m., Mohanan came to his
house, appearing to be a little intoxicated. Thereafter, Mohanan
engaged in a friendly talk with his mother and had food from there
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 8 2025:KER:42403
and then returned to his house. He also accompanied Mohanan,
lighting the path with a torch. When he reached Mohanan’s house,
the accused was also there. Apart from the accused, no one else
was in the said house. After leaving Mohanan there, he returned to
his house. Thereafter, he went to bed following the meal. Later, at
11 p.m., somebody came to his house and called him. When he
opened the door, he found the accused standing in his courtyard
wearing a dhoti, and his entire body was covered in blood. When he
enquired, the accused said that Mohanan fell upside down and died.
The accused then asked him to accompany him, but he refused due
to fear. Then he contacted his friend Sudheesh. Subsequently,
several of his friends came, and then he went to the house of
Mohanan, where he saw Mohanan lying supine in a sunken area
abutting the courtyard, in a pool of blood. As he felt that Mohanan
had died, he reported the matter to the Police. Accordingly, the
Police came and took Mohanan to a hospital at Kuttiadi. After
examining Mohanan, the Doctor reported that Mohanan is no more.
When he left Mohanan’s house after leaving Mohanan there, the
accused alone was there in the said house. According to PW1, the
accused in this case is none other than the co-brother of the
deceased, and the accused as well as his wife, were residing in
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 9 2025:KER:42403
Mohanan’s house. PW1 further deposed that during their joint stay
initially, they had a good relationship. However, later, Mohanan raised
objections regarding the stay of Gopalakrishanan and his wife.
According to PW1, both the accused and Mohanan used to consume
liquor. Moreover, Mohanan told PW1 that the accused, after drinking
liquor, used to say that the death of Mohanan would be at his hands.
9. The wife of the deceased was examined as PW3.
According to PW3, the deceased in this case is her husband, and it
was on 23.08.2017, her husband died. During the period of occurrence
in this case, she, along with her husband and daughter-in-law, were
residing together. Her son was employed abroad. According to PW3,
apart from her husband and daughter-in-law, her sister and her
husband were also residing with them in the said house. They were
permitted to reside so as her sister was a kidney patient and was in a
financially vulnerable condition. When her husband died, she and her
sister were in her daughter’s house, and her daughter-in-law was at
her paternal house. At the time when her husband died, her husband
and Gopalakrishnan, the accused, were alone in her house. On the
alleged date of the incident, she and her sister attended her
daughter’s residence due to the recent demise of her daughter’s
husband. However, on the way to her daughter’s house, her sister
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 10 2025:KER:42403
became unwell, and hence she contacted her other daughter’s
husband. Accordingly, her son-in-law came and she, along with her
sister, went to the house of Sreepriya (PW5), her other daughter, and
stayed there that day. In the early morning of the next day, at 1.30
a.m., the Grama Panchayat Member of her ward contacted her over
the phone and informed her that her husband had fallen down and
was admitted to a hospital. Then her son-in-law arranged a vehicle
and took her, as well as her sister, to her house. According to PW3, as
there were space constraints, her husband frequently told the accused
to build a house, but the accused was not amenable to the same. It
was due to the said animosity, the accused murdered her husband.
PW3 further deposed that both her husband and the accused used to
pick quarrels after drinking liquor. According to PW3, though the
accused used to tell that he would kill Mohanan, she thought that the
accused was saying so under the influence of alcohol.
10. When the daughter of the deceased was examined as
PW4, she deposed that the accused Gopalakrishnan is the husband of
her mother’s younger sister. She deposed that her father died on
23.08.2017. Her father, her mother, her mother’s sister, and her
husband, the accused in this case, were all staying together. On the
day of the incident, her mother and her aunt came to her house,
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 11 2025:KER:42403
and her aunt was complaining of a headache. In the afternoon, her
mother and her aunt went to her elder sister’s house at Kalpachi and
stayed there overnight. At 1.00 a.m. that night, her mother received a
call informing her that her father was unwell, and her mother and her
aunt went to the ancestral home. PW4 further deposed that the
accused and her aunt had been living at her ancestral house for a long
time, and her father and the accused used to quarrel frequently.
11. The elder daughter of the deceased was examined as
PW5; she deposed in the same lines as spoken by PW3 and PW4. PW5
added that after consuming liquor, both the accused and the deceased
used to quarrel with each other, and the accused used to say that he
would kill Mohanan. She further deposed that, earlier on one
occasion, the accused followed her father with a stone, and one
Surendran (PW6) intervened and pacified the accused.
12. When another neighbour of the victim was examined as
PW6, he deposed that he is a private Surveyor. On 23.08.2017,
Mohanan, the deceased in this case, died. Upon knowing about the
same, when he arrived at the scene of the occurrence, he saw
Mohanan lying in a pool of blood, on the ground in the courtyard of his
house, and saw the accused Gopalakrishnan sitting on the verandah of
the said house. He further deposed that one month prior to the
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 12 2025:KER:42403
incident in this case, he saw the accused attempting to hit the
deceased with a stone in the midst of an altercation, and it was PW6
who intervened and sent them away.
13. The Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Thottilpalam Police
Station, who registered the FIR in this case, was examined as PW26.
According to PW26, on 24.08.2017 at 3.10 a.m., he recorded the
statement of one Akhil (PW8) and registered an FIR. According to
PW26, Ext.P19 is the FIR so registered by him, and the said FIR was
registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. for unnatural death.
14. The SHO, Thottilpalam Police Station, who conducted the
initial part of the investigation, was examined as PW27. On
examination before the court, PW27 deposed that on 23.08.2017 at
11.30 p.m., he received a telephonic information that one Mohanan
Paramel, the deceased in this case, was lying injured at a place called
Kacherithazham at Mundamkutty. Upon receiving the said
information, he went to the place of occurrence and saw the deceased
lying in a pool of blood. With the help of those who gathered there,
he took the deceased to a hospital at Kuttiadi. Thereafter, he reached
back at the Police Station at around 3.30 a.m. by which time an FIR
had already been registered. On 24.08.2017 at 10.30 p.m., he
conducted an inquest of the deceased Mohanan and thereafter,
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 13 2025:KER:42403
forwarded the dead body for post-mortem examination. Thereafter,
he visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Ext.P2 scene
mahazar. He recovered a stone found at the place of occurrence.
Apart from the said stone, a spectacle, a mobile phone, a slipper, and
a torchlight were also taken into custody from the place of occurrence.
The items collected and handed over by the fingerprint expert were
also seized. Thereafter, he took the accused into custody. During
cross-examination, PW27 deposed that, except the blood-stained
stone, all other items seized as per Ext.P2 scene mahazar were
produced before the court, and the blood-stained stone was produced
before the Circle Inspector of Police, Kuttiadi (PW28).
15. The Circle Inspector of Police, who conducted the major
chunk of the investigation in this case and laid the final report after
the culmination of the investigation, was examined as PW28. On
examination before the court, PW28 deposed that he took over the
investigation in this case on 25.08.2017. At the time when he took
over the investigation, Gopalakrishnan, the suspect in this case, was
already in the custody of the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuttiadi Police
Station. Then he questioned the suspect Gopalakrishnan, and, on
being satisfied that he is the perpetrator of this crime, his arrest was
recorded. Ext.P20 is the arrest memo. On questioning, the accused
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 14 2025:KER:42403
stated that “എന്നെ കൂട്ടികൊണ്ടു പോയാൽ ലുങ്കി വീട്ടിൽ വച്ച സ്ഥലം കാണിച്ചുതരാം.”. On
the basis of the said information given and as led by the accused, he
reached the house where the accused was residing and a violet colour
lungi, as pointed out by the accused, was taken into custody as per
Ext.P6 mahazar. Subsequently, he interrogated the witnesses in this
case and recorded their statements. Thereafter, the accused was
produced before the jurisdictional magistrate along with a remand
application. Meanwhile, the Sub Inspector of Police (PW27) who
prepared the scene mahazar in this case had produced a stone before
him. MO3 is the said stone. Thereafter, he questioned the Doctor
who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the
deceased, and the Doctor, when confronted with the MO3 stone,
stated that the injuries noted by him in the postmortem examination
could be inflicted by using such a stone. Thereafter, he took the
accused into police custody. When questioned, the accused gave a
confession statement, and in the said statement, the accused
disclosed that “കത്തി ഞാൻ എൻ്റെ കൂടെ വന്നാൽ എറിഞ്ഞ സ്ഥലം കാണിച്ചുതരാം.”
On the basis of the said disclosure statement and as led by the
accused, he reached at a property which belongs to one Mohanan,
situating on the eastern side of the place of occurrence, and the
accused took a knife from the said property and handed over the
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 15 2025:KER:42403
same to him. According to PW28, the said knife was taken into
custody by him after being described in Ext.P7 mahazar. The relevant
portion of the confession statement given by the accused is marked as
Ext.P21. According to PW28, while he questioned the Doctor who
conducted the autopsy, and when confronted with the said knife, the
Doctor stated that some of the injuries noted in the postmortem could
have been inflicted by using the said knife. According to PW28, the
Thondi articles recovered by him were duly produced before the court
along with a forwarding note. The chemical analysis report received
after the examination of Thondi articles in this case is marked as
Ext.P24.
16. This is a case in which there is no direct evidence to
prove the occurrence. Instead, the prosecution relies on
circumstantial evidence to establish the accused’s guilt. Before delving
into the details of the circumstantial evidence presented in this case
by the prosecution, it is essential to examine the principles and
guidelines governing the evaluation of such evidence.
17. In Sarad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
[AIR 1984 SC 1622], the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed the nature,
character, and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests
on circumstantial evidence alone and held as under:
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 16 2025:KER:42403
(i) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should be fully established;
(ii) 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;
(iii) The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency;
(iv) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the
one to be proved; and
(v) 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.
18. A similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in
Bodh Raj alias Bodha v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [AIR
2002 SC 3164], State of Uttarpradesh v. Satish [AIR 2005 SC
1000] and Subramaniam v. State of Tamilnadu [(2009) 14 SCC
415].
19. In cases built upon circumstantial evidence, a complete
and unbroken chain of evidence is a requisite. This chain must
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 17 2025:KER:42403
inevitably lead to the conclusion that the accused, and none other
than the accused, could have committed the offence. In other
words, to sustain a conviction, circumstantial evidence must be
comprehensive and incapable of explanation of any hypothesis other
than the guilt of the accused. Thus, such evidence must not only be
consistent with the accused’s guilt but also inconsistent with his
innocence.
20. Keeping in mind the above principles, the crucial question
in the case at hand is whether the prosecution has fully and
exhaustively established the circumstances relied upon to prove the
charge levelled against the accused. Furthermore, it must be
ascertained whether these circumstances lead inexorably to the
conclusion of the accused’s guilt, to the exclusion of any other
plausible explanation, including innocence.
21. Before entering into a discussion regarding the
circumstances pressed into service from the side of the Prosecution,
it is apposite to consider the evidence of the doctor who conducted
the postmortem examination. The Doctor who conducted the
autopsy of Mohanan, when examined as PW11, deposed that on
24.08.2017, while he was working as Assistant Professor in the
department of Forensic Medicine in Government Medical College,
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 18 2025:KER:42403
Kozhikode, he conducted the postmortem examination of the
deceased in this case and issued a postmortem certificate. The
postmortem certificate issued by PW11 is marked as Ext.P4.
Referring to Ext.P4 postmortem certificate, PW11 deposed that on
examination, he had noted the following ante-mortem injuries;
1. Grazed contused abrasion over an area 8 x 5 – 7cm, broader
upwards on right front of chest: obliquely placed (graze
directed obliquely up and outwards). It started as an oblique
line with its upper inner end at manubriosternal angle and
lower inner end 5 cm right to midline. The injury reached inner
1/3 of right collarbone and right pectoral area.
2. Lacerated wound, 4x1x2 cm, bone deep on left hall of chin.
The lower inner end reaching midline. Underneath jaw bone
showed fracture.
3. Lacerated wound, 3×0.5×0.3cm, on left half of lower lip.
4. Lacerated wound 2×0.5×1 cm upper lip, at its left half.
5. Lacerated wound, 5×1 cm involving gum of front teeth – old
loss of upper front teeth. The alveolar margins showed multiple
fractures. The lower front teeth missing – old loss.
6. Abraded contusion, 2x2x0.5cm on face at right infra orbita
area, 5 cm outer to midline and 1 cm above front of cheek
prominence.
7. Abraded contusion 15x1x0.5cm, at middle of top of upper lid of
right eye.
8. Contused abrasion 3x2x1 cm, at upper portion of outer aspect
of left orbit.
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 19 2025:KER:42403
9. Lacerated wound, 1.5×0.5×1 cm (bone deep) on front of left
frontal eminence, 4.5 cm above left orbit and 2.5cm outer to
midline.
10. Dermal contusion, 7×3 – 7cm, cone-shaped, broader upwards,
on front of middle of neck to lower portion of right half of front
of neck involving the thyroid area.
11. Contusion, 8x4x1 cm, on front and left side of cheek.
12. Contusion, 2×1.5×0.8 cm, on left jaw border. It was 2cm outer
to main lacerated wound on lower jaw (injury no.2).
13. Contusion 4.5×0.5×0.5cm, on head at right temple area, front
orbit to top of ear direction.
14. Contusion, 3.5×1.5×0.5cm, on left side of bridge of nose with
scattered small superficial lacerated wounds.
15. Contusion, 1×0.3×0.2cm, right ala of nose.
16. Patterned dermal contusion, shaped two in numbers on right
side of front of chest the upper one 5×0.1cm transverse, the
inner end showed another 2cm at 90° downwards which was
1.5cm below nipple (17cm below right collar bone) and 9cm
outer to midline. The other wound measured 4.5cm transverse
(0.1cm breadth); vertical limb was 1cm long and 0.4cm broad
and was 3cm down to previous injury, and vertical limbs were
2cm apart in the vertical axıs.
17. Dermal contusion over an area 8×1.5-3cm, upper broader, on
inner aspect of right elbow to back of arm.
18. Lacerated wound, 1.5×0.3×0.8cm, (vertical) on inner end of left
eyebrow, 1.5cm outer to midline.
19. Incised wound on tip of pulp of inner border of right index
finger, 1cm vertical, with depth 0.2cm.
20. Incised wounds, two in number. on pulp of distal phalanx of
right middle finger;
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 20 2025:KER:42403
(a) Transverse, 1.5x0.3x0.2cm.
(b) Incised wound showing avulsion over an area
0.5×0.2cm as a rectangle-shaped at the inner border of
pulp.
21. Incised wound with full thickness skin loss, over an area
1×0.5×0.2cm, inner border of pulp of distal phalanx of right
ring finger.
22. Incised wound with avulsion, 1×0.8cm on tip of pulp of left ring
finger.
23. Incised wound, 0.5×0.2×0.2cm, on inner aspect of tip of pulp
of left middle finger.
24. Incised wound, 2×0.5×0.5cm on palmar aspect of left thumb,
1cm above its groove.
25. Incised wound 2.5×1.5×0.5cm, on 1st web space of left hand,
front of root of thumb towards middle of hand.
26. Skin contusion, at back of right mastoid at its inner aspect.
4.5×4.5×0.5cm.
27. Fracture of left ups 4th and 5t at front angle.
All these were fresh injuries of similar duration
28. Brownish adherent scab formed healing scratch abrasion,
vertical 4.5cm, on the front of right leg.
22. Referring to the injuries noted in Ext. P4 postmortem
certificate, the doctor opined that the death was due to
haemorrhage following injuries sustained. During cross-examination,
PW11 asserted that the ante-mortem injuries noted in the
post-mortem certificate would not have been caused due to a fall on
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 21 2025:KER:42403
a hard surface. According to PW11, injuries Nos. 18 and 27 are
inflicted by blunt force, and injuries Nos. 19-25 are inflicted by using
sharp force. According to him, the pattern of injuries noted by him
clearly suggests that the injuries are not caused due to any fall.
23. From the line of cross-examination, it is discernible that
the main attempt of the learned counsel for the accused was to
establish that the ante-mortem injuries noted in the postmortem
examination could be caused by an accidental fall on a rough
surface. But the possibility of sustaining such injuries in an
accidental fall was fully ruled out by the doctor who conducted the
postmortem examination. Moreover, a conjoint reading of the
above-discussed evidence of PW11, the Doctor and the postmortem
certificate issued by him clearly reveals that the death of Mohanan
was certainly and undoubtedly a homicidal one.
24. The case of the prosecution is that it was by using MO3
stone that the accused inflicted fatal injuries on the body of the
deceased, and it was by using MO2 knife that some of the injuries on
the upper limbs were inflicted. The evidence of PW27, the Sub
Inspector of Police, who prepared the scene mahazar, reveals that it
was he who recovered the said stone from the crime scene in terms
of Ext.P2 scene mahazar. Though the said stone was not shown to
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 22 2025:KER:42403
PW27 and identified by him during examination before the court,
PW27 categorically deposed that the stone which he recovered from
the crime scene was duly produced by him before the Circle
Inspector of Police, who conducted the major part of the
investigation in this case. Moreover, when an attestor to the scene
mahazar was examined as PW7, he admitted that he witnessed
PW27 recovering a stone from the crime scene after describing in
Ext.P2 the scene mahazar. When the Circle Inspector of Police,
Kuttiadi, was examined as PW28, he admitted that a stone was
produced by PW27 before him and he identified MO3 as the said
stone. Moreover, a perusal of Ext.P24 chemical examination report,
reveals that, when the said stone which is shown as item No.5 in the
said report, was subjected to examination, the same contained
human blood, and on grouping, the blood stain was found to be of
group AB, which is determined to be the blood group of the
deceased.
25. The evidence of PW28, the investigating officer, reveals it
was on the strength of the disclosure statement given by the
accused, he effected the recovery of MO2 knife from a property
where he was led by the accused. The said recovery mahazar was
marked as Ext.P7. The relevant portion of the disclosure statement
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 23 2025:KER:42403
allegedly made by the accused and taken down in writing and
proved through the investigating officer is seen marked in evidence
as Ext.P21. Undisputedly, when a fact is discovered on the basis of a
disclosure statement given by the accused, so much of the
information which leads to the discovery of the said fact can be
proved against the accused in view of Section 27 of the Evidence
Act. However, when an attester to Ext.P7 recovery mahazar was
examined as PW14, he deposed that on 25.08.2017, when he
reached the house of the deceased in this case, he saw the police
taking a knife into custody and he identified MO2 as the knife so
recovered by the Police. He further deposed that he is also a
signatory in Ext.P7 recovery mahazar. However, during
cross-examination, PW14 deposed that at the time of effecting
recovery of the said knife, apart from police men, one Manoharan
and Suresh were also present there. Similarly, he added that the
police officers who were present at the time of recovery of the knife
belonged to the rank of police constables. Notably, PW14 did not
have a case that at the time of effecting MO2 knife either the
accused or the investigating officer was present. Moreover, no
attempt is seen made from the side of the prosecution to seek
clarification in this regard during re-examination. Similarly, in the
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 24 2025:KER:42403
FSL report, which is marked as Ext.P24, it is specifically mentioned
that though MO2 knife, which is shown as item No.1 in the report,
was subjected to serological examination, no blood stains were
found on the said knife. Given the circumstances, we are of the view
that the case of the prosecution that MO2 knife was recovered solely
on the strength of the information supplied by the accused cannot be
believed as such. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that, as it is
a case in which there is no direct evidence to prove the occurrence,
no one could say that MO2 is the knife used by the accused in the
commission of the offence especially when there is no scientific
evidence to lend support to the case of the prosecution regarding
use of MO2 knife in the commission of the offence. Therefore, we
are of the view that the above-discussed recovery evidence will not
render any support to the case of the prosecution.
26. One of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution
to prove the charge levelled against the accused is that he had a
motive to kill Mohanan. As already stated, the case of the
prosecution is that the accused and his wife were residing in the
house of the deceased as permitted by the deceased and his wife.
According to the prosecution, such a permission was given by the
deceased and his wife considering the fact that the accused’s wife,
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 25 2025:KER:42403
who is none other than the sister of the deceased’s wife, was a
kidney patient and was in a financially vulnerable condition. The
prosecution further alleged that even after around eight years of
their stay in the deceased’s house, the accused did not take any
genuine effort to find out an alternative residence for his stay and
the same led to a resentment in the mind of the deceased and
frequent quarrels between both of them. The prosecution is having
a case that after consuming liquor, petty quarrels arose between the
accused and the deceased, and the accused was nurturing animosity
towards the deceased.
27. While considering the question whether the prosecution
has succeeded in proving the alleged motive, it is to be noted that
during examination before court, PW1, one of the neighbours of the
deceased, categorically deposed that in the deceased’s house, other
than the deceased, his wife and daughter-in-law, the accused and
his wife were residing. PW1 further deposed that the deceased had
an objection regarding the stay of the accused in his house, and
after consuming liquor, both the accused and the deceased used to
pick up petty quarrels. Moreover, Mohanan told to PW1 that the
accused, after drinking liquor, used to say that the death of Mohanan
would be at his hands.
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 26 2025:KER:42403
28. Similarly, the evidence of PW3, the wife of the deceased,
reveals that it was she who permitted the accused to reside in her
house as her sister, the accused’s wife, was a kidney patient and was
in a financially vulnerable condition. She further deposed that both the
accused and her husband used to pick quarrels after drinking liquor,
and the accused used to say that he would kill Mohanan, her husband.
PW3 in her evidence stated that as there were space constraints in her
house, her husband frequently used to tell the accused to build a
house, but the accused was not amenable to the same, and it created
animosity in the mind of the accused. Notably, when the elder
daughter of the deceased was examined as PW5 she also deposed
that the accused used to say that he would kill her father. Moreover,
she added that on one occasion she saw the accused following her
father with a stone, and one Surendran intervening and pacifying the
accused. When the said Surendran was examined as PW6, he also
deposed that one month before the incident in this case, he saw the
accused attempting to hit the deceased with a stone amid an
altercation, and it was he who intervened and dispersed them.
Similarly, PW4, another daughter of the deceased, also deposed that
the accused and the deceased used to quarrel with each other.
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 27 2025:KER:42403
29. Of course, the above-discussed evidence clearly shows
that both the accused and the deceased used to consume liquor, and
they frequently entered into quarrels. Similarly, the evidence of PW1
and PW3 shows that the deceased disliked the stay of the accused in
his house and demanded accused to shift his residence on several
occasions, and the same fueled vengeance in the mind of the
accused. The evidence of PW1 and PW3 in the above regard remains
unchallenged during cross-examination. In short, a conjoint reading
of the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4, PW5, and PW6 reveals that the
relationship between the deceased and the accused was not cordial;
rather, they used to pick quarrels frequently. Moreover, it is
established that the accused was nurturing an animosity towards the
deceased as the latter disliked the stay of the accused in his house.
The evidence of PW1 and PW3 further reveals that the accused used
to make threats by saying he would do away with the deceased.
30. We are not oblivious of the fact that PW3, PW4 and PW5
are, respectively, the wife and daughters of the deceased. However,
it is trite that the relationship alone is not a criterion to discard the
evidence of a witness if the same is inspiring the confidence of the
court. But prudence requires that while acting on the evidence of a
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 28 2025:KER:42403
relative witness, the court must be cautious and act with much care
and circumspection. Nonetheless, a relative witness will not likely
implicate an innocent person as an accused, in the case of the
murder of his relative, as doing so would allow the true perpetrator
to escape from punishment.
31. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Rayappa and
others [(2006) 4 SCC 512], the Supreme Court observed as under:
“Testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence
cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a
relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A
close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be
termed as an interested witness. The term interested
postulates that the person concerned must have some
direct interest in seeing the accused person being
convicted somehow or the other either because of
animosity or some other reasons. On the contrary, it
has now almost become a fashion that the public is
reluctant to appear and depose before the court
especially in criminal cases because of varied reasons.
Criminal cases are kept dragging on for years to come
and the witnesses are harassed a lot. They have been
threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are
subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In such a
situation the only natural witness available to the
prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative
witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On
the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased
they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the
truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative
will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and
screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The only
requirement is that the testimony of the relative
witness should be examined cautiously.”
32. In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar [(1996) 1 SCC
614], it was observed that a close relative who is a natural witness
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 29 2025:KER:42403
cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term “interested”
postulates that the witness must have some interest in having the
accused somehow or the other convicted for some animosity or for
some other reasons.
33. Keeping in mind the above, it can be seen that in the case
at hand, even the accused does not have a case that PW3, PW4, and
PW5 have any motive to falsely implicate him in a case of this nature.
Moreover, PW3, PW4, and PW5 were examined by the prosecution
mainly for proving the motive alleged and for proving that it was in the
company of the accused that the deceased was last seen alive. The
evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5 regarding the motive is well
corroborated by the evidence of PW1 and PW6, the independent
witnesses. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is
nothing unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW3, PW4, and PW5
irrespective of their close relationship with the deceased.
34. In short, it is liable to be held that the prosecution has
succeeded in proving that the accused had a motive to kill the
deceased. In a case built up on direct evidence, though proof of
motive has no much relevance, evidence as to motive would, no
doubt, go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial
evidence. Such evidence will certainly form one of the links in the
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 30 2025:KER:42403
chain of circumstances in such cases relied on by the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the accused.
35. Another crucial circumstance relied on by the prosecution
to connect the accused with the offence alleged in this case is that it
was in the company of the accused, the deceased was last seen
alive, and the accused failed to offer any plausible explanation as to
what happened to the deceased. It is by relying mainly on the
evidence of PW1, the prosecution is trying to establish that it was in
the company of the accused that the deceased was found last seen
alive. As already stated on examination before the court, PW1
categorically deposed that on the alleged date of the incident at
around 8 p.m., Mohanan, the deceased in this case, came to his
house, appearing to be a little intoxicated. Mohanan, then engaged
in a friendly talk with PW1’s mother, and after having food from his
house, Mohanan returned to his house. PW1 further deposed that he
also accompanied Mohanan, lighting the path with a torch, and when
he reached Mohanan’s house, the accused was also there. It is
pertinent to note that during examination before the court, PW1
asserted that apart from the accused, there was no one else in the
said house. According to PW1, after leaving Mohanan at his house,
he returned to his house. Later at 11 p.m., somebody came to his
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 31 2025:KER:42403
house and called him. When he opened the door, he found the
accused standing in his courtyard wearing a dhoti, and his entire
body was covered in blood. The above-discussed evidence of PW1
would reveal that it was in the company of the accused, the
deceased Mohanan was last seen alive. Notably, the evidence of
PW1 in the above regard remains unchallenged during the
cross-examination. Even the accused is not having a case that apart
from him and the deceased Mohanan, there was anybody in the said
house at the time of the occurrence of the incident.
36. Moreover, the evidence of PW3, the wife of the deceased,
clearly reveals that on the day on which her husband died, she and
her sister had gone to her daughter’s house, and her
daughter-in-law was at her paternal house. The evidence of PW3
further reveals that at the time of the incident in this case, her
husband and the accused were alone in her house. The said
evidence of PW3 also remains unchallenged. Moreover, the evidence
of PW3 in the above regard finds sufficient corroboration from the
evidence of PW1, PW4, and PW5. Out of the said witnesses, PW5 is
none other than the elder daughter of the deceased, and on
examination before the court, she categorically deposed that on the
alleged date of the incident, her mother and aunt came to her
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 32 2025:KER:42403
house, and it was in her house that they resided on that day. She
further deposed that on the alleged date of the incident, her
brother’s wife went to her paternal house, and her brother was
abroad. In short, it can be safely concluded that on the alleged date
of the incident, only the accused and the deceased were present in
the deceased’s house, and the deceased was last seen alive in the
company of the accused. It is worthwhile to note that the evidence
adduced by the prosecution to prove the above aspects remains
unchallenged and uncontradicted from the side of the defence.
Moreover, the accused is not having a case that PW1, the
independent witness, has any sort of animosity or grudge towards
him to falsely implicate him in this case. As PW1 does not have any
axe to grind against the accused, his evidence that the deceased was
last seen alive in the company of the accused need not be doubted.
Moreover, the said evidence of PW1 finds sufficient corroboration
from the evidence of PW3, PW4, and PW5. Therefore, it can be
safely concluded that one of the main circumstances from which the
guilt of the accused has to be drawn stands fully and convincingly
proved.
37. Nevertheless, we are cognizant of the settled legal
proposition evolved by a series of judicial pronouncements that the
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 33 2025:KER:42403
mere circumstance of the deceased being last seen alive with the
accused, without corroborating evidence, is inadequate to form the
basis of a conviction. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal
v State of Rajasthan [(2014)4SCC 715] held that the evidence of
‘last seen together’ is a weak piece of evidence, and conviction only
on the basis of ‘last seen together’ without there being any other
corroborative evidence against the accused, is not sufficient to
convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC. In the
said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:
“12. The circumstance of last seen together does not
by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the
accused who committed the crime. There must be
something more establishing connectivity between the
accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of
the appellant, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot
lead to proof of guilt against the appellant.”
38. However, when there are other convincing circumstances
that leads to the guilt of the accused, the last seen circumstance also
will form a strong link in the chain of circumstances against the
accused. In the case at hand, the time gap between the deceased
found alive in the company of the accused and later he was found
dead is remarkably short. Similarly, the possibility of any person
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 34 2025:KER:42403
other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime is also too
remote in this case. Notably, the accused is not disputing his
presence in the house at the time when the incident allegedly
occurred, and he is not having a case that any other person had
interfered between him and the deceased during the relevant time.
Besides, this is not a case in which the prosecution is banking on the
last seen together theory to prove its case.
39. Eventually, in view of the provision contained under
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is for the accused to
explain what actually transpired after the deceased was last seen
alive in his company. Nevertheless, no explanation whatsoever has
been offered from the side of the accused as to what happened to
the deceased. Therefore, the absence of any plausible explanation
from the side of the accused certainly leads to an adverse inference
against the accused. The said circumstance will undoubtedly form an
important link in the chain of evidence.
40. While coming into another circumstance brought out by
the prosecution, it is to be noted that when PW1 was examined, he
is having a definite case that on the alleged date of the incident, at
around 11 p.m., somebody came to his house and called him. When
he opened the door, he found the accused standing in his courtyard,
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 35 2025:KER:42403
wearing a dhoti, and his entire body was covered in blood.
According to PW1, when he enquired as to what happened, the
accused said that Mohanan fell upside down and died. However,
from the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem
examination, it is established that the injuries sustained by the
deceased could not have been caused by an accidental fall. When
the Doctor was examined, he categorically deposed that the death
was due to haemorrhage following injuries sustained. During
cross-examination, PW11 asserted that the ante-mortem injuries
noted by him in the post-mortem certificate would not have been
caused due to a fall on a hard surface. According to him, injuries
Nos. 18 and 27 are inflicted by blunt force, and injuries Nos. 19-25
are inflicted by using sharp force. According to him, the pattern of
injuries noted by him clearly shows that the injuries are not caused
due to any fall. Therefore, it is well established that the information
given by the accused to PW1 immediately after the incident that the
deceased sustained injuries by an accidental fall is established to be
false. The conduct of the accused in giving such false information to
PW1 immediately after the incident is relevant under Section 8 of the
Indian Evidence Act and the same will also form an important link in
the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused.
Crl. A. No.1113 of 2023 36 2025:KER:42403
41. In short, the compelling circumstances meticulously
examined above inexorably lead to the conclusion that it was the
accused who murdered the deceased Mohanan. These
circumstances are fully and convincingly established and are
collectively sufficient to rule out the hypothesis of the accused’s
innocence. Therefore, we are of the view that the prosecution has
fully succeeded in proving the charge levelled against the accused.
Resultantly, we confirm the finding, conviction, and sentence
passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No.1/2018, on the file of
the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kozhikode, for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 203 of the IPC and hence, the
appeal stands dismissed.
Sd.-
P.B. SURESH KUMAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOBIN SEBASTIAN
JUDGE
ncd/ANS