Kerala High Court
Manikantan vs State Of Kerala on 26 June, 2025
Author: Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :1:
THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1947
CRL.A NO. 2330 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2021 IN SC NO.541 OF 2017 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT - VI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
MANIKANTAN
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O. NEELAKANTAN, RESIDING AT CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
NEAR APPOOPPANNADA TEMPLE, PULLUCHIRA, PANAYILKONAM,
MELATTINGAL DESOM, KEEZHATTINGAL VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695306
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY
SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI
SRI.ANANTHAKRISHNAN A. KARTHA
SMT.ANGEL GYLES LIKE
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :2:
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
SRI. RENJITH, T.R., SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
26.06.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :3:
JUDGMENT
Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.
The above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.07.2021 in S.C.
No.541 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI,
Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant was found guilty and was convicted and
sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five lakhs only) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and to undergo
imprisonment for 3 months under Section 447 of the IPC, with a default clause. The
above finding of guilt, conviction and sentence is under challenge in this petition.
2. Brief Statement of Facts:
2.1 The deceased in the instant case is a septuagenarian widow. She
was living alone. The prosecution allegation is that the accused with intent to
sexually assault the lady, knocked on her door, on 9.12.2016, at about 10 p.m. and
requested for water. When the deceased came out of her house, the accused is
alleged to have caught her and attempted to have forceful sexual intercourse.
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :4:
When the deceased attempted to raise a hue and cry, the accused snatched the
chopper from her hands and inflicted multiple cut injuries on her neck and other
parts of her body. After inflicting the above injuries, the accused is alleged to have
taken out a steel knife (MO8) kept by him in his possession and inflicted further
injuries on her chest, stomach and thigh. In a desperate bid to save her life, the
grievously injured woman is said to have cried out and attempted to run towards
the house of PWs 1 and 2, situated immediately to the north of her residence.
Hearing her cries, PWs 1 and 2 opened their door and saw the deceased collapse
on their sit-out, bleeding profusely from multiple injuries. By that time, some
neighbours had also gathered at the scene.
2.2 The prosecution alleges that PWs 1 and 2 asked the injured as to
how she had sustained the injuries and the injured is alleged to have named
Manikantan, the son of Sarojini. By that time, PW4 (Ani. G.), a neighbour, had
come to the spot. He summoned an Ambulance and the injured was rushed to the
Hospital. PW8 (Biju Lal) was in the Ambulance and on the way, PW6 (Sivadasan),
the brother of the deceased, entered the Ambulance. He also asked the deceased
the cause of injuries and the injured is alleged to have divulged the name of the
appellant. Though she was taken to the Attingal Taluk Hospital, her life could not
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :5:
be saved.
3. Registration of Crime and Investigation:
3.1 The First Information Statement was furnished by PW3 (Reghu), the
son-in-law of the deceased at 3.27 a.m. on 10.12.2016 and based on the same,
Crime No.1607/2016 was registered by PW29 (Safeer A.M.), the Sub Inspector of
Police, Kadakkavoor Police Station under Section 302 of the IPC.
3.2 The investigation was taken over by PW32, the Circle Inspector of
Police, Kadakkavoor Police Station. He conducted the Ext.P9 inquest over the dead
body of the deceased and seized the clothes found on the body. The nail clippings
handed over by the Doctor who conducted the autopsy were also seized. Ext.P17
scene mahazar was prepared in the presence of witnesses. The ownership
certificate of the building in which the deceased was residing was obtained. The
clothes, a chopper, and a torch which were found lying near the scene of crime
were seized.
3.3 On 12.12.2016, at about 11:00 a.m., the accused was arrested, and
Ext.P31 address report was forwarded to the court. Ext.P32 is the arrest memo. The
medical examination of the accused was conducted, and Ext.P35 is the Medical
2025:KER:45733Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :6:
Examination Report prepared in that regard. Based on Ext.P36 disclosure statementgiven by the accused, the lungi and shirt worn by him at the relevant time were
seized from the cloth hanger in his bedroom. Ext.P11 is the Recovery Mahazar
detailing the seizure. The accused was then taken to the Government Taluk
Hospital, Attingal, where his nail clippings were obtained. The Accident
Register-cum-Wound Certificate of the accused is Ext.P37. Thereafter, the accused
was produced before the court and remanded to judicial custody.
3.4 On 14.12.2016, police custody of the accused was again obtained.
Based on a disclosure statement given by him, the steel knife allegedly used to
inflict the injuries on the deceased was seized from beneath the mattress of the bed
in his bedroom. Ext.P12 is the Recovery Mahazar prepared immediately after the
seizure. The Potency Certificate (Ext.P13) of the accused was also obtained. The
material objects seized during the investigation were forwarded through court for
scientific analysis. After completing the investigation, the final report was laid
before the court.
3.5. Committal proceedings were initiated by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the law, and the case was committed to the Court of Session,
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :7:
Thiruvananthapuram. The case was then made over to the Additional Sessions
Judge- VI, Thiruvananthapuram. After hearing the prosecution and the accused,
charges were framed under Section 302 of the IPC. When the same was read over,
the accused pleaded not guilty and pleaded that he be tried in accordance with
law.
4. Evidence Tendered:
4.1. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses as PWs 1
to 32 and through them Exts. P1 to 49 were exhibited and marked. Material objects
were produced and identified as MOs 1 to 21. After the close of the prosecution
evidence, the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section
313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. He denied the circumstances and maintained that he was
innocent. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.
5. Findings of the learned Sessions Judge:
5.1 The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluation of the evidence, came
to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established that the accused
inflicted injuries on the deceased, which led to her death. Much reliance was placed
on the oral testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8, and it was held that their
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :8:
evidence proved that the dying declaration was made contemporaneously with the
occurrence of the incident. The Court found no reason to doubt the credibility of
these witnesses. It was further held that the evidence adduced by the said
witnesses was admissible under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, being
part of the same transaction.
5.2 The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the dying
declaration was a concoction devised at a later stage to falsely implicate the
appellant was rejected by the court. The Sessions Court also placed reliance on the
recovery of the clothes of the accused and the knife, and concluded that these
recoveries pointed unerringly to the culpability of the appellant. The scientific
evidence, which established that the clothes of the accused contained blood
matching that of the deceased, was treated as an additional incriminating
circumstance. On the strength of the above findings, the Court found the accused
guilty and convicted him accordingly.
6. Contentions of the appellant:
Sri. Madhavankutty, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
advanced the following contentions:
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :9:
6.1. PW3 had come to the scene immediately after the incident, and in
his evidence, he stated that he had occasion to interact with PWs 1, 2, 4, and 5. It
was thereafter that he proceeded to the Police Station and lodged the First
Information Statement at 3:27 a.m. on 10.12.2016. However, in the said statement,
there is no mention whatsoever regarding the identity of the assailant. The only
possible conclusion that can be drawn is that even at 3:27 a.m., none of the
witnesses had any idea as to the identity of the person who had committed the
crime.
6.2. Insofar as the alleged dying declaration is concerned, a perusal of
the post-mortem certificate would reveal the nature and severity of the injuries
sustained by the deceased. Given the grievous injuries, it is highly improbable that
the deceased would have been in a fit physical or mental state to make any
coherent declaration. It is pertinent to note that none of the prosecution witnesses
have spoken about the physical and mental condition of the deceased at the time
the alleged declaration was made. Placing reliance on the observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajendra s/o. Ramdas Kolhe v. State of
Maharashtra1, it was contended that it is incumbent upon the Court to scrutinize
1
[ 2024 KHC 6289]
2025:KER:45733Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :10:
the dying declaration with utmost caution, ensure that it is not the result oftutoring, prompting, or imagination, and satisfy itself that the declarant was in a fit
and proper state of mind to make such a declaration.
6.3. The recovery allegedly effected at the instance of the accused is also
shrouded in doubt. The accused was arrested on 12.12.2016, and based on an
alleged disclosure statement given by him, his clothes were seized from the
bedroom of his house. Thereafter, on 14.12.2016, based on another alleged
disclosure statement, the steel knife (MO8) was seized from beneath the mattress
of the bed in the very same bedroom. It was contended by the learned counsel for
the appellant that as per the case set up by the prosecution, the accused had used
a chopper (MO1), which was found at the scene of crime, to inflict the injuries. The
recovery of the steel knife appears to be an afterthought, stage-managed by the
Investigating Officer to create a recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, in an attempt to falsely strengthen the chain of circumstances. The evidence
let in through PWs 14 and 15 regarding the alleged recovery does not advance the
case of the prosecution in any manner.
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :11:
6.4. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes
significant importance, as it provides the rationale behind the commission of the
offence and strengthens the chain of circumstances. In the present case, the
prosecution has failed to attribute any cogent or convincing motive to the appellant
for the commission of the alleged crime.
7. Submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor:
7.1. Sri. Renjith T.R., the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the
prosecution has successfully established, through convincing evidence, that the
brutal murder of the deceased was committed by the appellant. The prime
witnesses, all of whom reside in the same neighbourhood, have categorically stated
that the injured had divulged the identity of the appellant. There is no reason to
disbelieve the cogent and convincing testimony of these witnesses.
7.2. It is further submitted that the criticism regarding the absence of the
name of the appellant in the First Information Statement is without merit, as the
informant was not an eyewitness to the incident. Moreover, it is well-settled that the
purpose of the First Information Statement is only to set the law in motion; it is not
expected to be an exhaustive account containing every intricate or minor detail of
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :12:
the occurrence.
7.3. The inquest report, which was prepared at 9:30 a.m. on 10.12.2016
and was promptly forwarded to the court, clearly mentions the involvement of the
appellant. The recovery of the weapons and clothes of the accused, and the
detection of blood stains matching that of the deceased on these articles, constitute
clinching circumstances that connect the accused to the murder. According to the
learned Public Prosecutor, the learned Sessions Judge has carefully evaluated the
entire body of evidence before arriving at the finding of guilt against the accused.
8. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides.
We have also evaluated the entire evidence and have gone through the impugned
judgment.
9. Cause of Death – Whether Homicidal
9.1. The first question is whether the prosecution has succeeded in
proving that the death was homicidal.
9.2. PWs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 are neighbours of the deceased. PW6 is the
brother of the deceased, and PW7 is a near relative. They stated in their evidence
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :13:
that the deceased was their neighbour and that she was residing alone at the
relevant time. PW3 is the son-in-law of the deceased. It was PW3 who signed
Ext.P4 receipt after receiving the mortal remains of the deceased.
9.3. PW22 is the Assistant Professor and Police Surgeon at the
Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. She deposed that the
post-mortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 10.12.2016, and she
issued the Ext.P16 postmortem certificate. She noted as many as 34 injuries on
the body of the deceased. Injury Nos. 1 to 10, 12 to 17, and 29 to 34 were
abrasions found on various parts of the body. Injury Nos. 18 to 25, 27, and 28
were incised wounds of varying dimensions.
9.4. PW22 categorically stated that Injury Nos. 18, 19, 22, and 23 were
sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. There was no serious
challenge to the testimony of PW22 during cross-examination. In that view of the
matter, it stands conclusively established that the death of the deceased was due
to the penetrating injuries sustained to the neck, chest, and abdomen. Therefore,
there can be no doubt that the death of the deceased was a clear case of
homicide.
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :14:
10. The prosecution evidence:
10.1. PW1 stated that he, along with his wife (PW2), was residing at a
place called Kadavikonathu, and that the deceased was their neighbour. He
deposed that the house of the deceased was situated about 20 meters away from
his own residence. The husband of the deceased had passed away about three
years prior to the incident. PW1 further stated that the incident involving the
deceased occurred on 09.12.2016. At about 10:00 p.m., PW1 awoke upon hearing
the cries of the deceased. He heard the deceased calling out, “Rajoo…
Podichiyee… Enne rakshikane…”, beseeching for help to save her life. The
deceased came running and fell down on the sit-out of his house, bleeding
profusely from injuries to her neck and abdomen. His wife, PW2 (Sakunthala @
Podichi), also raised an alarm. By that time, PW4 (Ani), PW5 (Kala), Shyamala,
Indira, and Girija reached the spot. PW2 asked the injured who had caused the
injuries, to which the deceased responded that it was Manikantan, the son of
Sarojini. PW1, along with PW4, managed to summon an ambulance. Together with
PW8 (Bijulal), he lifted the injured and placed her in the Ambulance. PW8
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :15:
accompanied the injured to the hospital. PW1 received information that the
deceased succumbed to the injuries about half an hour later. He also stated that
the deceased was wearing an ochre-coloured kaily, and before shifting her to the
Ambulance, he covered her with his wife’s kaily. A bath towel was tied around her
neck to stem the bleeding. On the following day, at about 1:00 p.m., a police dog
was brought to the scene. The dog went to the house of the deceased, proceeded
to the backside, and located a torch and a chopper. Thereafter, the dog ran
towards the house of the accused. PW1 identified the accused standing in the
dock, as well as MO1 (chopper), MO2 (torch), and MOs 3 to 7 (the clothes found
on the body of the deceased). He also stated that his statement was recorded by
the learned Magistrate. In cross-examination, PW1 stated that his house had an
electricity connection. He deposed that he had first informed the Kadakkavoor
Police about the incident and that the police reached the spot before sunrise. He
denied the suggestion that neither he, his wife, nor the others were present at the
spot. He further denied the suggestion that the deceased was not his neighbour
and that she resided elsewhere.
10.2. PW2, Sakunthala @ Podichi, is the wife of PW1. She deposed in
tune with the evidence tendered by PW1. She stated that the deceased was
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :16:
residing very close to her house. The other neighbours included Ani, Kala,
Shyamala, Girija, and Indira. PW2 stated that on 09.12.2016, at about 10:00 p.m.,
while she and her husband were asleep, she heard the deceased screaming
“Rajoo… Podichii… Enne rakshikanee…” beseeching for help. When she opened
the door, she saw the deceased falling on the sit-out, with blood all over the place.
Upon hearing her cries, Kala, Ani, Indira, and Shyamala came running to the spot.
PW2 further stated that she asked the deceased who had inflicted the injuries, and
the deceased responded that it was Manikantan, the son of Sarojini. The injured
woman asked for water, which PW2 provided, and the deceased drank it. PW2
observed that the deceased had sustained injuries to her neck, hand, and legs,
and that her clothes were drenched in blood. PW2 took out a kaily and made the
injured wear it, and tied a bath towel around her neck in an attempt to stem the
bleeding. An Ambulance was summoned, and the injured was rushed to the
hospital. The police were also informed. About half an hour later, she received
information that the injured had succumbed to the injuries sustained. PW2 spoke
about the finding of the torch and the chopper from the backside of the house of
the deceased. She stated that she had prior acquaintance with the accused and
was familiar with his place of residence. She identified the clothes of the deceased
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :17:
when shown to her. She further stated that her statement was recorded by the
learned Magistrate. In cross-examination, PW2 stated that the deceased was lying
partially on the sit-out and partially on the steps. When she denied her previous
statement that the deceased used to come to her house through the eastern side,
that portion of the prior statement was marked as Ext.D1. She admitted that she
did not go to the hospital. It was brought out that in her previous statement to the
police, she had not mentioned that the deceased had screamed or asked for help.
It was also brought out that in her prior statement, she did not state that she had
asked the deceased who had caused the injuries. According to PW2, it was only
after hearing from the mouth of the deceased as to who had inflicted the injuries
that water was given to her. She stated that the deceased had been residing in the
same locality for the past five years.
10.3. PW3 is Reghu, the son-in-law of the deceased. He stated that the
deceased was residing alone at the relevant time. On 09.12.2016, at about 10:00
p.m., he was called by Bijulal (PW8) and informed about the incident involving his
mother-in-law. He was told that somebody had entered her house and attacked
her. He, along with his wife and two children, proceeded to the house of the
deceased. When he reached the spot, he was informed that the injured had
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :18:
already been shifted to the hospital. PW3 stated that he found a white torch and a
chopper, as well as blood stains on the wall of the well. He further stated that
drops of blood were seen on the ground, leading from the kitchen area of the
deceased’s house towards the house of PW1. On the next day, the police recorded
his statement, and he identified his signature on Ext.P3 First Information
Statement. According to PW3, he was present when the police dog was brought to
the scene. He identified the accused standing in the dock and added that
Manikantan used to come to the house of the deceased to do roof work. In
cross-examination, it was brought out that upon hearing about the incident, he
went to the house of PW2 and obtained the entire information from her, including
the fact that the injured had come and fallen on the sit-out and what she had
allegedly stated to PWs 1 and 2. According to him, he had come to know of all
these facts before 11:00 p.m.. He stated that Kala, Podichi, Ani, Rajan, and Girija
were all present when he reached the spot, and that they were present when he
enquired about what had happened. He further stated that he had spoken to
Sivadasan (PW6) as well. When he was asked what had prevented him from
disclosing the name of the assailant at the time of lodging the First Information
Statement, he replied that there was no particular reason.
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :19:
10.4. PW4, Ani G., is a neighbour of the deceased. He stated that the
deceased was his relative and was residing on the western side of his house. PW2
was also residing about 50 meters away from his house. PW4 deposed that he
saw the deceased lying injured on the sit-out of the house of PW2. According to
him, late in the night, he heard loud cries coming from the direction of PW2’s
house. He immediately rushed to the spot and found that PWs 1, 2, and 5 had
already gathered there. He saw the deceased lying on the sit-out with cut injuries
on her neck and stab injuries on her lower abdomen. PW4 stated that the injured
was conscious when he saw her. When he asked the injured who the assailant
was, she responded that it was Manikantan, the son of Sarojini. He immediately
called for an Ambulance and thereafter informed the Kadakkavoor Police about the
incident. The injured was shifted to the hospital in the Ambulance, accompanied
by PW8. On the next day, at about 10:00 a.m., the police came to the spot along
with a police dog. A chopper and a torch were recovered from the backside of the
house of the deceased. The police dog then ran towards the house of Manikantan.
PW4 identified the accused standing in the dock and stated that he was a distant
relative. He further deposed that on the third day after the incident, a knife was
recovered from the house of the accused, and he identified MO8 as the said knife.
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :20:
In cross-examination, PW4 admitted that he was not in a position to state the
exact date on which his statement was recorded by the police. He denied the
suggestion that he was not residing in the immediate neighbourhood. Various
omissions were brought out during cross-examination, but none of them appear to
be material.
10.5. PW5 (Kala) stated that she had occasion to see the deceased lying
injured on the sit-out of the house of PW2. She deposed that she went to the spot
upon hearing the cries of PW2. It was in her presence that PW2 asked the injured
who had inflicted the injuries. She heard the injured state that the injuries were
inflicted by Manikantan, the son of Sarojini. She further stated that her statement
was recorded by the learned Magistrate. In cross-examination, PW5 stated that
the cries were heard at about 10:00 p.m., that she was 22 years old at the time,
and that she was pursuing her studies. She stated that, at the request of the
injured, she gave her water to drink. She denied the suggestion that she was not
residing in the neighbourhood and the suggestion that she had not heard the
deceased disclose the name of the accused.
10.6. PW6, Sivadasan, stated that the deceased was his elder sister. He
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :21:
deposed that he received information about the incident at about 10:00 p.m.
While he was rushing to the house of the deceased, he saw the Ambulance
carrying the injured, and he got into it. PW8 was also in the Ambulance. After
entering the Ambulance, PW6 stated that he asked the injured who had caused
the injuries, and the injured disclosed the name of Manikantan. According to him,
the injured uttered the name twice and thereafter did not speak further. The
injured was taken to the hospital at Valiyakunnu, where the doctor examined her
and informed him that she was no more. In cross-examination, PW6 stated that
the injured was wearing an oxygen mask at the time. He admitted that in his
statement to the police, he had not mentioned that he had asked the injured
about the identity of the assailant or that she had disclosed the name. Later, when
the question was repeated, he stated that he did not remember.
10.7. PW7, Santhosh, stated that the deceased was his father’s sister.
On 09.12.2016, at about 11:30 p.m., he heard that the deceased had sustained
stab injuries. When he reached the spot, he found that the deceased had already
been taken to the hospital. He further stated that on the same day, at about
9:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m., he had seen the appellant walking in the direction of the
house of the deceased. In cross-examination, it was brought out that PW7 was
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :22:
unable to state the name of the deity of the temple he claimed to have visited,
which allegedly enabled him to see the accused. He also stated that his house was
situated about 10 kms. away from the house of the deceased.
10.8. PW8, Bijulal, stated that the deceased was his immediate neighbour.
He deposed that he was informed about the incident by one Kumar. Upon
receiving the information, he first called Radhamani, the daughter of the
deceased, and thereafter went to the place where the deceased was lying. At that
time, PWs 1, 2, Kala, Ani, Shyamala, and Indira were present at the scene. After
some time, an Ambulance arrived to take the injured to the hospital. PW8 stated
that he also got into the Ambulance. On the way, PW6 was boarded into the
Ambulance. PW6 asked the injured what had happened, and she is alleged to have
stated that the injuries were inflicted by Manikantan, the son of Sarojini. PW8
further stated that he was present when the inquest was prepared. In
cross-examination, PW8 was asked whether the injured had mentioned the name
of the appellant twice; he replied that he did not remember. He stated that he
reached the house of PW2 at about 10:30 p.m. He further stated that while the
injured was being taken to the hospital, the technician administered oxygen by
placing a mask on her face and was checking her pulse. He added that there was
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :23:
a partition between the driver and the passenger compartment of the Ambulance.
PW8 denied the suggestion that he had not accompanied the injured to the
hospital or that Sivadasan (PW6) had entered the Ambulance.
10.9. PW9, Prakash, was the Emergency Technician of the Ambulance.
He stated that in December 2016, he transported a person from Kadavoorkonam
to Valiyakunnu Hospital. When he reached the spot, he found a lady aged about
70-72 years with injuries to her chest, abdomen, and neck. He examined the
patient and found that she still had a pulse. On reaching the hospital, the Doctor
examined her and declared her dead. PW9 added that one person entered the
ambulance while it was on its way to the hospital. In cross-examination, PW9
stated that when he saw the injured, she had low blood pressure and was
semi-conscious.
10.10. PW10 is one Sandhya. She stated that the accused is her
neighbour. On the day after the death of the deceased, she saw the police, along
with the sniffer dog, near the house of the accused. She stated that her
relationship with the accused is not cordial.
10.11. PW11 is the salesman of QRS Retail Ltd., Attingal. He stated that
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :24:
sometime in the year 2016, the appellant had come to the shop where he was
working and purchased a speaker system. As a gift for purchasing the electronic
item, a kitchen set containing a cutting board, a vegetable chopper, and two
knives was given to the appellant. He identified MO8 (Knife) as one of the knives
contained in the gift set. In cross-examination, it was brought out that the
appellant was a total stranger to him and that several persons had come to the
shop to purchase various items.
10.12. PW14, Dileep Kumar, deposed before the court that he witnessed
the seizure of a shirt and kaily from the house of the appellant. He stated that he
was a signatory to Ext.P11 mahazar prepared at the time of seizure. It was
brought out in cross-examination that while he was standing outside, he was
asked to sign on the Mahazar by the police. PW15, Suresh Babu, stated that he
was a signatory to Ext.P12 Mahazar, prepared at the time of seizure of a knife with
a black handle, from the house of the appellant. It was brought out in
cross-examination that he was not aware of the contents of the document, on
which he had subscribed his signature.
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :25:
10.13. PW17 is Dr.Sheema A.R. She stated that in the month of December
2016, while she was on casualty duty, a 75-year-old lady was brought to the
hospital at about 11:00 p.m. As she was told by the Ambulance driver that the
condition of the lady was very bad, she got into the Ambulance and examined her.
She found that the injured was not breathing. She noticed stab injuries on the
chest and neck.
10.14. PW18 is the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class- II Attingal, who
recorded the 164 Statement of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5. In cross-examination, the
learned Magistrate stated that PW1 had stated the name of the accused in her
statement. She stated that in the statement furnished by PW5, she had stated that
she had asked as to who had inflicted the injuries. She added that PW5 had stated
the name of the appellant when her statement was recorded. PW19 was the
Casualty Medical Officer, THQ Chirayinkeezhu, who examined the appellant and
issued Ext.P13 Potency Certificate. PW20 is the Assistant Engineer, KSEB, who
deposed that he had issued a certificate that there was no disruption of electricity
supply in the area where the scene of crime is situated.
10.15. PW22 is Dr.Seena M.M., who conducted the autopsy over the
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :26:
body of the deceased. After detailing as many as 34 injuries found on the body of
the deceased she stated that death was due to the penetrating injuries sustained
to neck, chest and abdomen. She stated that injury Nos. 18 to 23 and injury Nos.
25 and 27 could be inflicted by use of MO8 weapon and injury Nos.24 to 28 could
be caused by MO1.
10.16. PW24 is the Attingal Village Officer, who prepared the Ext.P18
scene plan. PW26 is the Scientific Officer, DCRB, Thiruvananthapuram. She stated
that she collected trace evidence from the scene of crime, sealed it, and handed it
over to the investigating officer for forwarding to the court. PW27 is a police
constable and dog handler attached to the dog squad, Venjaramoodu. He stated
that he took the sniffer dog to the scene of crime. The dog led the team to a
house known as Panavilakathu Veedu, and on further enquiry, it was revealed that
the house belonged to one Sarojini, who is the mother of the accused.
10.17. PW29 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadakkavoor, who registered
Ext.P25 FIR based on Ext.P3 First Information Statement furnished by PW3. He
stated that PW26 had handed over the trace evidence collected by her from the
scene of crime. In cross-examination, it was brought out that the time of
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :27:
occurrence in Ext.P25 FIR is shown as between 3:15 p.m. and 10:15 p.m.
According to him, the statement was recorded at 3:27 a.m. He stated that in
Ext.P3, it has been mentioned that the kitchen door was open and that there was
blood near the kitchen door and the well at the backside of the house. PW29
deposed that he had gone to the scene of crime at about 11:00 p.m. on
09.12.2016. At that time, he saw a torch and a chopper lying outside the house,
and nearby residents were present at the spot. He had enquired with those
persons regarding the identity of the assailant; however, none of them was able to
disclose the identity. A police officer was deputed for scene bandobast, and on the
next day at noon, that officer was withdrawn. PW29 further stated that on
10.12.2016, at about 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., he again reached the scene of
crime on receiving information that the investigating officer was present at the
spot. He intimated the investigating officer about having seen the chopper and the
torch outside the house. He also accompanied the dog squad at about 11:30 p.m.
10.18. PW30 stated that she had worked as Scientific Officer, Biology,
Forensic Science Lab, Thiruvananthapuram. She stated that item Nos. 2, 3, 8 to
16 contained human blood belonging to the group ‘O’, item Nos. 1 and 4 contained
human blood.
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :28:
10.19. PW31 is the Scientific Officer, Biology, Forensic Science Laboratory,
Thiruvananthapuram. In her report, she stated that the stains in item Nos. 8 to 16
belonged to the deceased. She stated that the blood stains of the deceased was
detected from the MO1 (chopper) and the Ochre coloured kaily, MO4 (bath towel),
MO5 (blouse), MO6 (kaily), MO7 (bath towel), MO8 (knife) which were recovered
based on the disclosure statement given by the accused, MO9 and MO10 (kaily
and shirt) alleged to have been worn by the accused. It was also found on
analysis that MO1, MO8, MO9 and MO10 blood of the same group as that of the
deceased.
11. Analysis:
11.1. It needs to be noted at this juncture that the projected case of the
prosecution is that the accused criminally trespassed into the house of the
deceased at about 10:00 p.m., with a view to satiate his sexual appetite, and
asked for water. When the deceased resisted, a scuffle ensued. The accused is
alleged to have wrested a chopper from the possession of the deceased and used
the weapon to inflict cut injuries on her body. Thereafter, he is alleged to have
used a knife that he had carried with him to inflict stab injuries on her chest and
2025:KER:45733Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :29:
abdomen. After inflicting such injuries, the accused is said to have left the place. Itis further alleged that the 70-year-old lady, despite having sustained deep
penetrating and incised injuries, walked about 15-20 meters to the northern side
of her house, where PW1 and PW2 were residing, and collapsed on their sit-out.
Hearing her cries, PW1 and PW2 came out, and subsequently, other neighbours
gathered at the spot. It is alleged that, upon being questioned about the manner
in which she sustained the injuries, the deceased gave a dying declaration naming
the appellant as the assailant. The entire case of the prosecution thus revolves
around this alleged dying declaration, which, if found to be true, genuine, and
trustworthy, would support the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge.
The prosecution also relies on scientific evidence to contend that the chopper,
knife, and clothes of the accused were found to contain blood resembling that of
the deceased.
11.2. Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act is an exception to the general rule
that hearsay evidence is not admissible evidence and unless evidence is tested by
cross-examination, it is not creditworthy. Under Section 32, when a statement is
made by a person, as to the cause of death or as to any of the circumstances
which result in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :30:
into question, such a statement, oral or in writing, made by the deceased to the
witness is a relevant fact and is admissible in evidence. The statement made by
the deceased, called the dying declaration, falls in that category provided, it has
been made by the deceased while in a fit mental condition. A dying declaration
made by a person on the verge of his death has a special sanctity as at that
solemn moment, a person is most unlikely to make any untrue statement. The
shadow of impending death is by itself the guarantee of the truth of the statement
made by the deceased regarding the causes or circumstances leading to his death.
A dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of
evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim. Once the
statement of the dying person and the evidence of the witnesses testifying to the
same passes the test of careful scrutiny of the courts, it becomes a very important
and a reliable piece of evidence and if the court is satisfied that the dying
declaration is true and free from any embellishment such a dying declaration, by
itself, can be sufficient for recording conviction even without looking for any
corroboration. (Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh2)
11.3. Now, we shall deal with the reliability of the alleged dying
2
[(1993) 2 SCC 684)]
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :31:
declaration, said to have been made by the deceased to PW2 and overheard by
PWs 1, 4 and 5, who are her husband and immediate neighbours. From the
evidence of PW1, it is evident that his house is situated about 20 meters from the
house of the deceased. PW4 stated that the distance between the houses is about
15 meters, and that any sound emanating from the house of the deceased could
easily be heard. PW5 also confirmed that her house is situated nearby. All these
witnesses stated that they were alerted upon hearing the cries of the deceased
requesting help from PW1 and PW2.
11.4. It is in this context that the prosecution case requires close
scrutiny. The specific case of the prosecution is that the injuries were inflicted
when the deceased resisted the accused’s attempt to commit rape. However, the
scene mahazar reveals that the incident took place on the southern side of the
house, near the kitchen door.
11.5. The prosecution version that the deceased, an elderly woman of
about 70 years, was capable of walking or running approximately 20 meters,
crying out loudly to attract attention, and thereafter giving a dying declaration,
appears wholly inconsistent with the medical evidence on record. It is pertinent to
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :32:
note that the doctor was not cross-examined in detail by the defence counsel, who
appears to have been inexperienced. Nonetheless, a critical appraisal of the
post-mortem findings, when considered alongside the age and frailty of the
deceased, renders the prosecution’s version thoroughly improbable.
11.6. The post-mortem certificate notes that the deceased was
edentulous, which in medical terms means that she had no natural teeth. This
would impede her from screaming loud, particularly in a state of distress. She is
described as moderately built and nourished for her age in the report, but
undoubtedly suffered from the frailty associated with advanced age. The presence
of cataracts in both eyes suggests diminished vision, which would have further
reduced her capacity to orient herself or escape. Significantly, the incident
occurred at 10:00 p.m., and there is no case for the prosecution that any source of
light was present at or near the scene. Neither Ext.P17 Scene Mahazar nor Ext.P18
Scene Plan mentions the presence of light. It is quite doubtful as to how the aged
lady suffering from cataract would identify the appellant in the dead of night. Now,
insofar as the major injuries suffered by the deceased are concerned, it can be
seen that injury No.18 is an incised wound 2 x 0.5 cm on the right side of the
neck, penetrating 1.7 cm, cutting the sternohyoid muscle, thyroid cartilage, cricoid
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :33:
cartilage at the midline, and entering the trachea. There cannot be any doubt that
puncturing the trachea would cause significant airway disruption and severely
impair voice production as it may cause the blood to flood into the airway. Injury
No.19 is an incised penetrating wound 1.6 x 0.4 cm on the left side of the chest,
cutting through the 6th rib and entering the chest cavity, causing partial lung
collapse and bleeding. This injury would also cause pain, breathing difficulty, and
reduced oxygen intake. Injury No. 21 is an incised punctured wound 2 x 0.5 cm on
the right side of the abdomen, cutting the rectus muscle. Injury No.22 is an
incised penetrating wound 1.5 x 0.6 cm on the chest, cutting the diaphragm,
injuring the small intestine — leading to internal bleeding and peritoneal
contamination. Injury No.23 is an incised penetrating wound 2 x 0.5 cm on the
abdomen, cutting the mesentery of the transverse colon, minimum depth 5.6 cm,
resulting in massive internal bleeding. The peritoneal cavity contained 1.5 litres of
blood at autopsy. The doctor has stated that these injuries would have led to
hypovolemic shock. It would mean rapid loss of consciousness, severe pain,
extreme weakness, and respiratory distress. The airway injury and edentulous
condition would have hampered vocalization. Walking or running any meaningful
distance would have been impossible.
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :34:
11.7. In Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology by Modi (24th
Edition), as regards injuries of trachea, it has been stated as under: (Chapter 28,
page 594)
“A forceful blow over the neck can cause a fracture of the larynx,
involving thyroid cartilage and cricoid cartilage or rupture of the
trachea to cause death either by spasm or oedema of glottis or by
suffocation due to internal bleeding into the larynx or due to surgical
emphysema.”
xxxx xxxxx xxxx
In the case of a wound of the larynx, speech is possible, if the wound
is above the vocal cords, even if it is gaping. However, in a wound of
the larynx below the vocal cords, and in that of the trachea, no
speech is possible. In such a case, one may be able to speak in a
whisper, if the wound is not gaping sufficiently to allow air to pass
into the mouth.”
In Parikh’s Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (4th Edition Page
348). It is stated as under:
“The chief danger in incised and stab wounds of the neck is from
haemorrhage due to an injury to blood vessels. The trachea is often
opened. Death is due to haemorrhage, air embolism consequent on
the entry of air into the veins, or due to asphyxia from filling of air
2025:KER:45733Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :35:
passages with blood. Wounds of the large vessels are not necessarily
rapidly fatal; an individual so wounded may be capable of physical
and volitional acts.
Wounds of the larynx and trachea are not fatal if a large blood
vessel is not injured. Speech is usually not possible if the wound is
below the vocal cords; however, a person may be able to speak in
whisper if the wound is not gaping. Wounds of the oesophagus are
usually accompanied by wounds of larynx, trachea or large blood
vessels and they prove fatal from haemorrhage or due to
complications.
Wounds of the sympathetic and vagus nerve may be fatal and
those of the recurrent laryngeal nerve cause aphonia.”
11.8. Thus, there is every reason to doubt the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses that the deceased walked, ran or crawled all the way to the
northern side by about 20 meters and then cried out loud to attract attention.
Another important aspect is the absence of blood trails from the place of
occurrence to the house of PW1 and PW2. Though PW3 had stated in his evidence
that he had seen drops of blood, the same is not substantiated by any prosecution
records.
11.9. Further, there is another reason to doubt the version of PWs 1, 2,
4, and 5. While these witnesses claim to be immediate neighbours residing 15 to
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :36:
20 meters from the deceased’s house, and the accused is alleged to have inflicted
about 35 injuries on the deceased on the southern side of the house, no one
claimed to have overheard the cries or screams during the assault. They all appear
to have been alerted only after the alleged event.
11.10. PW3, the son-in-law of the deceased, stated that he received
information about the incident at 10:00 p.m. on 09.12.2016 from PW8 Bijulal. By
the time he reached the scene, the injured had already been taken to the hospital.
He noted the kitchen door was open and observed the torch and chopper lying
outside. He stated that the neighbors who were present there which include
PW1,PW2,PW4 and PW5 told him about the assailant’s identity and the dying
declaration. Importantly, despite claiming to have gathered all relevant information
by 11:00 p.m., when he lodged the FIR at 3:27 a.m. on 10.12.2016 (Ext. P25), the
assailant’s name was recorded as unknown. This omission seriously undermines
the prosecution’s claim that the identity of the assailant was disclosed at the
earliest opportunity.
11.11. PW29, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadakkavoor, who registered
the FIR, stated in cross-examination that the time of occurrence is shown as
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :37:
between 3:15 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. He further deposed that when he reached the
spot at about 11:00 p.m., all the neighbours were present. He specifically stated
that he enquired with the persons present whether they were aware of the identity
of the accused, but none of them responded with any information. PW29 added
that on the next day, at about 10:00-11:00 p.m., when PW32, the Investigating
Officer, arrived at the spot, he too was present. He informed the Investigating
Officer that a plastic torch and a chopper were found behind the house. It was at
about 11:00-11:30 p.m. that the sniffer dog was brought to the scene.
11.12. From the final report and the evidence of the Investigating Officer,
it is clear that immediately after registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer
took over the investigation. He deposed that he initially conducted the inquest
over the dead body and prepared the scene mahazar at 2:00 p.m. The neighbours
were all present at the scene of crime and they had pointed out the scene. He
however stated that PWs 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 were questioned only on 11.12.2016,
and that the appellant was arrested on 12.12.2016.
11.13. The sequence of events, therefore, reveals that the identity of the
accused was not known when the FIR was registered at 3:27 a.m. on 10.12.2016.
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :38:
Although police personnel remained at the scene throughout 10.12.2016, none of
the witnesses who allegedly heard the deceased uttering the name of the accused
were questioned that day. It is true that the inquest report, prepared on
10.12.2016, mentions that the appellant was suspected of having committed the
crime. However, the inquest report reached the court only on the following day. If,
indeed, the identity of the accused had been divulged by the deceased and
overheard by the neighbours, there would have been no need to bring in a sniffer
dog on 10.12.2016. The first step any diligent Investigating Officer would have
taken would be to promptly record the statements of the witnesses and send an
address report to the court. The only conclusion that can reasonably be drawn is
that the alleged dying declaration of the deceased to PWs 1, 2, 4, and 5 was an
afterthought, introduced to strengthen the prosecution case.
12. There are other indications which reveal that the prosecution has
attempted to introduce inadmissible evidence to link the accused with the death of
the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge rightly refused to rely on the evidence
let in by the prosecution by examining PW10 to prove the alleged previous bad
character of the accused. When the accused has not adduced any evidence to
prove that he had a good character, the bad character of the accused is irrelevant.
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :39:
This is the principle enshrined under Section 54 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The prosecution also examined PW10 to bring in evidence that the sniffer dog had
gone near the house of the accused. Further, the prosecution examined PW12 to
substantiate that the appellant was an accused in an earlier case registered under
Section 302 of the IPC. The learned Sessions Judge rightly rejected this evidence
as inadmissible, since nothing was shown to connect the present crime with the
earlier one. The prosecution also examined PW28, the Sub-Inspector of Police,
Kadakkavoor Police Station, to prove the bad character of the accused, and the
court refused to accept that evidence as well. PW6, the brother of the deceased,
was examined to prove that the deceased had given a dying declaration while
being transported to the hospital in the ambulance. However, relying on the
evidence of the Medical Technician, PW9, the learned Sessions Judge discarded
the evidence of PW6. Another significant fact is that the recovery of MOs 9 and 10
(clothes) was effected from the bedroom of the house of the accused on
12.12.2016, with PW14 attesting Ext.P11 Mahazar. However, two days later, on
14.12.2016, based on another alleged disclosure statement by the accused, MO8
(knife) was seized from the very same bedroom, from beneath the bed. It appears
that this recovery was introduced after the receipt of the Postmortem Certificate,
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :40:
when it became apparent that some of the injuries found on the body of the
deceased could not have been caused by MO1 chopper alone. In order to link the
appellant with MO8 knife, the prosecution examined PW11, the salesman at QRS,
Attingal. Though this witness had no prior acquaintance with the appellant, he was
made to state that the appellant had purchased a speaker system from the shop,
and as a promotional gift, was given a kitchen set containing MO8 knife. In
cross-examination, it was brought out that there was no reason why PW11 should
have remembered the appellant, as the shop was crowded and numerous
customers had purchased items during that period. We are of the view that a
conscious attempt was made by the prosecution to introduce inadmissible link
evidence to somehow connect the accused with the crime. Insofar as motive is
concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has emphatically held that the prosecution
failed to prove any motive for the appellant to murder the deceased.
13. In summation:
13.1. We shall summarise the reasons why we find it difficult to believe
the version of the prosecution that it was the appellant who was instrumental in
trespassing into the house of the deceased and inflicting injuries on her.
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :41:
a) The deceased, a 70-year-old edentulous woman with cataracts and
severe, fatal injuries (including tracheal, lung, and abdominal injuries
causing airway disruption, massive internal bleeding, and hypovolemic
shock), could not have walked 15-20 meters, cried out loudly, or made a
clear dying declaration.
b) The deceased had cataracts in both eyes, significantly impairing her vision.
The incident occurred at 10:00 p.m. in an area where no light source was
present, as admitted by the prosecution. The likelihood of the injured
woman identifying the accused in such circumstances was quite remote.
c) There were no blood trails found between the crime scene and where the
deceased allegedly collapsed, casting doubt on the claim that she moved
that distance after the attack.
d) Despite living only 15-20 meters away, the neighbours (PWs 1, 2, 4, and
5) who claimed to hear the dying declaration did not hear any cries or
sounds of struggle during the alleged prolonged assault.
e) The FIR recorded hours after the incident mentioned the assailant as
“unknown” despite the prosecution’s claim that the name of the accused
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :42:
was revealed in the dying declaration at the earliest stage.
f) Key witnesses who allegedly heard the dying declaration were not
questioned until two days later, raising suspicion that their accounts were
fabricated as an afterthought.
g) A sniffer dog was brought in the day after the crime, which would not
have been necessary if the accused’s identity was truly known through the
alleged dying declaration.
14. The next item of evidence relied on by the prosecution is the
detection of blood on MO8 (knife), MO9 (kaily), and MO10 (shirt). MOs 9 and 10
were seized as per Ext.P44 property list dated 12.12.2016. The property list does
not reveal that MOs 9 and 10 were sealed at the time of seizure. MO8 (Knife) was
seized on 14.12.2016 as per Ext P11 mahazar. The property list as per which MO8
was forwarded to court is Ext. P45 and the same is dated 16.12.2016. There is no
explanation as to how and where MO8 was retained from 14.12.2016 till
16.12.2016 on which day the same was forwarded to the Court. It appears that the
material objects were forwarded to the Forensic Science Lab as per Ext.P47
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :43:
Forwarding Note on 17.12.2016. Insofar as MO8 is concerned, we have already held
that its recovery is suspicious and has not been proved in accordance with law. The
chain of custody has not been established as required by law. In these
circumstances, we are of the view that much sanctity cannot be attached to the
detection of blood on MOs 8, 9, and 10.
15. It is often difficult for the Court of law to arrive at the real truth in
criminal cases. The judicial process can only operate on the firm foundations of
actual and credible evidence on record. Mere suspicion or suspicious circumstances
cannot relieve the prosecution of its primary duty of proving its case against an
accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Courts of justice cannot be swayed by
sentiment or prejudice against a person accused of very reprehensible crimes.They
cannot even act on some conviction that an accused person has committed a crime
unless his offence is proved by satisfactory evidence of it on record. If the pieces of
evidence on which the prosecution chooses to rest its case are so brittle that they
crumble when subjected to close and critical examination so that the whole
superstructure built on such insecure foundations collapses, proof of some
incriminating circumstances, which might have given support to merely defective
evidence cannot avert a failure of the prosecution case (See: Datar Singh v.
2025:KER:45733
Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :44:
State Of Punjab3).
16. The Apex Court in Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes And
Others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira (Dead) Through Lrs4., after referring to
the Malimath Committee on Judicial Reforms highlighted the fact that in discovering
truth, the Judges of all courts need to play an active role. It was observed as
under:
“Truth being the cherished ideal and ethos of India, pursuit of
truth should be the guiding star of the criminal justice system. For
justice to be done truth must prevail. It is truth that must protect the
innocent and it is truth that must be the basis to punish the guilty.
Truth is the very soul of justice. Therefore truth should become the
ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by
statutorily mandating the courts to become active seekers of truth. It is
of seminal importance to inject vitality into our system if we have to
regain the lost confidence of the people. Concern for and duty to seek
truth should not become the limited concern of the courts. It should
become the paramount duty of everyone to assist the court in its quest
for truth.
3 [1974 AIR SC 1193] 4 [2012 SCC CIV 3 126] 2025:KER:45733 Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :45: 17. Conclusion:
After having carefully examined the evidence on record, we are of the
considered opinion that the entire superstructure of the prosecution case rests
solely on the alleged dying declaration made by the deceased and purportedly
overheard by PWs 1, 2, 4, and 5. In the light of the evidence of PW3 and Ext.P1 FI
statement and the inordinate delay in questions of the said witnesses, we have
concluded that the possibility of introducing the name of the appellant a day after
the incident cannot be ruled out. We have also found that the medical evidence will
belie the case of the prosecution in no small measure. We find it wholly unsafe to
base a conviction of the appellant on such testimony, despite the existence of
certain circumstances that undoubtedly raise grave suspicion against him. It is
well-settled that suspicion, no matter how grave or strong, cannot take the place of
legal proof and can never constitute a safe or satisfactory basis for recording a
conviction. In these circumstances, we find it impossible to withhold from the
appellant the benefit of doubt, particularly in light of the serious infirmities and
contradictions that pervade the case of the prosecution.
This appeal is allowed. The finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed
against the appellant in S.C. No.541 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District
2025:KER:45733Crl.A.No. 2330 of 2024 :46:
and Sessions Judge-VI, Thiruvananthapuram, is set aside and the appellant/accusedis acquitted of all charges. The appellant/accused be set at liberty forthwith if his
continued incarceration is not required in connection with any other case.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,
JUDGE
Sd/-
K.V. JAYAKUMAR,
JUDGE
PS/APM/16/6/25