The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant ruling reinforcing the foundational principle that conviction in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence must rest on an unbroken, complete, and exclusive chain of circumstances that leaves no room for reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt. The acquittal of the appellant underscores the judiciary’s vigilance against conjecture masquerading as proof.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Perumal, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for the murder of his live-in partner, Jayalakshmi, under Section 302 IPC, along with charges under Sections 201, 324, and 326 IPC. The prosecution alleged that on 01.07.2015, after Jayalakshmi decided to return to Tamil Nadu with her father, Perumal hacked her to death with a chopper in the compound of Recca Valley Club, Kakkanad, and concealed her body and the weapon.
Procedural History
- 01.07.2015: Jayalakshmi’s body discovered in bushes near Recca Valley Club.
- 02.07.2015: FIR registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C.; inquest conducted.
- 20.06.2017: Accused arrested from Tirupati after two years of absconding.
- 2018: Trial commenced before Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravur.
- 31.08.2019: Trial court convicted accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
- 2019: Criminal Appeal filed before Kerala High Court under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C..
Relief Sought
The appellant sought acquittal on grounds that the prosecution failed to establish motive, the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete, and key witnesses were unreliable. He also challenged the credibility of the recovery of the murder weapon and mobile phone.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the prosecution had established a complete, unbroken, and exclusive chain of circumstantial evidence that conclusively pointed to the guilt of the accused, excluding every other reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The learned counsel argued that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, which was riddled with material contradictions and omissions. Key witnesses - PW3, PW4, and PW17 - had embellished their testimonies before court compared to their police statements. The recovery of the chopper after two years, without rust or degradation, was implausible. The alleged motive - that the accused killed Jayalakshmi because she intended to leave him - was unsupported by any witness testimony and contradicted by PW17’s account that the accused was heartbroken at her departure. The court was urged to apply the principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra and Manoj @ Munna v. State of Chhattisgarh to require the chain to be flawless.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor contended that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence. The last seen together theory, the recovery of the chopper, and the mobile phone found in the accused’s possession were sufficient to establish guilt. The accused’s failure to explain Jayalakshmi’s disappearance triggered Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, shifting the burden to him. The prosecution argued that the inconsistencies in witness statements were minor and did not undermine the core narrative.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution. It emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unbroken chain, consistent only with guilt and excluding every other hypothesis. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish motive. No witness testified to any quarrel, threat, or animosity between the accused and the deceased. On the contrary, PW17 stated that the accused cried when Jayalakshmi left, indicating emotional attachment, not hostility.
"The theory of last seen together, propounded by the prosecution, is highly improbable and unbelievable."
The Court found the testimony of PW3, PW4, and PW17 unreliable due to material contradictions with their earlier police statements. PW3’s claim that the couple left for work together on the day of the incident was not mentioned in his initial statement. PW17’s account of a mysterious figure named Gandhi, who frightened Jayalakshmi, was omitted from her police statement - raising the possibility of third-party involvement.
The recovery of the chopper after two years was deemed highly suspect. The weapon, allegedly hidden in bushes near the scene, was found to be new and without rust, despite exposure to weather. The Court observed that the police had inspected the site multiple times immediately after the crime, making it implausible that the weapon remained undiscovered for two years.
The mobile phone evidence was equally flawed. PW5 claimed he sold the phone for ₹400, while PW6 insisted it was given free of cost. This contradiction rendered the chain of custody unreliable.
The Court invoked Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa and Vishwajeet Kerba Masalkar v. State of Maharashtra, reiterating that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Kerala High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released immediately, if not detained in any other case.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Flawless
- Practitioners must scrutinize every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence for contradictions, omissions, or improbabilities.
- A single missing or unreliable link can invalidate the entire prosecution case.
- Courts will not accept partial or embellished testimonies as sufficient to sustain conviction.
Motive Is Critical in Circumstantial Cases
- Absence of motive is not merely a defense argument - it is a decisive factor under Suresh v. State of Haryana and Vinod Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi).
- Prosecutors must establish motive with credible evidence, not speculation.
- Emotional statements by the accused (e.g., crying at separation) can negate alleged motive.
Recovery After Long Delays Is Suspect
-
Recovery of incriminating objects after prolonged gaps requires extraordinary corroboration.
-
Physical condition of recovered items (e.g., lack of rust, dirt, wear) must be explained.
-
If the scene was inspected earlier, failure to find the object then raises serious doubt.
-
Practitioners should file applications under Section 165 Cr.P.C. to cross-examine witnesses on inconsistencies.
-
Always request production of original police statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to impeach credibility.
-
Argue Section 106 only when the accused had exclusive knowledge of facts not otherwise accessible to the prosecution.
