Ansari vs State of Kerala

Sasidharan Nambiar, J.—Appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code by Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha in S.C. 170/2007. Appeal is filed challenging the conviction and sentence. The prosecution case is that on the night of 15/4/2002, appellant committed murder of his brother Hyderali from the room in his possession bearing building No. AGP VII/26 at Adimaly where he is conducting a soda shop by name Highrange Soda and Soft Drinks, by stabbing him with MO. 3 knife and thereafter he covered the body in sacks and carried it to the nearby well in the property of PW1 and put the body in the well and thereby committed the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. It was also alleged that appellant hatched a criminal conspiracy with the second accused Shahir and he also joined the appellant while appellant inflicted injuries on the deceased and second accused strangulated Hyderali by pressing his mouth and nose with a towel and the appellant thereby committed the offence u/s 120B of Indian Penal Code also. As the appellant was absconding, after procuring the presence of second accused, he was tried in S.C. 110/2004. Based on the evidence recorded, learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the second accused. After the appellant was arrested and produced, and the charge for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B of Indian Penal Code was framed and read over, appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and marked 16 exhibits and identified 10 material objects. While cross examining the prosecution witnesses, Exts.D1 to D13, portions of statements recorded u/s 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as the portions of the deposition in S.C. 110/2004 when those witnesses were examined earlier, were marked. When the appellant was questioned, u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure after closing the prosecution evidence, appellant denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and contended that he was not in the shop on the night of 15/4/2002. His case was that out of the two keys of his shop room, one was in the possession of deceased Hyderali and the other was with the appellant. On 14/4/2002 appellant had been with a friend residing at Kambilikandam and returned back only on the morning of 15/4/2002 and he omitted to take the key from Kambilikandam. When he reached the shop room, he found it closed by the brother who had left the place. It was contended that the deceased brother had earlier informed the appellant that he will leave in the morning. As the shop could not be opened, from PW7 Aby he procured soda and distributed it to the customers. As usual, shop room was opened on 17th April, 2002. On the evening of 18/4/2002 police arrested him while he was collecting money for the sale of soda and he was falsely implicated in the case and he is innocent. Though appellant was called upon to enter on his defence and adduce evidence, he did not adduce any evidence.

Learned Sessions Judge based on the evidence found the appellant guilty. He was convicted and sentenced accordingly. It is challenged in the appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted an arguments note, wherein it is contended that learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective and being a case based on circumstantial evidence, unless the evidence conclusively establish the guilt of the appellant he cannot be convicted. It is contended that evidence of PW1 establish that he reported to the police, finding the dead body in the well, on the evening of 18/4/2002 itself, but his statement was not recorded on that night and Ext.P1 FI statement was recorded only on the next day morning. It was contended that delay was only for the purpose of falsely implicating the appellant. It is also contended that appellant was arrested on the night of 18/4/2002 itself before registration of the crime and key of the shop room in the possession of the appellant was taken by the police and evidence was created later. It was also contended that based on the evidence, it cannot be found that appellant inflicted the injuries on the deceased or caused his death or removed the dead body from the shop room to the well and in such circumstances, the conviction is not sustainable. It is also contended that dead body of Hyderali was not properly identified and evidence of PW17 Circle Inspector shows that dead body was not got identified by any of the blood relatives and in such circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that the dead body found in the well was that of Hyderali and in such circumstances, the conviction is only to be set aside.

Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the material evidence was not challenged at the time of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that evidence of PW5, the owner of the shop building establish that the building was rented out to PW7 Aby, under Ext.P5 agreement and that building was used for conducting soda shop by PW7 earlier and at that time appellant was his employee. Evidence of PW7 establish that when PW7 started another soda shop, the building was given to the appellant directing to pay the rent to the owner and appellant was conducting the soda business and evidence of PW4 that he was the employee in that soda shop under the appellant from February 2002 onwards, was not disputed. It was pointed out that evidence of PW4 establish that deceased Hyderali, brother of the appellant, used to come and stay in the shop room, and Hyderali had been there on 12/2/2002 and he disclosed to PW4 that he will leave on the morning of 16/4/2002, as appellant promised to repay Rs. 25,000/- which was earlier taken by the appellant from Hyderali, as that money is to be utilized for the marriage of his sister. It is submitted that the evidence of PW4 establish that deceased was there in the shop room on the night of 15/4/2002 when he left the shop room and evidence of PW3 establish that he found the appellant and the deceased talking at about 8.45-9 p.m on that night in the space in between the shop rooms, on that night and nobody had seen Hyderali alive thereafter. It is therefore, argued that appellant has a duty to explain what happened to his brother Hyderali on the night of 15/4/2002 and the case of alibi pleaded at the time of questioning u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was not only not proved but also not even attempted to be proved and is disproved by the evidence of PW3. It was also argued that evidence of PW4 shows that the shop room was not opened on 16/4/2002 and as the appellant disclosed to PW4 that he kept the key at Kambilikandam and the shop room was opened only on the morning of 17/4/2002. Evidence of PW4 that unusually incense sticks (Agarbatties) were lighted in the shop room and when PW4 enquired the reason, appellant disclosed that it was due to the foul smell coming from outside was not even challenged. Evidence of PW4 also shows that blood stains were found on the floor and appellant explained that skin of bison was kept there and the evidence establish that on the evening of 18/4/2002, the dead body was found in the well near to the shop and PW1 and PW4 identified the dead body as that of Hyderali. It was argued that appellant who is in exclusive possession of the shop room, has a duty to explain the presence of the blood stains in that room and he has no valid explanation at all and it establishes that deceased Hyderali was murdered from that room by inflicting the injuries. It was argued that evidence of PW14 the doctor who conducted autopsy and prepared Ext. P11 postmortem certificate establish that death of Hyderali was due to the injuries inflicted on the chest and abdomen and each of the injuries is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Learned Public Prosecutor also argued that evidence of PW17 with that of PW6 and Ext.P6 recovery mahazar establish that MO. 3 knife was recovered from the room where the appellant resides along with PW8, as pointed out by the appellant and in such circumstances, the conviction is perfectly legal and correct.

Though learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the dead body found in the well of PW1, was not proved to be that of deceased Hyderali, as none of the near blood relatives identified the body, on the evidence, we find no merit in the submission. PW4 the employee of the appellant deposed that deceased Hyderali used to come and stay in the shop room and he is having acquaintance with Hyderali. Evidence of PW4 also establishes that Hyderali had been there on 12/4/2002 and stayed in the shop room till the morning of 15/4/2002. That evidence of PW4 was not challenged in cross examination. PW4 deposed that hearing the news that a body, enclosed in a sack, is found in the well near to the building owned by PW1, he went there and identified the body as that of Hyderali. PW4 also deposed that MO.1 was a kailee, which the deceased was wearing while he had been there from 12/4/2002. PW4 was not cross examined on these facts. PW3 also deposed that he had seen Hyderali and had acquaintance with him and had seen him in the shop. PW3 also identified the body as that of Hyderali. Evidence of PW9, uncle of the deceased shows that hearing the news that dead body of Hyderali was found in the well, he reached there, but by that time the body was taken to the Medical College Hospital for postmortem examination. After postmortem examination, PW9 had obtained and taken the body to the native place and it was buried in the mosque in accordance with customary practise. Evidence of PW9 on this aspect was also not challenged. Hence evidence conclusively establish the identity of the body found in the well as that of Hyderali, the brother of the appellant. In such circumstances, it cannot be disputed that body found in the well of PW1 on the morning of 19/4/2002, was that of Hyderali. Evidence of PW17 with Ext.P2 inquest report further establish that fact.

True, there is no eye witness to the incident and the case depends on the circumstantial evidence. Circumstances relied on by the prosecution are

(1) Appellant was last seen with the deceased on the night of 15/4/2002 by Pws.3 and 4 and nobody had seen the deceased Hyderali alive thereafter and

(2) Appellant had promised to repay Rs. 25,000/- which was taken by the appellant when it was kept at the residence of Hyderali for the purpose of marriage of his sister. Deceased Hyderali had come to get that money on 12/4/2002 and appellant promised to repay that money on the evening of 15/4/2002.

(3) Shop room was not opened on 16/4/2002 and when PW4 the employee came, appellant disclosed that the key of the rooms was not with him, as it was omitted to be taken from Kambilikandam.

(4)Appellant instead of manufacturing soda from his shop, got 30 cases of soda manufactured by PW7 and distributed it to his customers on 16/4/2002.

(5) The shop room was opened only on 17/4/2002 morning. PW4 found that on the morning appellant had unusually lighted incense sticks inside the room. When asked appellant had given a wrong explanation.

(6) Blood marks were found in that shop room and appellant offered unsatisfactory explanation to PW4.

(7)After the dead body was found, when PW17 prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar, blood stains were found inside that room which are of human origin proved by Ext.P16 report of chemical analysis.

(8) MO. 3 knife was recovered from the room where the appellant was residing, as disclosed by the appellant.

(9)Appellant gave wrong explanation at the time of questioning u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure that he was not there on 15/4/2002 and come back only on 16/4/2002.

(10) A false plea of alibi was raised.

Principles to be followed while considering the guilt of an accused, based on circumstantial evidence are well settled. Honourable Supreme Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, , laid down five golden principles as follows;

The following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ''must or should'' and not ''may be'' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ''may be proved'' and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: [SCC para 19, p.807:SCC (Cri) p.1047]

Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ''may be'' and ''must be'' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.

2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tedency.

4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

The principles were reiterated in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, , describing them as panchaseela of principles of circumstantial evidence. The evidence is to be appreciated in the light of the settled principles.

Evidence of PW4, which is not challenged on that aspect, conclusively establish that deceased Hyderali was in the shop room of the appellant, from 12/4/2002 till the evening of 15/4/2002. Evidence of PW4 that Hyderali had been there for getting back Rs. 25,000/-, which was taken by the appellant earlier, was not challenged at the time of his cross examination. His evidence also establish that appellant was found with the deceased when he left the room at about 8 p.m on that night as usual. True, Ext.D5 certified copy of deposition of PW4 when he was examined earlier when second accused was tried was marked during cross examination. PW4 had then deposed that he did not see Hyderali in that room while he was leaving the shop room. But the presence of the appellant in that room on that night when he left the room was not in dispute even in the earlier deposition. Evidence of PW3 establish that he is conducting a shop room in the same building and on the night of 15/4/2002 he found the appellant and the deceased talking, while he left the shop room at about 8.45-9 p.m. That evidence of PW3 was also not challenged in cross examination. Appellant himself at the time of his examination u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure admitted that appellant was there in the shop room on 15/4/2002. His only case was that one of the keys of the shop room was with Hyderali and he reported to the appellant that he will leave the place on the next day. But evidence of Pws.3 and 4 establish that Hyderali had been there to get the money from the appellant. Evidence of PW4 establish that Hyderali disclosed to him that he will leave on the morning of 16/4/2002 after receiving money from the appellant. Appellant has no case that he had paid money to Hyderali. In such circumstances, Hyderali would not have left the place, without receiving the money from the appellant. Therefore, explanation of the appellant that the deceased left the room on the morning of 16/4/2002 never be true. Evidence of Pws.3 and 4 establish that appellant was there in that shop room on the evening of 15/4/2002. The evidence also prove that appellant was last seen with the deceased on the night of 15/4/2002 and thereafter nobody had seen deceased Hyderali thereafter.

Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Satish, considered the last seen theory and held;

The last seen theory comes into play where the time- gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is fund dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.

When it was the appellant who was seen alive with the deceased for the last time and appellant fails to explain what happened to the deceased thereafter it is definitely a very strong link in the chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant.

Evidence of PW3 who is one of the attesting witness to Ext.P3 mahazar with the evidence of PW.17 and Ext.P3 establish that blood stains were found in the room which was collected by PW17 and sent for chemical examination. Ext.P16 report of chemical analysis establish that the human blood was present in that room which corroborates the evidence of PW4. Evidence of PW4 also establish that though the shop room was not opened on 16/4/2002, it was opened on 17/4/2002 and at that time blood stains were found in the room. A wrong explanation was given by the appellant to PW4 that it was because of placing the skin of bison. There is no explanation for the appellant either at the time of cross examination of witnesses or while questioning u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, for the presence of blood stains in the floor of the shop room, which was not there when the room was closed on the evening of 15/4/2002, as proved by the evidence of PW4 who found it, when the shop room was opened on the morning of 17/4/2002.

It is true that evidence of PW1 is to the effect that he had informed the finding of the dead body to the police station, on the evening of 18/4/2002 and his statement was not recorded on the day and instead it was recorded on the next day and police surveillance was made available on the night of 18/4/2002. Argument of the learned counsel is that as Ext.P1 FI statement was recorded belatedly and Ext.P12 FIR reached the Magistrate only on 24/4/2002, and the delay is fatal. True, there is some delay. But we do not find that it has either prejudiced the accused or resulted in any injustice. In Ext.P1 FI statement nothing is stated as against the appellant, to hold that it was fabricated later to foist a case against the appellant. Under Ext.P1, information was furnished only to the effect that inmates of his lodge reported change in the water being taken from the well on the morning of 18/4/2002 and PW1 reached there in the evening and removed the slab of the well and found discolouration and as it was evening, he promised to return on the next day morning and with the help of others examined the well and found the body of a human being floating. His evidence from the box also is not different, except that on the evening of 18/4/2002 itself he found out the body, though body was not identified or taken out on that night. In such circumstances, delay in lodging FIR or reaching the FIR to the Court is not fatal. Though appellant would contend that he was arrested on the night of 18/4/2002 from his shop while he was collecting the money payable for the soda manufactured and in support of the plea, evidence of PW6 was relied on, evidence of PW6 is that appellant was arrested while returning after seeing a movie which does not even probablize the plea of the appellant.

Added to this, conduct of the appellant establishes that it was the appellant who inflicted injuries on the deceased Hyderali on that night from that shop room and caused his death and removed the body from that room to the well. Appellant had not opened the shop room on 16/4/2002 though he was available there. Though it was contended that he was not available on 15/4/2002 it was disproved by the evidence. Evidently the room was not opened on 16/4/2002 as a gruesome murder was committed there in the room. When the room was opened on 17/4/2002, unusually appellant lighted incense sticks, evidently to remove the foul smell of blood. Evidence of PW4 establish presence of blood stains on the floor of the room and missing of two jute sacks from the room which was also not challenged in cross examination. The body of Hyderali was found enclosed in jute sacks inside the well. These are all strong links in the chain of evidence. Added to this is the false plea of alibi, raised by appellant that he was not there on 15/4/2002, but was at Kambilikandam. Added to this, the false representation to PW4 that blood stains found were that of a skin of bison, strengthens the conclusion that the murder was committed by the appellant. When all these materials and relevant facts are appreciated in the proper perspective, it is clear that every link in the chain of circumstance is established and the circumstance so proved are of conclusive nature and tendency and those circumstances unerringly point out the guilt of the appellant and rules out every other hypothesis except that the appellant is guilty. When the entire evidence is appreciated in the proper perspective, the proved circumstance unerringly point out the guilt of the appellant. Those circumstances are incompatible with the innocence of the appellant. Hence the conviction of the appellant for the offence u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code can only be confirmed. The sentence awarded is only imprisonment for life and fine. It also does not warrants interference. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to note two other aspects. A specific charge was framed for the offence u/s 120B of Indian Penal Code, on the allegation that appellant hatched a criminal conspiracy with the second accused, who was acquitted earlier. True, no evidence was adduced in support of the plea of charge of criminal conspiracy u/s 120B. But that does not mean that learned Sessions Judge can ignore the charge framed in the case, without answering the same. Learned Sessions Judge on the evidence should have found that criminal conspiracy was not proved and appellant should have been acquitted of that offence. Similarly, appellant was acquitted u/s 201 of Indian Penal Code on a strange reasoning. Learned Sessions Judge held that "I am of the view that since offence u/s 302 IPC was committed by the accused himself an offence u/s 201 IPC does not lie against the accused." The reasoning is unsustainable in law. Supreme Court in Kalawati and Another Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, considered the question and held,

It was held by the Privy council in Begu v. Emperor 52 Ind.App.191 (P.C) that in a charge of murder u/s 302 a conviction under S.201 without a further charge being made was warranted by the provisions of S.237, Criminal Procedure. If Kalawati had been acquitted of an offence under S.201 independently of the charge of murder against her, it would have been a different matter. As her acquittal is so intimately related to the charge of the main offence, and as it took place only for the reason that she was held guilty of murder, there is no bar to the restoration of the conviction under S.201.

Honourable Supreme Court in Sewa Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996 (4) Crime 200 SC) considered the conviction of an accused for the offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 as well as for the offence u/s 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and confirmed both the convictions. So also Division Bench in Valiyaveetil Ashraf and etc. Vs. State, S.H.O., confirmed the conviction for the offence u/s 201 as well as 302 of Indian Penal Code. So also Supreme Court in Hari Badan Rai and Others Vs. State of Bihar, confirmed the conviction for both the offences. Though the acquittal of the appellant for the offence u/s 201 of Indian Penal Code is not legal, as no appeal has been filed by the State, no interference is warranted.

Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and the sentence. As learned Sessions Judge did not award set off, it is provided that appellant is entitled to set off for the period he has been in custody in this case as provided u/s 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure, subject to the orders passed by appropriate authority u/s 432/433 of Code of Criminal Procedure.