Full Judgment Text
1
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 971 OF 2012
VIDYALAKSHMI @ VIDYA ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA ..RESPONDENT
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 852853 OF 2014
ANAND SABARIRAJ @ AND ETC. ..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA ..RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
M.R.SHAH, J.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2019.02.16
12:09:37 IST
Reason:
As common question of law and facts arise in this group of
appeals and as such arise out of the common impugned
2
judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, all these appeals are decided and
disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court, by which the High Court has dismissed the said
appeals preferred by the respective Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and has
confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
imposed by the learned trial Court convicting the original
Accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the IPC (original Accused Nos. 1 & 2), for the
offences punishable under Section 120B of the IPC (original
Accused Nos. 1 & 3) and for the offences punishable under
Section 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC (original Accused
No.3) and convicting the original Accused Nos. 1 & 2 for the
offences under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the
original accused Nos. 1 to 3 have preferred the present appeals.
3. As per the case of the prosecution, Accused No.1 and
Accused No.3 had been lovers for more than last three years.
The marriage of the Accused No.3 was solemnised on 7.6.2006
with one Anandaraman (the deceased) in Chennai against the will
3
of Accused No.3. It was the case of the prosecution that after the
solemnisation of the marriage with a view to live with Accused
No.1 after doing away with Anandaraman before 18.06.2006,
Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 hatched up a conspiracy and
solicited the assistance of A2 and subsequently A2 became a
party to the conspiracy. It was the further case on behalf of the
prosecution that Accused No.3 after the marriage planned with
Anandaraman to go to different tourist centres in Kerala under
the guise of a honeymoon celebration and disclosed the
particulars of such journeys and visits to Accused No.1. The
couple started from Chennai on 16.06.2006 to Kerala for visiting
Guruvayoor and Munnar. Accused No.3 with predetermination
passed information to Accused No.1 through mobile phone,
whereby to facilitate Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 to
pursue/follow the couple. Accused No.3 led Anandaraman to the
Kundala Dam at Munnar (place of the offence) under the pretext
of going tour and thereafter having boating she took
Anandaraman to a lonely place and brought about the arrival of
first and second accused thereby passing information over mobile
phone. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was led
4
by Accused No.3 to a catchment area which afforded opportunity
for implementation of the scheme of conspirators.
3.1 According to the prosecution, AI and A2 who had reached
there found the opportunity and caused the death of the
deceased by ligature strangulation with MO.7 (Camera Strip) and
smothering. It was further the case of the prosecution that
Accused No.2 committed robbery of Rs.13,000/ kept inside the
pocket of the pants worn by Anandaraman and Accused No.1
committed robbery of wrist watch valued at Rs.2,000/ and the
camera valuing to Rs.10,000/, totalling to Rs.25,000/. As per
the case of the prosecution, as part of the conspiracy, Accused
No.3 removed herself the gold chain from her neck and entrusted
to Accused No.1 and she herself stained her dress with stain of
blood and after being satisfied from message over mobile phone
that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had escaped, misrepresented the facts
and to create a story as if some unknown persons have
committed the robbery and had killed Anandaraman taking
advantage of the lonely place. The first information report was
lodged before the police by PW1 – Sam Vincent, the driver of the
vehicle in which A3 and the deceased had travelled. The Circle
Police Inspector started investigation. According to the
5
prosecution, thereafter Accused No.1 & 2 had panicked on seeing
a police van proceeding to Kundala Dam – the scene of the crime.
They came to know that word had gone around that a crime had
been committed and the police were looking for two persons who
had allegedly committed that crime. They somehow wanted to
leave Munnar to some other place. Thereafter they made
enquiries with PW2 and others as to how they could hurriedly
leave Munnar. Their conduct allegedly aroused suspicion in the
mind of PW2 and his friends. They ensured that A1 and A2 did
not escape and informed the police about the suspicious
activities of A1 and A2. Thereupon A1 and A2 were taken to the
police station.
3.2 During the course of the investigation, the Investigating
Officer collected incriminating material against the accused. The
Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the
concerned witnesses. The Investigating Officer found that the
clothes worn by A1 to A3 were stained with human blood. They
further found that the nail clippings of A1 and A2 had blood
marks on them. They recovered MO.6 – tour programme –
itinerary of A3 and the deceased in the handwriting of A3 from
the possession of A1. During the course of the investigation, the
6
IO recovered, at the instance of Accused Nos. 1 & 2, watch,
camera and cash of the deceased and the gold chain of A3,
which, according to A3, was taken away from her by force by the
unknown miscreants. The deceased, at the scene of the crime,
had some scalp hairs of the miscreants within his fingers, which
came to be seized by the police while preparing the inquest
report. On conclusion of the investigation, the Investigation
Officer filed the charge sheet/final report against the accused for
the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
IPC, Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC, Section 302 read
with Section 114 IPC and Section 379 IPC against the respective
Accused Nos. 1 to 3. The case was committed to the Court of
Sessions. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore they
came to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for the aforesaid
offences.
4. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution
examined in all 40 witnesses. The prosecution also produced on
record through witnesses the documentary evidence – Exhibits
P1 to P80. M.Os 1 to 51 series were also marked by the
prosecution. Thereafter, the prosecution submitted the closing
pursis. The accused did not adduce any evidence at the stage of
7
defence. However, Exhibit D1 was marked by A2 when PW29
was examined. Thereafter, the statements of the accused under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded. In their 313
statements, the accused had taken up the defence of total denial.
It appears that A1 and A3 did not dispute their relationship. In
fact, they did admit their relationship. But, according to them,
the relationship had been put to an end in 2004 and that
thereafter, A3 had willingly married with the deceased. They
denied any contact between them after 2004. A3 filed a detailed
written statement. It was the case on behalf of the accused that
they were not in any way responsible for the murder of the
deceased Anandaraman and that they had been falsely
implicated by the police.
5. The learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence,
came to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully
established the offence of conspiracy under Section 120B
between A1 and A3. The learned trial Court also came to the
conclusion that the murder of the deceased Anandaraman was
executed by A1 and A2 in the presence of A3 at the scene of the
crime Kundala dam using MO7 – Camera Strip. The trial Court
also observed and found that the death of the deceased was
8
caused by a ligature strangulation and there were also attempt to
smother the deceased. The learned trial Court further came to
the conclusion that attempts were made deliberately to mislead
others by stating that it was the case of some unknown
miscreants to commit theft/robbery of valuable articles which the
deceased and A3 were having with them. Thereafter, the learned
trial Court convicted the original Accused No.1 – Anand for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and also for the
offence under Section 120B and Section 379 of the IPC. The
learned trial Court sentenced the original Accused No.1 to
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, and in default
of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year more. He is also sentenced life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/ under Section 120B of the IPC, and in default
of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
year more. While convicting the original Accused No.1 for the
offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC, learned trial
Court further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three years.
9
5.1 The learned trial Court convicted original Accused No.2 for
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/, in default of
payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for one year more. The
learned trial Court sentenced Accused No.2 to undergo three
years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under
Section 379 of the IPC.
5.2 The learned trial Court convicted the Accused No.3 for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 114 of the IPC
and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.50,000/, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
three years rigorous imprisonment. Accused No.3 is also
sentenced for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/
under Section 120B of the IPC, and in default of payment of fine,
to further undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.
5.3 The learned trial Court ordered that the substantive
sentences of imprisonment awarded to each of the accused shall
run concurrently.
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court,
the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 preferred appeals before the High
10
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. By the common impugned
judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the appeals.
Hence, the present appeals.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
appellants have vehemently submitted that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, both, the learned trial Court as well as
the High Court have committed a grave error in convicting the
respective accused for the offences punishable under Section 302
of the IPC with the aid of Section 34, 114 and Section 120B of the
IPC.
7.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respective appellants that as such the High
Court has not properly appreciated the fact that it was a case of
circumstantial evidence, and therefore the prosecution is
obligated to prove all those circumstances which leave no manner
of doubt that all the circumstances are linked up with one
another and the chain has not broken in between. It is
submitted therefore that unless the chain of circumstances is
complete leading to the only conclusion that it is the accused
alone had committed the offence, the Court is not justified in
convicting the accused.
11
7.2 It is further submitted on behalf of the respective appellants
that both the Courts below have materially erred in holding that
Accused No.3 and Accused No.1 entered into a conspiracy to
murder the deceased Anandaraman.
7.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
respective appellants that even the prosecution has failed to
prove the motive put forward by the prosecution. It is submitted
that, according to the prosecution, marriage against the will of
the Accused No.3 was the motive. It is however submitted by the
learned counsel that Accused No.3 categorically stated in her 313
statement and in the written statement that she was very much
happy with the deceased and in fact there were no relationship
continued with Accused No.1 after the marriage and/or even
after 2004.
7.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the respective appellants that the Courts below have materially
erred in holding that Accused No.3 and Accused No.1 entered
into a conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased solely on
the basis of the call details/calls from deceased phone to Accused
No.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that even
the prosecution has failed to prove that the love letters between
12
Accused No.3 and Accused No.1 were in existence even at the
time of the incident. It is submitted that the evidence of PWs 22,
23 and 35 even if at the face value do not prove that the love
affair between the A3 and A1 was in existence.
7.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel that even the
prosecution has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence that
the itinerary – MO.6 which was alleged to be found from A1,
which was alleged to be in the handwriting of A3 was in fact in
the handwriting of A3.
7.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Accused Nos. 1 & 2 that the prosecution has failed to
prove by leading cogent evidence the presence of Accused Nos. 1
& 2 at Guruvayoor. It is further submitted by the learned
counsel appearing for A1 and A2 and even by the learned counsel
appearing for A3 that the prosecution has failed to prove by
leading cogent evidence that Accused Nos. 1 & 2 met Accused
No.3 at Arunodhayam Tourist Home.
7.7 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of Accused No.1 that the courts below have materially
erred in holding that the tour programme/itinerary of Accused
No.3 and the deceased was recovered from Accused No.1.
13
7.8 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to allow the
present appeals by setting aside the impugned common judgment
and order passed by the High Court confirming the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions
Court and consequently acquit the accused for the offences for
which they are held to be guilty.
8. The present appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.
8.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondentState that in the facts and
circumstances of the present case and on appreciation of
evidence on record, the Courts below have rightly held the
accused guilty for having committed the murder of the deceased
Anandaraman.
8.2 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel that in
the present case the prosecution has been successful in proving
by leading cogent evidence that the Accused No.1 and Accused
No.3 were in love and were having relationship which even
continued after the marriage of A3. It is further submitted by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentState that
prosecution in the present case has been successful in proving
14
the conspiracy between the accused to commit the murder of the
deceased.
8.3 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent
State that in the present case the prosecution has been
successful in establishing and proving the presence of A1 and A2
at all the places where A3 and the deceased went and that from
even Guruvayoor to Echo Point where the incident has taken
place. It is submitted that the aforesaid is established and
proved by the prosecution by examining the relevant witnesses,
namely PW2 and PW4 and also by leading documentary evidence.
8.4 It is further submitted that even the detailed itinerary/tour
programme of A3 and the deceased, which was in the
handwriting of A3 was recovered from A1 and it was established
and proved that wherever A3 and the deceased went as per the
tour programme, A1 and A2 also followed. It is further submitted
by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that in
the present case the prosecution has been successful in proving
that all throughout A1 and A3 were in touch and having
conversation on mobile phones.
15
8.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the
respondentState that even there was a recovery from Accused
Nos. 1 & 2 of the cash, gold chain, which was also looted.
8.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in the
present case the prosecution has been successful in completing
the chain of events leading to the conclusion that (1) accused
hatched the conspiracy; (2) the relationship between A1 & A3; (3)
that A1 & A2 followed A3 and the deceased and they were
present at all the places where A3 and the deceased went/stayed;
(4) that all through out A3 and A1 were in contact and were
having conversation over mobile phones; and (5) that the recovery
of MO6 – tour programme of A3 and the deceased, which was in
the handwriting of A3 and which was recovered from A1. It is
submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State that all the above circumstances lead to irresistible
concliusion of guilt against accused persons. It is submitted that
the links in the chain of circumstances has been completely
established by the prosecution. It is submitted that therefore
neither the learned Sessions Court nor the High Court have
committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Sections, 34, 114,
16
120B and 379 of the IPC. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the
present appeals.
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respective parties at length.
9.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present
case, original Accused Nos. 1 & 2 are convicted for the offences
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section
34 of the IPC, original Accused Nos. 1& 3 are convicted for the
offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of
Section 120B of the IPC and original Accused No.3 is also
convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the
IPC read with Section 114 of the IPC. Original Accused Nos. 1 &
2 are also convicted for the offences under Section 379 read with
Section 34 of the IPC.
9.2 That the learned Sessions Court on appreciation of evidence
on record, both oral as well as documentary, held that the
prosecution has been successful in establishing and proving that
the accused entered into a conspiracy to commit the murder of
the deceased. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court
found and held that original Accused Nos. 1 & 2 right from the
beginning followed Accused No.3 and the deceased and wherever
17
the Accused No.3 and deceased visited/stayed, the original
Accused Nos. 1 & 2 followed them. The learned trial Court also
found that all through out Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and Accused No.3
were in contact and were having the conversation over mobile
phones. Right from the very beginning from Guruvayoor to Echo
Point where the incident had taken place the presence of Accused
Nos. 1 & 2 has been established and proved. That the learned
trial Court convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and
sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and other
sentences noted hereinabove and the same have been confirmed
by the High Court by the impugned common judgment and order.
10. It is mainly contended on behalf of the accused that as it is
case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish
and prove and/or complete the chain of circumstances, which
would lead to the only conclusion that it is the accused who
committed the offence. It is also the case on behalf of the
accused that the prosecution failed to establish and prove the
motive, as according to Accused No.3 there was no relationship
since long and at least at the time of marriage and/or post
marriage. We are conscious of the fact that this is a case of
circumstantial evidence and therefore the prosecution has to
18
establish and prove and complete the chain of circumstances
which lead to the guilt of the accused.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
on appreciation of the evidence on record, we are satisfied that in
the present case the prosecution has been successful in proving
and/or completing the chain of circumstances which would lead
to the only conclusion that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 entered into a
conspiracy; that Accused Nos. 1 & 2 committed the murder of the
deceased and Accused No.3 was a party to the conspiracy.
12. From the judgment and order passed by the learned trial
Court, it appears that the learned trial Court enumerated as
many as 33 circumstances against the accused and the High
Court considered as many as 28 relevant circumstances against
the accused. The 33 circumstances enumerated and considered
by the learned trial Court against the accused are stated in
paragraph 58 and the 28 circumstances considered by the High
Court while holding the accused guilty for the murder of the
deceased are narrated in paragraph 18 of the impugned
judgment and order. On considering the entire evidence on
record, both oral as well as documentary, the prosecution has
been successful in proving that Accused Nos. 1 & 2 followed
19
Accused No.3 and the deceased at Guruvayoor, Munnar and also
at Echo Point. There was a recovery of detailed itinerary/tour
programme of A3 and the deceased from A1 which was in the
handwriting of A3. The prosecution has also been successful in
proving that A1 and A2 met A3 at Arunodhayam Tourist Home
where A3 and the deceased stayed (from the deposition of PW4).
The prosecution has also established and proved that Accused
Nos. 1 & 3 stayed at Munnar on 17.06.2006 by leading cogent
evidence and examining PW5 – Abdul Rasheed, Manager of Arafa
Tourist Home at Munnar, and also by leading the documentary
evidence – P5, the tourist home register. The prosecution has also
been successful in proving by leading cogent evidence that
Accused Nos. 1 & 2 went to Echo Point where A3 and the
deceased had gone and the place where the deceased was
murdered. The aforesaid has been established and proved by the
prosecution by examining PW2. Thus, the presence of Accused
Nos. 1 & 2 was found right from the beginning at Guruvayoor,
Munnar, Kundala Dam and Echo Point. This is required to be
appreciated from the fact that there was a recovery of
itinerary/tour programme of A3 and the deceased from A1 which
was found to be in the handwriting of A3. It has also been
20
established and proved by leading cogent evidence by examining
the BSNL personnel that there was a conversation on the mobile
phones between A3 and A1 from the mobile of the deceased
(which was used by A3) and the mobile of A1. Therefore, it has
been established and proved that Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were
following A3 and the deceased as per the instructions by A3
and/or that all the accused were in contact with each other even
at the time when the incident had taken place. All the aforesaid
circumstances lead to irresistible conclusion of guilt against the
accused persons. The aforesaid circumstances lead to the
conclusion that the prosecution case can be taken to have been
proved beyond all reasonable doubts. From the aforesaid
circumstances proved, it can be said that the links in the chain of
circumstances have been completely established. All the
aforesaid circumstances leave no manner of doubt that all the
circumstances are linked up with one another and the chain is
not broken in between. Thus, the prosecution has been
successful in completing the chain of circumstances leading to
the only conclusion that all the accused entered into a conspiracy
to commit the murder of the deceased and that in fact A1 and A2
committed the murder of the deceased.
21
13. So far as the submission of the Accused No.1 and Accused
No.3 that in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove
the motive and to prove by leading cogent evidence that the
relationship between A1 and A3 continued even after the
marriage is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such
Accused No.1 in fact denied having any love affair with Accused
No.3. However, Accused No.3 herself in her written statement
had admitted that they were in love earlier. But, according to
Accused No.3, thereafter there was no relationship continued.
Therefore, Accused No.1 came out with a false defence. Be that
as it may, when the prosecution has been successful in proving
the conspiracy between the accused as well as the accused
committed the murder of the deceased, motive may not have that
much relevance. We are more than satisfied that in the present
case the prosecution has been successful in proving the case
against the accused. We are in complete agreement with the view
taken by the High Court as well as the learned trial Court. We
see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court.
14. In view of the aforesaid reasons, all the appeals fail and
deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
22
……………………………………J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
NEW DELHI; ……………………………………J.
FEBRUARY 15, 2019. [M.R. SHAH]