1999 INSC 0941 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Reveendran Versus State of Kerala (G.B. Pattanaik and M.B. Shah, JJ.) Criminal Appeal No. 809 of 1997 02.12.1999 JUDGMENT G.B. Pattanaik, J. - Appellant Raveendran along with two other accused persons stood charged under Se convicted Raveendran under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and accused Gopalan under Section 201 IPC alo charges. Raveendran and Gopalan preferred appeal No. 87 of 1990 to the High Court of Kerala. State al the third accused. The High Court by the impugned judgment, affirmed the acquittal of Gopalan and the IPC and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Government. The High Court also affirmed the convictio Sections 302 and 201 as well as the conviction of Gopalan under Section 201 IPC. The learned Sessions imprisonment for life for his conviction under Section 302, and five years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 for his conviction under Section 201, with the further direction that the sentences would run concurrent conviction under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay six months. Gopalan has not preferred any appeal and it is only Raveendran, who has preferred the appe 2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that deceased Yeshoda developed intimacy with one Gopalan (not marry, Gopalan died and Yeshoda gave birth to a child. Yeshoda, thereafter, came in contact with accuse parents of Raveendran however did not approve the relationship between them. Raveendran married Ye purchasing land in a place called Kappad, constructed a small house and lived therein. After spending s and Raveendran and they decided to dissolve the marriage. Yeshoda used to visit the house of Raveendr Yeshoda that he would purchase a house for her at Badagara. The prosecution alleged that on 3.3.1988 Y husband informed her that he would come with jeep and fetch her. PW8 informed PW6, the brother of Y jeep at Payam Mukku. It is alleged that PW23, the younger brother of Yeshoda went to Iritty for market him about Yeshoda. When PW23 could not say the whereabouts of Yeshoda, Raveendran told him that h second marriage. PW23, accordingly, conveyed this to his brother PW6 and mother PW16. PW16 becam was surprised to hear from Raveendran that he did not know anything about Yeshoda. On not getting an her son PW6 went to Peravoor Police Station and lodged a missing report. It is thereupon, the Police Of Tellicherry, as certain articles had been recovered from the dead body of a lady, which were lying there. convinced that the articles belonged to Yeshoda. On 30.3.1988, PW1 saw a dead body of a lady in a rav Manantavady. PW1 then went to the police station and gave a statement to the police and a case was reg Inspector took up the investigation. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and on getting confirmed that the death was a clear case of homicide, case was registered under Section 302. Accused certain recoveries were made from him pursuant to a disclosure statement. Accused Gopalan was arrest made from him. The third accused was also arrested on the same day. On completion of investigation, c accused persons stood their trial. There is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire case hinges up of PWs 1, 6 and 16, coupled with the recoveries of M.Os. 1, 2, 4 and 5, the learned Sessions Judge as w dead body recovered from the ravine was that of the deceased Yeshoda and this conclusion has not been accused appellant Raveendran is concerned, the circumstances relied upon by the High Court are :- (i) That Raveendran and Yeshoda developed intimacy and ultimately married but the parents of Raveen (ii) After marriage, though they lived for sometime as husband and wife happily at a place called Kappa Raveendran wanted to divorce Yeshoda and thought of a second marriage; (iii) Yeshoda was seen in the company of the accused persons in a jeep by PWs 7 and 8 on 3.3.1988 at 9 (iv) The jeep bearing No. K.L.A. 1170 was found during the forenoon of 3.3.1988 at Payam Mukku, Iri evidence of PWs 4, 7, 8 and 9. (v) From the evidence of PW10 and PW11, it is established that a jeep stopped near the Grant Hotel, ru came in the jeep, took tea and one woman was sitting in the jeep, almost tired. (vi) Conduct of accused Raveendran, in not making any inquiry about Yeshoda after 3.3.1988. (vii) Medical evidence of the doctor, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body as well as the post- effect that the exact cause of death could not be given and opinion was reserved, pending the result of c Assistant Chemical Examiner Exh.P11, the said doctor opined that it is not possible to say as to whether or post-mortem but if the injuries are ante-mortem then the head injury sustained by the deceased could medical evidence, the High Court however came to the conclusion that the injuries were ante-mortem in (viii) Recovery of articles belonging to the deceased on the basis of statement made by the accused Rav of the Evidence Act. The two statements made by the accused are Exhibits P30 and P31. (ix) Extra-judicial confession of the accused as deposed by PW15. This extra-judicial confession was no the High Court as the exact words or words as nearly as possible were not reproduced by PW15 and fur took him to an arrack shop and after consuming liquor, narrated the incident. Thus it cannot be said to b It is curious to note that even though, the High Court did not accept the so called extra-judicial confessi to PW15, yet relied upon the evidence of PW15 for completing all the links in the chain of circumstanc 3. On these circumstances, the High Court affirmed the conviction of accused Raveendran of the charge 4. It is contended on behalf of appellant Raveendran that the circumstances relied upon by the High Cou prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, but also even if all the circumstances can be said to have been est the chain and they do not unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and exclude any hypothesis co to discuss in detail the law relating to the circumstantial evidence, suffice it to say that prosecution mus tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused and though each of the circumstances by itself may n circumstances must be so complete that it would exclude every other hypothesis and unequivocally poin circumstances said to have been established in the light of the aforesaid principle, we find sufficient for appellant that the circumstances thus proved, do not point out unerringly to the guilt of the accused. It is medical evidence. The dead body of Yeshoda was found on 30th of March, 1988 and the post-mortem w conducted the autopsy, while issuing the post-mortem certificate Exh.P10, categorically stated that the e his opinion, pending the result of chemical analysis. On getting the report of the Assistant Chemical Ex report as per Exh.P12, which indicated that the deceased sustained head injury, which if ante-mortem, c could be caused by hitting with stones like M.Os. 11 or 12. The said report further revealed that nobody deceased or not. When the doctor itself has not been able to give a definite opinion as to the injuries fou and the dead body itself was found on 30th of March, 1988 and Yeshoda alleged to have been seen in th for us to sustain the conclusion of the High Court that the death of Yeshoda can only be homicidal. The Court could have jumped to the aforesaid conclusion and we, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that t homicide death is wholly erroneous. The extra-judicial confession as deposed by PW15 has not been rel Court also came to the conclusion that it is difficult to rely upon the same, as the exact words or even th reproduced by PW15. That apart, as has been stated earlier, even the evidence of PW15 indicates that R liquor, where-after Raveendran disclosed the entire incident and therefore, such statement cannot be sai hand it is the outcome of the consumption of liquor, both by the witness as well as the accused, if at all view of the matter, the so-called extra-judicial confession has to be excluded from the purview of consid important circumstance which can be said to have been established by the evidence of PWs 7 and 8 is th March, 1988 in a jeep and that jeep was found to be moving around on different places on the same day about seeing the jeep on 3rd of March, 1988 at different places at different point of time, the High Cour with each other, so far as the time factor is concerned. That apart, the so-called evidence of PWs 10 and 11 who had deposed that at 5 P.M. on the same day, so Hotel, is of no consequence and cannot be held to be incriminating in nature, as they never knew accuse identification parade and, therefore, the said evidence cannot be utilised to bring home the charge again only evidence of PWs 7 and 8 is to the effect that on 3rd of March, 1988 at 9.30 A.M., Yeshoda was see concerned, the prosecution case is rather hazy and the High Court itself has brushed aside the same on t ingredient of an offence. It is no doubt true that through some witnesses, the prosecution wanted to esta attempt to kill Yeshoda by hitting her with jeep but could not succeed and Yeshoda escaped, but that cir had testified the so-called extra-judicial confession and has not been relied upon and it would be highly conduct of accused Raveendran. PW23 who was living in an adjacent house of Yeshoda at Kappad, in h Raveendran had once offered Raveendran that she would purchase a van for him, if he agrees to divorce establishing a motive on the part of accused Raveendran. In our opinion, therefore, on the materials on any motive on the part of the accused Raveendran for committing the crime. In this state of affair, the so on the basis of statement made by accused Raveendran can hardly be said to be a clinching circumstanc case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In view of our conclusion, as aforesaid, we have no hes case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as against accused Raveendran and, therefore, the co 302 as well Section 201 IPC, cannot be sustained. We accordingly, set aside the conviction and sentence levelled against him. He be set at liberty forthwith, unless required in any other case. Appeal allowed.