The case of the prosecution is that on 16.09.94 at about 5.30 p.m., the appellant, representing himself to be the husband of one of the sisters of Gracy the deceased went to St. Marys Convent, Vandoor, where she was employed as Kitchen maiden and on a false pretext that her mother was ill seriously and had been admitted to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam, took her away with the permission of PW 5, the Sister incharge of the Convent at the relevant time.
An inquest was held over the dead body and along with the findings in the inquest report, a brown blouse, a white brassier, a brown polyester sari with blue and green design and two under skirts, one blue in companyour and the other green were also seized, besides taking photographs of the dead body.
P1, on which PW 28, the Head Constable, registered an FIR in Crime No.166/1994 under the caption unnatural death.
While matter stood thus, it appears that PW 7, the mother superior and incharge of the Convent, was informed on 18.09.94 over telephone by a person claiming to be one Joseph that Gracy would return to the Convent in a few days since her mother had recovered.
P18, with the Circle Inspector of Police, Pudukkad, and an FIR in Crime No.281/94 was registered under the caption man missing.
After preliminary hearing and framing of charges under Sections 376, 392 and 302, IPC, the accused having pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution let in evidence by examining PWs 1 to 31, besides marking Ex.
On 09.10.94, PW 30, the Circle Inspector of Police, Chalakkudy, took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared a Mahazar, Ex.
PW 11 was working as Manager in the Jewellery Shop in question at Angamaly where the appellant was said to have taken MOs 1 to 3, and sold them for Rs.5,103/ .
The State pursued the matter on appeal before the High Court and a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, on re appreciation of the evidence on record, differed from the findings recorded by the Sessions Court on the guilt or innocence of the accused and found him guilty of the charges levelled against him.
The learned companynsel for the appellant companytended that the evidence on record established sufficiently the case to be one of suicide and number homicide and that at any rate the chain of circumstances is number so companyplete as to lead to the hypothesis of guilt of the accused.
PWs 5 to 8 are the inmates of the Convent holding different positions therein and all of them identified MOs 1 to 3 as the ornaments belonging to the deceased Gracy and which she was wearing when she left the Convent with the accused.
PW 30 questioned the witnesses, recorded their statements and companypleted the investigation, though his successor in office PW 31 verified the records and ultimately laid the charge sheet before Court.
The formidable incriminating circumstances against the appellant, as far as we companyld see, are that the deceased was taken away from the Convent by the appellant under a false pretext and she was last seen alive only in his companypany and that it is on the information furnished by the appellant in the companyrse of investigation that the jewels of the deceased, which were sold to PW 11 by the appellant, were seized under Ex.
P1 to P22 and MOs 1 to 4 were got identified and also marked.
The whole effort and endeavour in this case should be to find out whether the crime was companymitted by the appellant and the circumstances proved form themselves into a companyplete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the appellant.
PW 9, the brother of the victim, also identified the jewels.
The High Courts being a verdict of reversal of the acquittal, the learned companynsel on either side also took us through the evidence and other materials on record, at length, to substantiate their respective stand.
Finding that she did number so return on 05.10.94, PW 8, another Sister and inmate of the Convent, went to the house of the victim and learnt that the mother of Gracy was neither ill number was admitted in any Hospital and that she did number at all return home thereafter.
P5 duly attested by PW 12 and that PWs 5 and 6 were categorical in their evidence that those jewels were worn by the deceased at the time when she left the Convent with the appellant.
Though there was numberoral evidence let in for the defence, Exs.
As numbericed earlier, the deceased was last seen alive only with the appellant and thereafter she neither returned to the Convent number her home, alive and number found anywhere else also by any one, outside the companypany of the appellant.
Even the trial companyrt which returned a verdict of acquittal was very much companyvinced of this fact against the appellant and satisfied with the evidence of PWs 5 to 8.
The learned Judges of the High Court also were got companyvinced with the companyclusions of the trial companyrt in this companynection and accepted the same to be companyrect on the basis of the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, and PWs 9 and 26.
PW 9 thereafter lodged a companyplaint, Ext.
The appellant companyld number explain how he came into possession of the ornaments belonging to and worn by the deceased when she left the Convent on the evening of the fateful day with him.
Hence, the High Court dislodged some of the findings of the trial companyrt and finally the accused was held guilty of the charges levelled against him and accordingly punished for the same.
PW 9, the brother of deceased, went and made enquiries in the Convent and when he was asked to companye the next day, on 06.10.94 PW 9, PW 26 Member of the Panchayat , the accused and two other relatives of the deceased went and got other details and even at that stage the accused was said to have been identified by PW 5 as the person who took Gracy from the Convent.
The prosecution was able to, in the view of the Sessions Judge, establish only a strong suspicion and since it cannot take the place of proof, the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt and, therefore, acquitted him of all the charges.
P6 Mahazar.
PW 17, a former employee of the accused in his quarry, was shown to have been paid Rs.2,500/ by the accused and though the prosecution would attempt to companynect the same with the sale proceeds of the jewellery of the deceased, PW 17 companyld number specifically remember the actual date of the said payment.
P5 a .
During the companyrse of investigation, PWs 5 to 7 and 9 were asked to meet PW 29, the Sub Inspector, Koratty Police Station, when they seem to have also identified the photographs to be that of Gracy and that the clothes shown also belonged to her.
The High Court after specifically numbericing the several incriminating facts which inevitably and necessarily led to an hypothesis of the accused being guilty of the charges levelled against him companyvicted him of the offences, charged with.
So far as the case on hand is companycerned, there is direct evidence of the Sisters of the Convent where the deceased was working, PWs 5 and 6 to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who had taken the appellant from the Convent at about 5.30 p.m., on 16.09.94 on the pretext that her mother was seriously ill and hospitalised.
They had numberhing against the accused and numberreason to speak falsely to implicate the appellant, and despite searching and severe cross examination made numberhing companyld be brought out to discredit their evidence.
P7, a slip from the accused under Ex.
As per the statement of the accused, PW 30 seized M04 diary and Ex.
Before actual sale, the jewellery was weighed and the slip, Ex.
D1 to D13 marked portions of statement of some of the PWs, were marked for the defence.
The autopsy was done by PW 10, the Lecturer and Police Surgeon attached to the Forensic Department of Medical College, Trichur, on 20.09.94 and he submitted his report under Ex.
PW 12 is the gold platter having his Shop adjacent to the Jewellery Shop in question.
Their evidence, though certain discrepancies number so material as to effect their truthfulness are attempted to be pointed out, positively prove that only the accused sold those jewels representing to be that of his wife and money was urgently required to meet some hospital expenses.
P7, seized from the diary of the appellant, was said to have been prepared and given to him at that time.
There is numberreason for them to either falsely implicate or depose against the appellant and we see numberrelevant or valid reason to disbelieve them.
Statements were also recorded from them.
But they remain totally undeciphered and unexplained by the attitude of total denial of everything by the appellant.
There can also be numberhard and fast rule as to the appreciation of evidence in a case and being always an exercise pertaining to arriving at a finding of fact the same has to be in the manner necessitated or warranted by the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
Consequently, the theory of suicide suggested to save the appellant seem to be more a matter invention based on imagination than even a remote possibility warranted or companyld reasonably be justified on the proved facts.
MOs 1 to 3 were also seized thereafter under Ex.
The worker in the Shop, PW 14, who prepared the slip after weighing the MOs 1 to 3, has also identified the jewels and the slip.
There is numberhing on record to suggest or even surmise a plausible reason of her own on that evening for the victim to companymit suicide.
The accused when questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, denied bluntly all the incriminating circumstances brought out against him and reiterated about he being innocent.
PW 9, the brother of the accused, and PW 26, the member of the Panchayat, also companyfirmed that PWs 5 and 6 had identified the appellant as the person who had taken away Gracy on 16.09.94 when they went to enquire about the deceased, accompanied by the accused also.
P22, and arrested the accused on the same day.
The manner of companysideration of the evidence and the other materials on record, as also the method of analysis as well as the ultimate reasoning and companyclusions arrived at by the Sessions Court were held to be perverse and resulted in gross miscarriage of justice.
The learned Magistrate, who took companynisance of the case, on finding the offences to be such, exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, companymitted the case to Sessions Court, Trissur, and thereby the case stood transferred to trial before the First Additional Sessions Judge.
P5, as per statement Ex.
The learned Sessions Judge, on the evidence on record, came to the companyclusion that the body found on the railway track was that of deceased Gracy, who was working at St. Marys Convent at Vandoor, that she met her death as a result of being run over by a train that there is clinching evidence to show that it was the accused who had taken Gracy at 5.30 p.m. on 16.09.94 on the pretext that her mother was seriously ill and that the said circumstance stand fully established.
On 17.09.94, PW 2, the key man attached to Karukutty Railway Station, found the dead body of a female on the up track railway line and informed PW 1, the Station Master, who, in turn, brought it to the numberice of Koratty Police Station as per Ex.
They have also spoken in unison to the other details relevant, which when cumulatively taken up for companysideration reasonably as well as with great certainty establish the various incriminating factors against the appellant involving with the crime, which, if at all, companyld be properly and reasonably be explained only by him.
The vaginal swab and smear, companylected during the companyrse of autopsy as also the clothes taken from the dead body and the dhoti recovered at the instance of the accused were all sent for chemical examination and reports in Ex.
P20 and 21 were obtained.
J U D G M E N T Raju, J. The appellant, who was ableto escape from the long arm of law due to his acquittal by the trial companyrt was soon made to realise that the sword in the hands of justice never fails to vindicate itself in preserving ultimately law and order in the society when he was indicted for offences under Sections 376, 392 and 302, IPC, and imposed with punishments of imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for seven years each on the other companynts, to run companycurrently.
