LexC.K. RAVEENDRAN versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C.K. RA VEENDRAN v. ST A TE OF KERALA DECEMBER 2, 1999 [G.B. PATTANAIK AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] Criminal law-Penal Code-Sections 302, 201 !PC-Appellant's wife missing for some days-Appellant having dissensions with wife and talk of C divorce going on-Body of wife found ir. a ravine-Post mortem report not conclusive whether injuries were ante-mortem-PW 15 alleging extra-judicial confession by Appellant while consuming liquor-Motive of Appellant not established-Appellant seen with deceased travelling in jeep ond in a hotel- Wrist watch of deceased recovered from Appellant after arrest-High Court affirming the conviction of Appellant by Sessions Court relying on D circumstantial evidence-Held, prosecution has not been able to establish any motive on the part of the Appellant-Case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt-Appellant acquitted of all charges. Deceased 'Y' developed intimacy with one G and later she got pregnant and before they could marry G died. The deceased then became intimate with E the Appellant and married him. Later there were dissensions between the Appellant and his wife and there were talks of divorce. On 3.3.88 the Appellant along with 'Y' was seen travelling in a jeep. A few days later PW23, younger brother of 'Y' was informed by the Appellant that he had contracted a second marriage and that it should be conveyed to 'Y'. PW23 informed this matter to p his mother PW16 and brother PW6. Since they did not know the whereabouts of 'Y' PW16 lodged a missing report with the Police. On 30.3.88 PWl reported that a dead body was seen in a ravine. The body was identified as that of'Y' by PWs 6 & 16. The doctor who conducted the Post mortem, after gefting the report of G the Chemical analyst reported that the death was homicidal. On a complaint by PW16, the Appellant and two other persons were arrested and a wrist watch was recovered from the Appellant. On the basis of circumstantial evidence and the evidence of PWs 1, 6 and 16 the Sessions Court found the Appellant guilty of murder and convicted him under Sec. 302 IPC read with S.201 IPC. H Accused 'G' was convicted under Section 201 IPC only. The appeals by the 140 l -. C.K. RA YEEND RAN v. ST ATE OF KERALA 141 Appellant and accused 'G' were dismissed and the findings of the Sessions A - Court were confirmed by the High Court. The High Court relied on certain circumstances to come to the said conclusion. The High Court though did not accept the extra-judicial confession made to PW15 by the Appellant, relied upon the evidence of PW15 for completing all the links in the chain of circumstances. In appeal to this Court, the Appellant contended that the circumstances relied upon by the High Court not only have not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt but also that even if all the circumstances can be said to have been established, all of them taken together do not complete B the chain and they do not unequivocally point to the guilt of the accused and C exclude any hypothesis consistent with his innocence. Allowing the Appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The conclusion of the High Court that 'Y' met a homicidal death is wholly erroneous. There is not an iota of material from which it can D be stated that the death of 'Y' can only be homicidal. The Doctor PW19 who conducted the autopsy, while issuing the post-mortem certificate, Exh. PIO, categorically stated that the exact cause of death cannot be ascribed and reserved his opinion, pending the result of chemical analysis. On getting the. report of the Assistant Chemical Examiner Exh. Pll, the said Doctor PW19 E gave a final report as per Exh. P12, which indicated that the deceased sustained _head injury, which if ante-mortem, could result in death and the injury, ifante- mortem, could be caused by hitting with stones like M.Os. 11 or 12. The said report further revealed that nobody could say that there was violence on the neck of the deceased or not. When the Doctor himself has not been able to give a definite opinion as to the injuries found on the dead body could be ante- F mortem or post-mortem and the dead body itself was found on 30th of March, 1988 and Y was alleged to have been seen in the company of the accused last on 3.3.88, it is difficult to sustain the conclusion of the High Court that the death ofY can only be homicidal. [147-C; 146-H; 147-A-B-C] 2. The extra-judicial confession as deposed by PW15 has not bee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.