GEORGE versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 895 · Decided: 03-04-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
GEORGE 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
APRIL 3, 2002 
[M.B. SHAH, BRIJESH KUMAR AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.) 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 392 and 302. 
Evidence Act, 1872: s.114 Illustration (a). 
Circumstantial evidi;nce-Appreciation of 
Robbery-Conviction based on circumstantial evidence-Articles worn 
by the deceased-Missing-Soon after the incident, the articles recovered at 
the instance of accused-Held, it would lead to the inference under Section 
c 
J 14(a) that accused had committed the robbery. 
D 
Circumstantial evidence~Recovery of dead body of the deceased from 
the river-Long after commission of robbery by the accused-Absence of 
external!internal injury on the dead body-No circumstance which may lead 
to the only inference that accused and none else was responsible for drowning 
of the deceased-On facts, held: Conviction for committing murder set aside- E 
However conviction for committing robbery upheld. 
According to the prosecution, the deceased had been working in a farm 
house and residing with his brother and sister. Generally he would return in 
the evening but occasionally stayed back at the farm. One day he left for his 
work as usual but did not return back. Next day, when he did not turn up F 
for work, his employer sent one of his employees to the house of the deceased 
to enquire about him. The family members of the deceased made search for 
him but to no avail. On the next day, the body of the deceased was recovered 
in a thodu (river). A report was registered and photograph was published in 
a newspaper. The brother of the deceased identified the dead body and also G 
noticed that two gold rings and a watch, which deceased was wearing were 
missing. 
Subsequently, investigation of the case started and post-mortem 
examination conducted. The post-mortem report revealed that no external 
or internal injury was found on the dead body; besides superficial injury could H 
895 
896 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 
A not be detected due to the decomposition of dead body. During the 
investigation, it came to notice that accused had pledged the gold rings to 
.,.. 
different persons from whom they were recovered and the watch was 
recovered at the instance of the accused. 
'~ 
The accused denied the charges and contended that he was a friend of 
B the deceased and helped him to marry a particular girl but it was not 
agreeable to the family members of the deceased and once they tied him up 
) 
and had also beaten him. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
A 
c 
HELD : 1. There is no doubt about the fact that the appellant was 
)c 
putting on three articles, namely, a watch and two gold rings before leaving 
for his work. Prosecution witnesses had heard the voice of the deceased saying 
j.-
~hat "you may take whatever you like, but leave me alone". This link alone 
~ 
is no doubt not very strong but the other corroborating and clinching 
I 
D circumstance is that thereafter on the next day the appellant had possession 
of those articles which he had offered to one of the prosecution witnesses and 
A. 
later pledged the rings with other prosecution witnesses. It is difficult to hold 
that prosecution witnesses had heard the voice of accused as the evidence on 
f
the point is shaky, but there is no escape of the accused from the liability of 
possession of the property. [899~G-H; 900-A] 
~ 
E. 
2.1. The dead body was recovered from a thodu (river). The cause of 
death has been indicated as due to drowning. No internal or external injury 
was found on the person of the deceased. According to the doctor if there 
were any superficial marks of injuries, they could not be noticed due to 
>-
decomposition of the dead body. Under the circumstances of the case, 
F therefore, it is not appropriate to link the death of the deceased by drowning, 
with the offence of robbery. The presumption of robbery has been drawn as 
against the appellant in view of the fact that he was found in possession of 
looted property the next day which could be said to be soon after the incident 
of robbery which may have taken place the previous day but thereafter 
G drowning of the deceased any time before his body was recovered cannot be 
linked with robbery. It is not a circumstance which may lead to irresistible 
inference that the appellant and none else was responsible for drowning of 
y-
: 
'· 
the deceased. The drowning does not appear to be direct or indirect result of 
the incident of robbery in which the de~ease

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.