JOSEPH S/O KOOVELI POULO versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 27-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
-J.. 
JOSEPH S/O KOOVELI POULO 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KERALA 
...... 
APRIL 27, 2000 
[K.T. THOMAS, DORAISWAMYRAJU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 : 
Sections 302 and 392-Murder & Robbery-Circumstantial evidence-
Inmates ·Of the Convent identifying the accused as the person who took the 
c 
deceased on a false pretext-Ornaments worn by deceased seized on the basis 
of inf onnation given by accused-Injuries found on the body of deceased 
suggesting that it is a case of homicide and not suicide-Total denial of all the 
incriminating circumstances by accused-Conviction and sentence-Validity 
of-Held, all the incriminating circumstances unmistakably and inevitably lead 
to the guilt of the accused-Total denial of all incriminating circumstances by 
D 
the accused providing missing link in the chain of circumstances-Conviction 
and sentence upheld. 
Section 376-Rape-No injuries found on the body of the victim-Ac-
' 
cused and victim were at inimical terms not established-No blood stains or 
.. 
~ 
E 
semen found on the dhoti of the accused-Held, on the ground of reasonable 
doubt accused entitled to acquittal. 
Criminal T1ial : 
Circumstantial evidence-Total denial of all the incriminating circum-
F 
.. 
stances by accused-Effect of-Held, provides a missing link for completing the 
_..,.. 
claim of circumstances.. 
Witnesses-Appreciation of evidence-Discrepancy or contradiction in 
the testimony of witnesses-Effect of-Held, unless it is material and substan-
tial and if respect of vitally relevant aspe_cts, entire evidence cannot be dis-
G 
carded. 
' 
Appellant was prosecuted for offences under Ss. 302, 376 & 392 of 
the Penal Code. The prosecution case was that appellant misrepresenting 
himself and on a false pretext took 'G' along with him from the Convent 
where she was working. Appellant took her to an isolated place by the side 
H 
729 
A 
B 
c 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) 3 S.C.R. 
of the Railway line, raped her, robbed her of her ornaments and then laid 
her on the rail track to be run over by the passing train. Subsequently, the 
dead body of 'G' was recovered from the railway track and was sent for 
post-mortem. PWs 5 to 8 inmates of the Convent identified the appellant-
accused as the person who took the deceased from the Convent. The 
ornaments worn by the deceased at the time of leaving the Convent were 
seized on the basis of the information given by the appellant during inves-
tigation. PWs. 11 to 14 have deposed that it wa8 the appellant who sold the 
ornaments. Trial Court though holding that it was the appellant-accused 
who took the deceased on a false pretext from the convent, acquitted him 
of all the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. However, on appeal, High 
Court on reappreciation of evidence, Convieted and sentenced the appel-
lant. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. All the incriminating circumstances unmistakably and 
D 
inevitably lead to the guilt of the appellant and nothing has been brought 
on record to establish his innocence. Total denial of all the incriminating 
circumstances by appellant provided missing link in the chain of circum-
stances to connect the appellant with the crime. Thus, High Court was 
justified in holding appellant guilty of offences under Section 302 and 392 
E 
·of the Penal Code. [739-A; 740-G] 
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, [2000) 1 SCC 471, relied on. 
1.2. There is direct evidence of PWs 5 and 6, Sisters of the Convent 
where the deceased was working to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it 
p 
was the appellant who had taken the deceased from the Convent on the 
pretext that her mother was seriously ill and hospitalized. They had noth· 
ing against the accused and no reason to speak falsely to implicate the ap-
pellant, and despite searching and severe cross-examination made nothing 
could be brought out to discredit their evidence. PW-9, the brother of the 
G 
H 
accused, and PW-26, the member of the Panchayat, also confirmed that 
PW s-5 and 6 had identified the appellant as the person who had taken away 
the deceased when they went to enquire about the deceased, accompanied 
by the accused also. Thus the formidable incriminating circumstances against 
the appellant, 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 
company and that it is on the information furnisheil by th_e appellant in the 
) 
JOSEPH v. 

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