M.A. ANTONY @ ANTAPPAN versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2009] 6 S.C.R. 829 · Decided: 22-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 6 S.C.R. 829 
• 
M.A. ANTONY @ ANTAPPAN 
A 
-
vs, 
STATE OF KERALA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2009) 
APRIL 22, 2009 
8 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH 
PANTA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 449, 1380 and 201 -
Prosecution - Based on circumstantial evidence - Conviction c 
by courts below and award of death sentence - On appeal, 
'7' 
held: Conviction and sentence justified - Circumstances viz. 
motive, presence of accused at the site of offence recovery 
u/s. 27 of Evidence Act, recovery of scalp hair of accused, his 
judicial as well as extra-judicial confession, proved -
D 
Confessional statement of the accused was made freely and 
voluntarily in compliance with the provisions of s. 164(2) CrPC 
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 164(2). 
Appellant-accused was prosecuted for causing 
E 
death of six members of a family. The case was based 
on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied on 
-
\. 
by the prosecution were (1) Motive (2) Presence of 
accused at the site of offence on the date of occurrence; 
(3) Absence of the accused from his residence in the night 
F 
of the date of occurrence; (4) Recovery of clothes u/s 27 
of Evidence Act; (5) Fingerprints of the accused found 
from the house of the deceased; (6) Recovery of scalp 
hair of the accused; (7) His judicial as well as extra-
"" 
+ 
judicial confession. Trial court convicted the accused u/ 
G 
-
ss. 302, 449, 380 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to death. 
Conviction and sentence was confirmed by High Court. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
829 
H 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 6 S.C.R. 
; 
A 
HELD: 1.1 The appellant was in dire need of money 
as established by the testimony of PW-67. He knew that 
his visa had come and that a large amount of money was 
required. He had also tried to arrange for loan as per the 
statement of PW-19. From the statement of PW-23 and 
B PW-24 (the creditors of the accused to whom he paid 
back his debt), the factum of payment of debt money is 
clearly proved. The accused/appellant who was in need 
of !110ney and who did not have money, had SL!rplus 
amount of money to repay his debts and make payments 
c to PW-67 and also to pay for his ticket fare and other 
expenses. PW-23 had not demanded his money, yet the 
appellant chose to liquidate his debt which clearly shows 
an intention on the part of the appellant to do away with 
ill-gotten money. [Para 11) [848-F-H; 849-A-B] 
D 
1.2. According to accused, in the house of the 
deceased, a large amount of cash and jewellery was 
available which could have been taken away by him. The 
plea has been found to be incorrect by the courts below. 
Trial Court has adverted to the fact that the jewellery and 
E cash were lying in hidden condition and thus knowledge 
of its existence cannot be attributed to the appellant. 
[Para 12) [849-C-D] 
1.3. At the stage of recording of statement under 
f 
..._ 
F Section 313 CrPC the accused had come with another 
explanation that one of the deceased had paid him Rs.35 
0001-. No evidence at all has been adduced to show that 
he was present in the shop of the deceased and had 
been given the said amount. Furthermore, even PW-19 
G (wife of the appellant) has not stated that she was told at 
any stage by her husband that he had received an 
~ 
r 
4 
amount of Rs.35,000/- from the deceased The trial Court 
and the High Court both have disbelieved it. [Para 13) 
[849-E-F] 
H 
2.1. PW-38 saw the accused/appellant entering the 
M.A. ANTONY@ ANTAPPAN v. STATE OF KERALA 831 
• 
house at 7.00 p.m. on the day of occurrence i.e. on 
A 
6.1.2001. His presence inside the house is also supported 
· by other factors, namely: (i) presence of his fingerprints 
(PW-6 and PW-7); (ii) presence of hair on deceased's 
body (PW-51, PW-53 and PW-61); and (iii) absence of 
accused/appellant from his house. (PW-19). [Para 15) 
B 
(849-G-H; 850-A-B] 
2.2. PW-17 saw the appellant at 5.45 a.m. on 7.1.2001 
.. 
coming out from the house of the deceased. The 
evidence has been believed by both the courts and the c 
cross-examination has not discredited the testimony. It 
is the admitted case of the parties. PW-19 wife of the 
accused as well. as the accused/appellant himself has 
admitted his absence from, his own house. [Para 16 and 
17] (850-B-D] 
D 
2.3. The theatrical explanation given by the appellant 
that he was going to a place nearly 35 kms away, the auto 
driver tried to snatch his money and he ran and s

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