Conviction Under Section 326 IPC Requires Proof of ‘Dangerous Weapon’ – Supreme Court Modifies Conviction to Section 325 IPC Marital Disputes Must Not Become Never-Ending Legal Battles – Supreme Court Ends 12-Year-Long Litigation with Final Settlement Denial of Pre-Charge Evidence is a Violation of Fair Trial: Supreme Court Restores Complainant’s Right to Testify Slum Redevelopment Cannot Be Held Hostage by a Few Dissenters – Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Eviction Notices Termination of Judicial Probationers Without Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice – Allahabad High Court Quashes Discharge Orders A Celebrity’s Name is Not Public Property – No One Can Exploit It Without Consent – High Court Bars Release of Film Titled ‘Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar’ Truck Driver's Negligence Fully Established – No Contributory Negligence by Car Driver: Delhi High Court Enhances Compensation in Fatal Accident Case Stamp Duty Demand After 15 Years is Legally Unsustainable – Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Licensees Cannot Claim Adverse Possession, Says Kerala High Court No Evidence Directly Implicating Acquitted Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Acquittal in ₹55 Lakh Bank Fraud Compensatory Aspect of Cheque Bounce Cases Must Be Given Priority Over Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Income Tax | Transfer Pricing Adjustments Must Be Based on Economic Reality, Not Hypothetical Comparisons: Delhi High Court Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Technicality: Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Police Officers Bail Cannot Be Granted When Prima Facie Evidence Links Accused to Terrorist Activities—Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Under UAPA" Statutory Bail Cannot Be Cancelled Without Justifiable Grounds—Calcutta High Court Reinstates Bail for NIA Case Accused Juvenile Justice Cannot Be Ignored for Heinous Crimes—Bail to Minor in Murder Case Upheld: Delhi High Court Litigants Cannot Sleep Over Their Rights and Wake Up at the Last Minute: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Plea to Reopen Ex-Parte Case After 16 Years Economic Offenses With Deep-Rooted Conspiracies Must Be Treated Differently—Bail Cannot Be Granted Lightly: Chhattisgarh High Court Denies Bail in ₹5.39 Crore Money Laundering Case Tenant Cannot Deny Landlord’s Title Once Property Is Sold—Eviction Upheld: Jharkhand High Court Pending Criminal Case Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Passport Renewal Unless Cognizance Is Taken by Court: Karnataka High Court Conviction Cannot Rest on Suspicion—Kerala High Court Acquits Mother and Son in Murder Case Over Flawed Evidence Seized Assets Cannot Be Released During Trial—Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Gali Janardhan Reddy’s Plea for Gold and Bonds Remarriage Cannot Disqualify a Widow From Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Unregistered Sale Agreement Gives No Right to Possession—Madras High Court Rejects Injunction Against Property Owners

High Court of Kerala Affirms Conviction in Wife’s Premeditated Murder: Consistent Chain of Evidence Proves Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Kerala High Court dismisses appeal, emphasizing the reliability of circumstantial evidence and forensic reports linking the accused to the crime scene.

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has upheld the conviction and sentencing of Biju, the appellant, for the premeditated murder of his wife. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and M.B. Snehalatha, affirmed the trial court’s decision, highlighting a consistent chain of circumstantial evidence and forensic corroboration that proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facts of the Case:

The appellant, Biju, was convicted of murdering his wife, following a tumultuous relationship exacerbated by legal actions taken by the victim against him for allegedly molesting their minor daughter. On March 21, 2017, the victim was found in a pool of blood by a relative, suffering from multiple stab wounds. Despite immediate medical attention, she succumbed to her injuries en route to the hospital. The prosecution’s case was built on a combination of eyewitness testimonies, forensic evidence, and circumstantial details linking Biju to the crime.

Court Observations and Views:

Credibility of Circumstantial Evidence:

The High Court meticulously examined the circumstantial evidence presented. Key witnesses, including relatives and neighbors, testified seeing Biju near the crime scene with blood on his body shortly after the incident. The court noted, “The consistent testimonies of witnesses place the appellant at the scene of the crime, corroborating the sequence of events leading to the victim’s death.”

Forensic Evidence:

Forensic analysis played a crucial role in the judgment. The knife (MO1) used in the murder, the appellant’s blood-stained chappals (MO2), and other material objects found at the crime scene were pivotal. The court stated, “The forensic reports linking the bloodstains on the material objects to the appellant provide compelling evidence of his involvement in the crime.”

Witness Testimonies and Identification:

Addressing procedural deficiencies, the court acknowledged lapses in witness identification of the accused in the dock. However, it ruled these non-fatal to the case outcome due to the witnesses’ prior acquaintance with the appellant. “The close familiarity of the witnesses with the appellant mitigates the procedural lapses observed during the trial,” the judgment noted.

Legal Reasoning:

The court emphasized the established principles of circumstantial evidence, noting, “The circumstances proved must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and exclude any other possible hypothesis.” The court found that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of events leading to the appellant’s guilt.

Quotes from the Judgment:

Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar remarked, “The consistent chain of circumstantial evidence, supported by forensic reports, conclusively proves the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”

Conclusion:

The dismissal of Biju’s appeal reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding convictions based on robust circumstantial and forensic evidence. The judgment serves as a significant precedent, emphasizing the importance of a consistent chain of evidence in criminal convictions. This decision underscores the reliability of forensic corroboration in establishing guilt, even when procedural deficiencies in witness testimonies are present.

 

Date of Decision: July 5, 2024

Biju vs. State of Kerala

 

Similar News