May Be True Is Not Must Be True: Kerala High Court Acquits Man in Murder of Live-In Partner, Slams Gaps in Circumstantial Evidence

"Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof... there is a long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’” – In a powerful verdict reaffirming the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence, the Kerala High Court set aside the conviction of a man accused of murdering his live-in partner, holding that the prosecution’s case, built entirely on circumstantial evidence, failed to cross the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that the evidence was “deficient”, the investigation “deeply flawed”, and the theory of guilt “plagued by missing links and glaring contradictions.”

Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar acquitted the appellant Perumal, who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Court-II, North Paravur, in 2019 for the alleged murder of his partner Jayalakshmi, whose body was discovered in July 2015 near Kakkanad, with a deep neck wound.

“Failure of the accused to explain cannot fill the gaps left by the prosecution”

The trial court had drawn adverse inference from the accused’s silence, invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The High Court rejected this, observing that:

“The prosecution failed to first establish the foundational facts… Mere failure of the accused to explain circumstances cannot substitute proof of guilt. Section 106 cannot be invoked to fill gaps in the prosecution case.”

The Court cautioned against burden-shifting in cases where the prosecution itself had failed to build a coherent and credible chain of circumstances.

“Strong suspicion is not legal proof… Possibility of third-party involvement not ruled out”

According to the prosecution, the accused and deceased were in a live-in relationship after eloping from Tamil Nadu, and Jayalakshmi’s decision to return to her family provoked the accused to kill her with a chopper. But the High Court found the motive unsubstantiated, holding that:

“The available evidence would indicate that the accused Perumal and the deceased Jayalakshmi were living a peaceful life.”

“No evidence is available to indicate what prompted the accused to put an end to the life of his live-in partner.”

Further, the Court highlighted testimony suggesting that other individuals could have had motives, including the deceased’s estranged husband’s family and a mysterious person named Gandhi, before whom Jayalakshmi was said to be “visibly frightened”. The Bench noted:

“The possibility of an intervention by third parties cannot be ruled out.”

“Last seen together theory based on embellished and unreliable testimony”

A major plank of the prosecution case was the last seen together theory, based on the claim that the accused and deceased were last seen going to work together on the morning of July 1, 2015. However, the Court found the testimonies supporting this theory riddled with contradictions:

“The embellished version of the witnesses who spoke about the last seen theory appears to be not reliable and credible.”

• PW3, the landlord, made statements in court that contradicted his previous statements to police.
• PW4, a neighbour, had minimal acquaintance with the couple and could not even recall the deceased’s name.
• PW17, the deceased’s sister, introduced new facts at trial that were absent from her police statement.

This led the Court to conclude that the prosecution’s timeline could not be relied upon with confidence.

“A murder weapon hidden in the bushes for two years… but without rust?”

Perhaps the most glaring flaw in the prosecution’s case was the recovery of the alleged murder weapon, a chopper (MO2), from bushes near the crime scene after a gap of two years. According to the police, the accused led them to the location during custodial interrogation.

But the High Court found this narrative “inherently improbable”, questioning how:

“...a weapon could remain hidden in open bushes, mere meters away from the scene of crime, undetected by police and locals for two years—yet appear new and without rust.”

The Court held that such a dubious recovery could not form a vital link in the evidentiary chain, especially in a circumstantial case.

“May be true is not must be true... Legal proof must be beyond conjectures”

The Bench quoted from the Supreme Court’s classic formulation in Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa to drive home the central flaw in the conviction:

“It may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof… But there is a long mental distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’, and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions.”

The Court further observed:

“Suspicion, however grave, cannot replace legal proof… An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.”

Conviction overturned, Perumal acquitted and released

Setting aside the conviction, the Court concluded:

“The evidence adduced by the prosecution is deficient to sustain conviction against the accused. The accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt.”

The criminal appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence quashed, and Perumal was ordered to be released forthwith, unless required in connection with another case.

This judgment stands as a resounding affirmation that criminal convictions must rest on certainty, not conjecture, and that courts must guard against short-circuiting due process in pursuit of quick justice.

Date of Decision: 27 January 2026