Section 302 IPC | Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof: Kerala High Court Acquits Man in Septic Tank Murder Case

“The golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible... the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.”— In a seminal ruling, the High Court of Kerala, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar, allowed a criminal appeal, setting aside the life imprisonment of a man accused of murdering his live-in partner and dumping her body in a septic tank, citing a complete lack of motive and breaks in the chain of circumstantial evidence.

The Septic Tank Discovery

The prosecution's case was grim. The deceased, Mini, was allegedly in a live-in relationship with the appellant, Vijayarajan. The prosecution contended that on December 9, 2014, the appellant murdered Mini by strangulation and physical assault, subsequently concealing her body in the septic tank of their residence to destroy evidence. The body was recovered days later, leading to the appellant's conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Kollam, under Sections 302 (Murder) and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC. The trial court had sentenced him to life imprisonment based on circumstantial evidence.

The Missing Link: Absence of Motive

In a detailed analysis, the High Court dismantled the prosecution's narrative, primarily focusing on the complete absence of motive. The Bench observed that while the prosecution alleged a strained relationship, the material witnesses (the deceased's daughter and son-in-law) could not provide any specific reason or motive for the accused to commit the crime.

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Pannayar v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court reiterated that in cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the absence of motive is "very fatal" to the prosecution. The Bench noted, "There is no whisper as to the motive of the accused to do away with the life of the deceased."

The 'Last Seen' Theory and Residency Disputes

A crucial point of contention was whether the accused and deceased actually lived together at the time of the incident. The defense argued that the accused lived in a lodge, not the house where the body was found. The Court found that the prosecution failed to produce any independent neighbors to prove they were living together or were "last seen" together immediately prior to the incident. The Court noted that the rent deed (Ext. D2) was in the name of the deceased alone, lending credence to the defense that the accused might not have been a resident at the material time.

Flawed Recovery and Investigation

The Court also scrutinized the recovery of the alleged murder weapons (a lever and wooden logs). The independent witness to the recovery turned hostile, stating he was standing on the road and did not witness the actual seizure. The Court held that the recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was not properly proved, severing the only potential link connecting the accused to the crime.

The Gap Between 'May Be True' and 'Must Be True'

The Division Bench relied heavily on the landmark judgment Kali Ram v. State of H.P., emphasizing that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. The Court observed that the trial court had overlooked "several missing links" and had convicted the accused based on conjectures rather than clinching evidence.

The Court held: "The prosecution has miserably failed to prove motive in this case... Nobody has seen the accused and the deceased together immediately prior to the incident."

Finding that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and consistent with the hypothesis of innocence, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted Vijayarajan of all charges.

Date of Decision: 08.12.2025