Prosecution Failed To Indicate His Involvement: SC Acquits Man Accused Of Killing Woman Using Coconut Scrapper In 1989
|The Supreme Court acquitted a man who was accused of killing a woman by grabbing coconut scrapper from kitchen and hitting on her head multiple times.
The Court was deciding a criminal appeal filed by the accused against the judgment of the Kerala High Court which upheld the order of conviction and sentence.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “In the light of the above, when tested upon the anvil of the principles and parameters laid down by this Court, as referenced earlier, the prosecution has miserably failed to indicate the involvement of the Appellant in the commission of the offence, what to say of establish, for which he was charged.”
Senior Advocate Thomas P. Joseph represented the appellant/accused while AOR Harshad V. Hameed represented the respondent/State.
Brief Facts -
As per the prosecution story, the body of a woman was discovered in a paddy field by a person while he was going for work in the morning of 1989. He informed the police and based on this, a case of unnatural death was registered. The postmortem report revealed six antemortem injuries on the left side of the head fractured into multiple fragments as well as abraded contusions on the right wrist and left knee. Injuries on the head were determined to be sufficient to cause death under ordinary circumstances and could have been inflicted with a weapon such as a coconut scraper. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to establish motive for the murder by asserting that there was illicit relationship between the appellant and accused no. 2. This relationship had developed because the husband of accused no. 2 was living abroad, leaving her to reside alone with her two children, which lead to the two accused coming close.
The deceased was related to accused no. 2 and since this accused was living alone, the deceased would frequently visit her house and even stayed there overnight. When their relationship was discovered and local opposition increased, the appellant at the suggestion of accused no. 2, entered into a registered marriage with the deceased in an attempt to cover up his relationship. However, the said marriage was dissolved and as per the prosecution, on the date of incident, both the accused and deceased were at the house of accused no. 2. An altercation occurred between the appellant and deceased regarding his relationship. Allegedly, the appellant grabbed a coconut scrapper from the kitchen and hit the deceased on head multiple times, leading to her death. It was further alleged that he dragged her body out of the room and carried it outside the house to the paddy field. The Trial Court convicted him for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the High Court upheld the same. Being aggrieved, he approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “As per the case of prosecution, the time of death of the deceased Gouri has got to be after 11:30 PM, as it has been held by the courts that it is the Appellant alone who had committed her murder. The body obviously would have been disposed of prior to 5 AM on 17.08.1989. It has come on record that the distance between the house of Accused No. 2 and the paddy field where the body was found is about 1 KM; in between there is a sawmill which runs 24 hours.”
The Court added that, if the case of the prosecution is to be accepted, according to which the appellant had carried the dead body of the deceased on his shoulder from the house to the paddy fields, someone would have most likely seen him on the way, especially when there was a running mill in between from where the appellant is said to have crossed.
“This further raises a doubt with regard to the credibility of the case as has been projected by the prosecution. … The chain of circumstances which are being sought to be projected by the prosecution to be complete has glaring holes and significant gaps, which leads this Court to come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed in its endeavour of bringing home the guilt against the Appellant”, it further noted.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused.
Cause Title- Karakkattu Muhammed Basheer v. The State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 838)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Thomas P. Joseph, AOR Tom Joseph, and Advocate Linto K.B.
Respondent: AOR Harshad V. Hameed, Advocates Dileep Poolakkot, and Ashly Harshad.