Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, Justice K.V. Jayakumar, Kerala High Court
Circumstantial Evidence Complete If It Unerringly Points To Guilt: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction Of Man Accused Of Killing Friend To Continue Affair With His Wife
|The High Court, while convicting the accused, held that a conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence where the established facts form a complete chain leading only to the guilt of the accused.
The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of an accused for murder, holding that where circumstantial evidence forms a complete and unbroken chain pointing unerringly to guilt, the conviction does not warrant interference.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC, along with a connected appeal filed by the victim seeking enhancement of compensation.
A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar, affirming the conviction, observed that “the absence of motive does not disperse a prosecution case if the prosecution succeeds in proving the same, …the motive is always in the mind of the person authoring the incident. Motive not being apparent or not being proved, …only requires deeper scrutiny of the evidence by the courts while coming to a conclusion, …when there is definite evidence proving an incident and eyewitnesses' accounts prove the role of the accused, the absence in proving the motive by the prosecution does not affect the prosecution's case”.
Advocate Nandagopal S. Kurup appeared for the accused, while Senior Public Prosecutor Neema T.V. appeared for the respondents.
Background
In this case, the prosecution alleged that the accused murdered his close friend, purportedly motivated by his intention to continue an illicit relationship with the friend’s wife. At the time of the incident, the deceased was 36 years old, the accused was 26 years old, and the deceased had a nine-year-old daughter.
According to the prosecution, the accused was a frequent visitor to the deceased’s residence owing to financial dealings and, during this period, developed a relationship with the deceased’s wife. The deceased is stated to have objected to these visits, which, according to the prosecution, supplied the motive for the offence.
The prosecution's case was that the accused took the deceased from his residence, after which the latter went missing. His body was later discovered inside a vacant house in the locality.
The Sessions Court, after examining 25 witnesses and considering documentary as well as material evidence, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine, which led to appeals by both the accused and the victim.
Court’s Observation
The Kerala High Court first examined whether the death was homicidal and, relying on medical evidence, including the postmortem certificate, found overwhelming proof that the deceased died due to sharp cut injuries inflicted by a heavy cutting weapon.
Addressing the contention that the motive was not proved, the Court reiterated that the absence of motive is not fatal where other evidence establishes guilt. Motive, it noted, is a relevant circumstance but not an indispensable element if the prosecution otherwise proves the charge.
The Bench referred to precedents governing circumstantial evidence and reiterated that such evidence must be fully established, consistent only with guilt, and must exclude every other hypothesis.
The Court agreed with the trial court that several circumstances formed a complete chain linking the accused to the crime. These included proof of a relationship between the accused and the deceased’s wife, evidence that the deceased had objected to the accused’s visits, last-seen-together testimony, recovery of incriminating materials, and the accused’s conduct after the incident.
The Court held that cumulative consideration of witness testimony established the last-seen theory and that the accused had failed to explain facts within his special knowledge, including what happened after he was last seen with the deceased, which constituted an additional link under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
It also held that a letter written by the accused from jail seeking pardon from the wife and daughter of the deceased was relevant conduct capable of being considered along with other circumstances.
On compensation, the Court found that the amount awarded by the trial court was grossly inadequate given the impact of the crime on the victim’s family and held that enhanced compensation was warranted under Section 357A Cr.P.C.
“The chain of circumstantial evidence in this case is complete, which would lead to only one hypothesis as to the guilt of the accused. The trial court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a proper conclusion, in our view. We do not find any good grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge as to the finding of guilt, conviction and the sentence”, the Court concluded.
Conclusion
The High Court held that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that no ground existed to interfere with the finding of guilt, conviction, or sentence. The accused’s appeal was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 302 IPC was confirmed.
The Court enhanced the fine from ₹25,000 to ₹2,00,000 payable to the victim and directed the State Government to pay ₹5,00,000 as compensation to the victim within three months.
Cause Title: V. Manoj v. State of Kerala & Connected Appeal (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:13921)
Appearances
Appellant: Nandagopal S. Kurup, Advocate
Respondents: Neema T.V., Senior Public Prosecutor, Advocates S. Rajeev, K.K. Dheerendrakrishnan, V. Vinay, Anand Kalyanakrishnan