http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1306 of 1999

PETITIONER: STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

RESPONDENT: V.BABY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/04/2005

BENCH: B.P.SINGH & S.B.SINHA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

       This appeal has been preferred by the State of Kerala against  the order of acquittal dated 18th February, 1999 recorded by the High  Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No.407 of 1998. The  sole accused was the respondent herein who was charged of the offence  of murder for having caused the death of Lakshmi Amma in order to  commit theft of a pair of ear-studs and a gold chain on the evening of  September 3, 1992. The case of the prosecution is that he beat her with  a spade and thereafter buried her dead body in his land. The case rests  purely on circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence to prove  that the respondent had either assaulted the deceased or had buried her  dead body. In order to prove its case, the prosecution relied upon three  main circumstances. The first circumstance is that PW-3 was shown  two ear tops by the accused at the bus stop.                                                  ...2/-

                       -2- Secondly, the respondent had mentioned about the ear tops and chain to  PW-2 though he had not shown them to him. In his statement to the  police he had mentioned only about the chain and not about the ear- studs. Lastly, it was the case of the prosecution that the respondent had  buried the dead body of the deceased in his own field and the said body  was recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the  respondent himself.         The High Court found the circumstances either not  established or insufficient to prove the case against the respondent. So  far as PW-3 is concerned, the High Court found it wholly unnatural for  the respondent to go to him at the bus stop and show him two ear tops  without any reason. This witness was examined by the police in the  course of investigation one year after the occurrence. The High Court  did not find this part of the prosecution case to be reliable. The second  circumstance namely that the accused had talked about the ear tops and  chain to PW-2 was also not found believable particularly when PW-2  was not even shown those ear tops and chain. In fact the ear tops and  the chain were never recovered and therefore, not produced at the trial.                                                                                           ...3/-

                       -3-         As to the most important circumstance namely the recovery  of the dead body at the instance of the respondent, the High Court  found the evidence relating to the same to be unacceptable. The  evidence on record disclosed that a part of the dead body was exposed  and had come out from the grave and was visible. The second reason  for disbelieving the disclosure statement was that even before the body

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

was exhumed, a large number of persons had already collected there,  which itself established that the fact was known to everyone in the  village, and the body was really not discovered at the instance of the  respondent.         We have gone through the material placed before us but we  find no reason to disturb the findings recorded by the High Court,  particularly in an appeal against acquittal.          This appeal is, therefore, dismissed.