http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 784  of  1994 Appeal (crl.)   785      of  1994

PETITIONER: STATE OF KERALA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: P. SUGATHAN & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/09/2000

BENCH: D.P. Mohapatra & R.P. Sethi.

JUDGMENT:

SETHI,J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   Jealousy,  on account of love affair of two men with one woman,  ultimately  resulted  in the death of one  and  upon conviction,  sentence  to life imprisonment of the other  in the  case  out of which the present appeal has arisen.   The common   beloved  was  Krishna   Kumari,   respondent   No.2 (hereinafter  referred to as "A2") and one of her  paramours was  Soman deceased whose decapitated head and headless body were recovered from a river in Kerala.  After completing his post-graduation  the deceased Soman was in the employment of Canara  Bank  posted  at   Tirurangadi  Branch.   The  other paramour  of the woman is P.  Sugathan (hereinafter referred to   as   "A1")  who,  on   the  date  of  occurrence,   was Sub-Inspector of Police posted at Police Station, Ramankiri. Upon  trial  A1  and  A2 were  convicted  for  the  offences punishable  under various sections of the Indian Penal  Code including  Section 302, and sentenced to imprisonments,  the maximum  of  which was the life imprisonment.   The  Accused No.3  tried  with them was convicted and sentenced  for  the offences  under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The  conviction  and  sentence  of A1  was  upheld  but  the conviction  of the lady accused A2 under Section 302 IPC was set  aside.  She was, however, convicted and sentenced under Section  201  of the IPC.  Feeling aggrieved, the State  has filed  appeal No.784 of 1994 for setting aside the  judgment of  the High Court and on proof of the existence of  alleged conspiracy,  to convict and sentence to A2 as well.  Against his  conviction  and  sentence under Section 302  and  other offences  under  the  Indian Penal Code, the  A1  has  filed Criminal Appeal No.785 of 1993 with prayer of acquitting him of  the charges.  Both the appeals have been heard  together and  are  being  disposed of by this common  judgment.   The facts  of  the case are that deceased Soman had his  college education  in the University College at Trivandrum  (Kerala) where  initially  he  stayed with his elder sister  who  was employed  in  the office of the Accountant  General.   After about  one and a half years he shifted to the college hostel but  continued visiting occasionally the house of his sister

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

PW4.   Krishna  Kumari  A2 was, at that time,  the  domestic servant  of his sister.  The acquaintance between Soman  and Krishan  Kumari developed into love affair between the  two. After  his  post graduation he got a job in the Canara  Bank and  was posted at Thirurangadi but his love affection  with Krishan  Kumari  A2 continued.  He was married somewhere  in the  year  1981-82  which resulted in the  breaking  of  his relations   with  A2.   Thereafter   A2  developed   illicit relations  with  A1  and started residing with  him  as  his concubine.  In 1987 A1 was posted as Sub-Inspector of Police at  Ramankiri  Police  Station.  Despite his having  a  wife living  and three children, A1 started living with A2 as her husband  in a rented house at Kalarcode.  His legally wedded wife  and  three  children were, at that time,  residing  at Alleppey  in another house.  Even though A1 and A2 had taken a  house on rent in Kalarcode, they normally used to stay in the  official quarters attached to Ramankiri Police Station. Out  of  their illicit relationship they had got a son.   In early 1987 deceased Soman accidently came across with A2 and is alleged to have revived his old intimacy and love affair. Coming  to know about the intimacy of his concubine, Krishna Kumari  and  acquiring  knowledge   that  Soman  was  making attempts  to re-establish his old relationship with  Krishna Kumari, A1 made up his mind to put an end to the intimacy by causing  his death.  It was alleged by the prosecution  that A1 and A2 hatched a conspiracy to commit the murder of Soman and  in pursuance of the said conspiracy A2 met Soman at the Haripad bus stand on the morning of 18th July, 1987 and took him to the house taken on lease at Kalarcode.  On 19th July, 1987  A2  allegedly using deceitful means is stated to  have taken  Soman  to  the official quarters of A1  and  sometime after  10.30 p.m.  they caused his death by suffocating him. At  this stage one Prasannan, who later became the  approver and  Mohanan  accused  No.3 are stated to  have  joined  the conspiracy,  earlier hatched by A1 and A2.  The dead body of Soman  was removed by A1 and A2 with the help of  Prasannan, the driver of the boat.  They carried the dead body from the Police  quarters to the boat and thereafter the approver, as per  the  directions of the A1, drove the boat in the  Pamba River  to  some distance.  When the boat reached quite at  a distance  in the river, A1 cut off the head from the body of the  deceased  with a knife supplied by the  approver.   The head  was  thrown  in the river.  The boat  again  proceeded further.  A1 caused many penetrating injuries on the abdomen of  the headless body and pushed it also into the waters  of Pamba  River,  apparently  with the object  to  destroy  the evidence.   As after 18th July, 1987 Soman did not return to his   house,   his  father   started  inquiring  about   his whereabouts.   Soman’s mother, wife, sister and in-laws  who were at Thiruvananthapuram were contacted over the telephone to  convey the news of his missing and also to ascertain  as to  whether by any chance, he had reached there.  Finding no clue  of the missing Soman, all his relations reached to his family house and intensified his search.  On 20th July, 1987 an  FIR in a man-missing case Crime No.254/87 was registered at Kayamkulam Police Station.  On 22nd July, 1987 PW2 Mathew found  a  headless  body floating in the  Pamba  River.   He contacted  the Police at Pulimcunnu Police Station, where on the  basis  of his statement Crime No.75/87 was  registered. PW56 who was investigating Crime No.75/87 conducted a search of  A1’s  official quarters at Ramankiri on 25th July,  1987 and  prepared  Exhibit P-29, a search list.  He deputed  two police  constables to guard the quarters.  The investigation of  Crime No.75/87 and Crime No.254/87 were clubbed together by  the  orders  of the Dy.Superintendent of  Police.   DIG,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

Crime   Investigation  directed   the  Dy.Superintendent  of Police,  Crime  Branch to take up the investigations of  the case  who  after  taking over,  verified  the  investigation conducted  by the former investigating officers and searched the  houses  of  PW1,  PW8.   Accused  No.3  surrendered  on 1.8.1987  before the investigating officer.  A1 and A2  were also arrested on that day.  Various articles were seized and super-imposition  test  on the dead body was conducted.   On 21st  August,  1987 Prasannan who was arraigned  as  Accused No.4  expressed  his  willingness  to  make  a  confessional statement  which was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate  on 27th  August,  1987  after giving  him  necessary  statutory warning.   Thereafter  an application was filed  before  the Chief   Judicial  Magistrate,   Alappuzha  submitting   that Prasannan  was willing to give a full and true disclosure of the  whole circumstances within his knowledge regarding  the commission  of  the  crime and he may be made  an  approver. After  perusing  his  confessional   statement,  the   Chief Judicial  Magistrate summoned Prasannan PW1 and recorded his statement.   He was tendered pardon under Section 306 of the Code  of Criminal Procedure.  The Judicial Magistrate, First Class,  Ramankiri  committed  the accused to  the  Court  of Sessions.   The  order  of committal was challenged  by  the accused  persons  on the ground that PW1, who  accepted  the pardon  had  not been examined under Section 306(4)  of  the Code  of Criminal Procedure before commitment of the case to the  Court of Sessions.  The High Court vide order passed in Cr.M.P.  327/87 quashed the committal order and directed the Magistrate  to  proceed  afresh in accordance with  law  and comply with the provisions of Section 306(4)&(5) of the Code of  Criminal Procedure.  The accused persons were granted an opportunity  to  cross-examine the approver at the  time  of recording of his statement under Section 306.  The statement of  the  approver was recorded as per the directions of  the High  Court and all the three accused again committed to the court  of Sessions to stand trial for various offences under the  Indian Penal Code.  The prosecution examined 63 persons as  witnesses  in  the  case  and  the  accused  produced  6 witnesses  in  their defence.  As noted earlier,  the  Trial Court  convicted  A1  and A2 and sentenced them  to  undergo rigorous  imprisonment for three years under Section 193,  5 years  rigorous  imprisonment  under Section 201,  6  months under  Section  342 and imprisonment for life under  Section 302  read  with Section 120B of the IPC.  All the  sentences were  to  run concurrently.  Accused No.3 was  sentenced  to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 201 read  with  Section 34 IPC.  The High Court relied upon  the testimony  of  the  approver  but found on  facts  that  the prosecution  has  failed to prove the conspiracy between  A1 and  A2  before  the murder of Soman and acquitted  her  for offences  under Section 302 and 120B, IPC.  However, she was found  to be guilty of the offence punishable under  Section 201  IPC and sentenced to the period of imprisonment she had already  undergone  by  that  time   which  was  treated  as sufficient  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case.   Dr.Jose Varghese,  learned  Advocate  appearing for  the  appellant- State  urged that the High Court committed a mistake of  law in  holding  that the criminal conspiracy between A1 and  A2 for murdering deceased Soman has not been proved.  According to  him there was sufficient evidence in the form of various circumstances  brought  on record to prove the existence  of conspiracy.   The  conduct of A2, the factum of her  posting some  letters  got  written  from the  deceased  before  his murder,  inducement  by her to the deceased to come  at  the residence  of A2 and her active participation in  destroying

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

the  dead  body  are stated to be  sufficient  circumstances which would lead to irresistible conclusion of the existence of conspiracy.  Criminal conspiracy is defined under Section 120(A)  of  the Indian Penal Code as under:  "Definition  of@@                        JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ criminal conspiracy.  When two or more persons agreed to do, or cause to be done.

   (1) an illegal act, or

   (2)  an act which is not illegal by illegal means,  such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

   Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act  besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

   Explanation--It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the  ultimate  object  of  such   agreement,  or  is  merely incidental  to  that  object." Section 120B  prescribes  the punishment  for  criminal conspiracy which by itself  is  an independent  offence,  punishable separately from  the  main offence.    The  offence  of   criminal  conspiracy  can  be established   by  direct  evidence   or  by   circumstantial evidence.   Section  10 of the Evidence Act  introduces  the doctrine of agency and will be attracted only when the court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two  or  more persons have conspired together to  commit  an offence  or an actionable ground, that is say, there  should be a prima facie evidence that the person was a party to the conspiracy  before  his  acts  can   be  used  against   the co-conspirators.   This  Court in Bhagwan Swarup Lal  Bishan Lal  vs.   State of Maharashtra [AIR 1965 SC 682] held  that the  expression "in reference to their common intention"  in Section  10  - is very comprehensive and it appears to  have been designedly used to give it a wider scope than the words "in  furtherance  of" in the English law;  with the  result, anything,  said, done or written by a co- conspirator, after the  conspiracy  was  formed, will be evidence  against  the other  before he entered the field of conspiracy or after he left  it.   Anything said, done or written is relevant  fact only  "as  against  each of the persons believed  to  be  so conspiring  as well for the purpose of proving the existence of  the  conspiracy as for the purpose of showing  that  any such  person  was a party to it".  It was further held:   In short,  the  section can be analysed as follows:  (1)  There shall  be  a  prima facie evidence  affording  a  reasonable ground  for a Court to believe that two or more persons  are members  of  a  conspiracy;  (2) if the  said  condition  is fulfilled, anything said, done or written by any one of them in  reference  to  their common intention will  be  evidence against  the  other;  (3) anything said, done or written  by him  should have been said, done or written by him after the intention  was formed by any one of them;  (4) it would also be relevant for the said purpose against another who entered the  conspiracy whether it was said, done or written  before he  entered the conspiracy or after he left it;  and (5)  it can  only  be used against a co-conspirator and not  in  his favour."

   We  are  aware  of  the  fact  that  direct  independent evidence  of criminal conspiracy is generally not  available and  its existence is a matter of inference.  The inferences

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

are  normally  deduced from acts of parties in pursuance  of purpose  in common between the conspirators.  This Court  in V.C.   Shukla v.  State [1980(2) SCC 665] held that to prove criminal  conspiracy  there  must  be  evidence  direct   or circumstantial  to show that there was an agreement  between two  or more persons to commit an offence.  There must be  a meeting of minds resulting in ultimate decision taken by the conspirators  regarding  the  commission of an  offence  and where the factum of conspiracy is sought to be inferred from circumstances,   the  prosecution  has  to  show  that   the circumstances  giving  rise to a conclusive or  irresistible inference of an agreement between the two or more persons to commit  an offence.  As in all other criminal offences,  the prosecution  has  to discharge its onus of proving the  case against   the   accused  beyond   reasonable   doubt.    The circumstances  in a case, when taken together on their  face value,  should indicate the meeting of the minds between the conspirators  for  the  intended  object  of  committing  an illegal  act  or  an act which is not  illegal,  by  illegal means.   A  few bits here and a few bits there on which  the prosecution  relies  cannot  be  held  to  be  adequate  for connecting  the accused with the commission of the crime  of criminal  conspiracy.   It  has to be shown that  all  means adopted  and  illegal acts done were in furtherance  of  the object  of conspiracy hatched.  The circumstances relied for the purposes of drawing an inference should be prior in time than  the actual commission of the offence in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy.

   In  Kehar  Singh  vs.  State [AIR 1988 SC 1883]  it  was noticed  that Section 120A and Section 120B IPC have brought the  Law of Conspiracy in India in line with English Law  by making  an  overt act inessential when the conspiracy is  to commit   any  punishable  offence.    The   most   important ingredient of the offence being the agreement between two or more  persons to do an illegal act.  In case where  criminal conspiracy  is  alleged, the court must enquire whether  the two  persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have  come  together  to pursue the  unlawful  object.   The former  does  not  render them conspirators but  the  latter does.   For the offence of conspiracy some kind of  physical manifestation  of  agreement is required to be  established. The  express agreement need not to be proved.  The  evidence as  to the transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful act is  not  sufficient.  A conspiracy is a  continuing  offence which  continues to subsist till it is executed or rescinded or   frustrated   by  choice  of  necessity.    During   its subsistence whenever any one of the conspirators does an act or  series  of acts, he would be held guilty  under  Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

   After  referring to some judgments of the United  States Supreme Court and of this Court in Yash Pal Mittal v.  State of  Punjab[1977  (4) SCC 540];  Ajay Aggarwal vs.  Union  of India [AIR 1993 SCW 1866], the Court in State of Maharashtra v.   Som  Nath  Thapa  [AIR 1996  SC  1744]  summarised  the position of law and the requirements to establish the charge of conspiracy, as under:

   "The  aforesaid decisions, weighty as they are, lead  us to  conclude  that  to  establish  a  charge  of  conspiracy knowledge  about  indulgence in either an illegal act  or  a legal  act  by illegal means is necessary.  In  some  cases, intent  of unlawful use being made of the goods of  services

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself.  This apart,  the  prosecution  has  not   to  establish  that   a particular  unlawful use was intended, so long as the  goods or  service in question could not be put to any lawful  use. Finally,  when  the ultimate offence consists of a chain  of actions,  it  would not be necessary for the prosecution  to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that each of   the  conspirators  had  the   knowledge  of  what   the collaborator  would  do so, so long as it is known that  the collaborator  would put the goods or service to an  unlawful use."

   In  the  backdrop of the legal position relating to  the offence  of  criminal  conspiracy, it has to be seen  as  to@@              JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ whether  the  prosecution  proved beyond doubt that  A2  had@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ agreed  with A1 to cause the death of deceased Soman in  the manner  alleged  in  the  charge-sheet.   The  circumstances relied  upon  by the prosecution to prove the  existence  of conspiracy  were  enumerated  by the Trial Court  as  under:

   "(1)  The  accused  1 and 2 had a revengeful  motive  to murder.

   (2)  Soman was last seen in the company of accused 1 and          2.

   (3)  The dead body of the deceased was removed from  the quarters  of  the first accused to the M.L.  Pattam boat  on the  night  of  20.7.1987 and the body was  dismembered  and thrown into the rivers.

   (4)  The hairs collected from the quarters and the  boat were  found to be similar with the scalp hairs collected  at the   time  of  post-mortem   examination,   on   scientific examination.

   (5)  The  deceased was made to write two inland  letters postdating them so as to make it appear that Soman was alive on the date of those letters.

   (6)  Recovery  of  MO3 on the basis of  the  information furnished by the first accused".

   To  prove the first circumstance, the prosecution relied upon  the  testimony of PWs 4, 15, 16, and 49.  PW4  is  the@@            JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ elder  sister  of the deceased, PW15 is a clerk in  the  New@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Bank  of  India, PW16 is a clerk in the Pathiyoor Branch  of Canara  Bank and PW49 is the Circle Inspector of  Kayamkulam who  was  a  classmate of the deceased  Soman.   From  their statements  it  could  be  gathered that  Soman  was  having intimacy with A2 for some time in his student days and their relationship  broke  down after his marriage.   Some  months prior  to the incident, he came across A2 and made  attempts to  revive the old intimacy.  Such an evidence would not, in any  way,  prove  that A1 was aware of the  revival  of  the intimacy  between  erstwhile  lovers.   No  motive  for  the commission  of  the offence of murder could,  therefore,  be inferred  from the existence of such a circumstance which is in no way directly related to be the occasion of death.  The mere  fact  that Soman had told PW49 that Krishna Kumari  A2 had invited him to her house on 18th July, 1987 cannot be so

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

stretched to hold that such invitation was in furtherance of the  alleged conspiracy hatched between A1 and A2.  There is no  evidence worth any value to show or suggest that A2  was averse  to the revival of intimacy with the deceased or that she had shared the secret of her love affair and its revival by  the  deceased, with A1 with whom she was living  as  his wife,  though  without  marriage.    The  Trial  Court  was, therefore, not justified in holding that the prosecution had proved that A1 was aware of the revival of intimacy with the deceased  and  A2.  Even if he had known about the  intimacy there  was no cause or occasion for A2 to agree with him  to commit  the  crime  of murder.  The termination  of  earlier relationship between A2 and the deceased could also not be a cause  for her to share a common intention of committing the crime  particularly when she was happily living with A1  and out of illicit relationship they had, a son was born who was living  at  the time of the occurrence.   The  circumstances that  Soman was seen in the company of A1 and A2 would  only prove  the  death  of  the deceased when  he  was  with  the aforesaid  two  accused persons but that by itself  was  not sufficient  to  hold that A1 and A2 had agreed to  kill  him before he came at their residence on 19th July, 1987.  There was  commotion  in the quarters of A1 on the night  of  19th July,  1987  is a fact established along with the fact  that there  were screaming of some woman at that very time.   The screaming  of the woman not only suggest the presence of  A2 but her reluctance to share the common intention to kill the deceased  or  on seeing him being killed, to  be  horrified. Similarly,  statements  of PWs12, 13 and 17 can be taken  to have  proved the presence of Soman at the Haripad bus  stand on  18th  morning, but not sufficient to hold that A2 was  a conspirator with A1.  The factum of the deceased having been made  to  write two post-dated inland letters has  not  been proved on facts.  The Trial Court itself noticed, "no doubt, there  is no material on record to show that Exhibit D-2 was a  letter  written under compulsion".  Exhibit D-2 and  D-11 were  not  proved  in the Trial Court.  Exhibit D-2  is  not written on an inland letter.  Such a weak circumstance, much less  proved on facts, could not be held to be sufficient to infer  the agreement between A1 and A2 to commit the  murder of deceased Soman.  The alleged circumstances relied to show the  existence  of conspiracy are such circumstances,  which even  when  believed, cannot be held to have proved,  beyond reasonable doubt, involvement of A2 in the commission of the crime  of  murder.   The  High Court, while  giving  A2  the benefit of doubt rightly held as under:

   "Now  we will proceed to consider whether there was  any conspiracy  between  accused  1 and 2 for causing  death  of Soman.   The mere fact that Soman was persuaded to go to the quarters  is not sufficient to show that 2nd accused had any intention   to  finish  her   paramour  off.   PW49  (Circle Inspector of Police) was a friend of Soman.  He deposed that Soman had told him once that 1st accused is in possession of the  letters and photos sent by Soman and that Krishnakumari would  get  them from 1st accused and the krishnakumari  had invited Soman to visit her on 18.7.1987.  This night, at the most,  show that Krishnakumari would have really intended to revive  her  old connection with Soman.  Learned  Additional Public Prosecutor contended that as 2nd accused had ventured subsequent  to  the  death  of Soman, to  post  the  letters written  by  Soman,  the  conduct is reflective  of  a  plot hatched  by her and 1st accused together.  The said  conduct need  not  necessarily be reflective of that.  In  the  same manner  as 1st accused drafted PW1 and 3rd accused he  would

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

have  secured the services of 2nd accused subsequent to  the murder.

   One  circumstance in the above context is relevant as it has  a  tendency to absolve 2nd accused from the  charge  of criminal  conspiracy.   When some of the neighbours heard  a commotion  on  the  night of 19.7.1987, they rushed  to  the police  quarters.  PW23 said that it was a female sound  and the  word  overheard  indicated that the female  was  crying aloud.   It is indicative of 2nd accused witnessing some act which 1st accused would have perpetrated on the deceased and on  seeing  it she would have cried aloud.  Then  again  PW1 said  that while he was taking 2nd accused to Changanacherry her countenance had a grieving look.

   We   are   inclined  to   think,  from   the   aforesaid circumstances,  that  she was only a victim of  intimidation and  coercion in doing what 1st accused would have commanded her  to do.  We are, therefore, giving her benefit of  doubt in regard to the charge of criminal conspiracy."

   After  perusing the whole record, scanning the  evidence of  the prosecution witnesses and hearing lengthy  arguments from  both  sides, we are satisfied that the High Court  was right  in holding that charge of criminal conspiracy against A2  had  not been proved beyond doubt.  She was,  therefore, rightly  acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with Section  120B of the IPC.  However, as she was found to have actively  participated in causing disappearance of the  dead body  of  the deceased knowing and having reason to  believe that  his murder has been committed by A1, was convicted and sentenced under Section 201 of the IPC.

   Shri C.N.  Sree Kumar, learned Advocate appearing for A1 in  Criminal Appeal No.785 of 1994 submitted that conviction and  sentence of appellant being essentially based upon  the testimony  of PW1 was not legal and valid.  According to him PW1  was  not a reliable witness and that there  were  major discrepancies  in his deposition.  We are not impressed with this  argument.  Prasannan PW1 has been proved to have  been validly  granted the pardon under Section 306 of the Code of Criminal   Procedure  and   the  accused-appellant  afforded sufficient  opportunity  of cross-examining him both in  the committal as well as in the Sessions Case.  He has withstood the  cross-examination and proved the factum of the death of the  deceased  by A1 and the destruction of his body by  all the  accused-persons.  An accomplice is a competent  witness and  a  conviction can be based upon his testimony if it  is otherwise  corroborated  in material particulars.  Both  the Trial  Court  as well as the High Court have found on  facts that  the death of Soman was a case of homicide for which A1 was  responsible.   PW1  was the driver of a boat  in  which personnel  of  Ramankiri  Police  used  to  undertake  their journey.  On the date of occurrence a young man accompanying A2  came to the room of A1.  Despite there being defects  in the boat, the witness was asked by A1 to arrive at 12o Clock in  the night on the west side of NSS School and  threatened that if he did not come A1 will finish him.  He was inquired as  to  whether  there was a knife in the boat to  which  he replied  in the affirmative.  A1 told the witness to sharpen the knife.  At about 12o Clock in the night he took the boat to  the  place  earlier notified by A1.   Accused  No.3  was accompanying  him.   Accused No.3 slept in the boat and  the witness  went to inform A1 who was sitting on the side  wall of  his  quarter,  along with A2.  The young  man  whom  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

witness had seen a day earlier was lying dead there with one armless baniyan and underwear.  A1 told the witness to carry dead body.  The witness, A1 and A2 together carried the dead body  to the half wall.  The witness was told by A1 to go to the boat and bring Mohanan Accused No.3.  The witness and A1 kept  the dead body inside the fence.  The witness,  Accused No.3  along  with A1 kept the dead body on the platform  and kept  it upside.  The dead body was kept in the boat and the witness  asked  to start it.  After reaching  one  kilometer distance A1 told the PW1 to stop the boat.  A1 got the knife from  PW1.   He held the head by hairs of the  deceased  and started  cutting  his  throat  neck  by  his  knife.   After chopping  off the head A1 threw it in the river.  Thereafter he  started cutting the stomach of the dead body and  pushed away  it into the river.  The knife was also thrown into the river.   In this process A1 was also injured and he got  his leg  injury dressed next day in Lurd Hospital.  After  being told  by  some  people that a headless human body  was  seen floating  in  the river, PW1 went to the quarters of  A1  to enquire  about it.  He was told not to worry and not to tell anybody  whatever had happened.  The whole of the deposition of  PW1 is the vivid explanation of the manner in which  the offence  was  committed by A1 in the presence of A2 and  A3. There  is  no  reason to disbelieve the  statement  of  PW1. Besides   his   ocular  testimony    there   is   sufficient corrorborative   evidence  which  connects   A1   with   the commission  of  the crime of murder of the  deceased  Soman. Learned  counsel  appearing  for A1 could not refer  to  any alleged  weak  link to the circumstances relied upon by  the courts below to show that the testimony of PW1, an approver, had  not been corroborated.  The High Court was,  therefore, right in observing:

   "While  considering PW1’s evidence, one broad aspect has to  be borne in mind.  In a waterlogged area like  Ramankari transportation  is  possible  only by boat or canoe.   If  a crime  was  committed  by a Sub Inspector, the  most  likely means  of  conveyance which he might hackney is a boat.   If there was any boat attached to the Police Station available, its  crew would be the likeliest persons on whom the culprit may  resort for help for disposing of the dead body.   There is  no  dispute that "M.L.  Pattom" boat was so attached  to Ramankari  Police  Station.  PW.38 is the owner of the  boat and  he  said PW1 was the driver of the boat.  So, there  is very  strong  possibility  that PW1’s boat would  have  been utilised  for  disposing of the body if 1st accused was  the culprit."

   We  are not satisfied with the submission of the learned counsel  for the appellant that the conviction of his client is  solely  based upon the testimony of witness PW1 and  his deposition is not corroborated in material particulars.  The circumstantial  evidence produced in the case is  sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the crime.  It does  not  lead to any other inference than the one  of  his involvement  in  the  crime.  We do not feel any  reason  to disagree with the findings of the Trial Court as well as the High  Court in so far as involvement of A1 in the commission of crime of murder is concerned.

   There  are  no  merits  in both the  appeals  which  are accordingly dismissed.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10