Holding

The confessional statements were inadmissible as they did not result in the discovery of any new fact, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient; therefore, the appellant was acquitted and the same relief was extended to the co‑accused.

Summary

The appellant Madhu and his co-accused Sibi were convicted for robbery and murder of Padmini Devi based largely on confessional statements to police and circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court held that the confessions were inadmissible because they did not lead to the discovery of any unknown fact, violating Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Evidence Act. The circumstantial evidence, including alleged presence at the scene and motive of theft, was found insufficient and riddled with contradictions. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of events, and the accused were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court acquitted Madhu and, invoking the principle of extending relief to similarly situated co‑accused, also acquitted Sibi, setting aside the lower courts' judgments.

Issues considered

Whether confessional statements made to police while in custody are admissible under Sections 25, 26 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Whether the confessional statements led to the discovery of any unknown fact, thereby falling within the exception of Section 27.
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the alleged presence of the accused near the place of occurrence can be inferred as proof of participation.
Whether the motive of theft of gold ornaments is sufficiently proved.
Whether the benefit of acquittal can be extended to a non‑appealing co‑accused under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 428
Constitution of Indias. 136, s. 21
Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 25, s. 26, s. 27
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 34, s. 392

Subjects

confessional statementsEvidence Actcircumstantial evidenceacquittalSection 27robberymurderbenefit of doubtco‑accusedArticle 136gold ornamentsinquest report

Judgment

[2012] 2 S.C.R. 986

A MAOHU
v.
STATE OF KERALA
(Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 2006)

JANUARY 13, 2012
B
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND JAGDISH SINGH
KHEHAR, JJ.]

Pen'al Code, 1860- ss. 392 and 302 r/w s.34 - F1obbery
C and murder - Case based on circumstantial evidence -
Appellant-accused and a co-accused allegedly robbed a
woman of the gold ornaments worn by her and murdeired her
by forcibly drowning her, when she was sitting on the ghat
(place leading into water) steps leading to the paddy field,
o washing utensils - Conviction of appellant by Courts below
on basis of recovery of gold ornaments pursuant to
confessional statements made by the appellant and the co-
accused before Police; and the factum of the accused having
been sighted close to the place of occurrence at or around
E the time of occurrence - Justification - Held: Not justified -
Evidence produced by the prosecution did not, in <my way,
establish the guilt of the accused - Confessional statements
made by appellant and the co-accused were not proved
against them, or to their detriment - This by itself removed
F the most vital link in the chain of events sought to be
established by I the prosecution against the accused -
Evidence produced to establish the presence of the accused
near the place of occurrence, at or about the time of the
commission of the crime was also irrelevant, because, the
G · accused were in any case neighbours of the deceast~d - Theft
of the golden ornaments worn by the deceased was doubtful
- Explanation tendered by the prosecution of thei earrings
worn by the deceased when her body was recovered, also far
from satisfactory - No positive inference from the statement

H 986
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 987

of the Doctor (who conducted post-mortem), and the A·
surrounding facts that the deceased was first smothered and
then drowned as alleged by the prosecution - Also there were
serious contradictions in the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses - Prosecution was not able to connect the accused
with the alleged crime in any manner whatsoever - Appellant B
liable to be acquitted.

Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 25, 26 and 27 - Confessional
statements before police - Relevance of - Exception
postulated under s.27 - Applicability of - Robbery and C
murder case - Recovery of gold ornaments by police,
allegedly on basis of confessional statements made by the
accused - Validity - Held: Relevance of confessional
statements would depend on discovery of facts based on the
information supplied by the accused - If any fresh facts have
been discovered on the basis of the confessional statement D
made by the accused, the same would be relevant - If not,
the confessional statement cannot be. proved against the
accused, to the detriment of the accused - In the instant case,
the confessional statements made by the accused cannot be
said to have led to the discovery of an unknown fact, because E
the statements of PW7, PW11, PW13 and PW15 reveal that
the factual position in respect of the/ recovery of the articles
from the place from where the same were shown to have been
eventually recovered, was known to the public at large well
before the confessional statements had been recorded - The F
said statements were inadmissible inspite of the mandate
contained in s.27 of the Evidence Act for the simple reason,
that they cannot be stated to have resulted in the discovery
of some new fact - In the factual background of the case, the
gold ornaments which eventually came to be recovered by the G
police, allegedly at the instance of accused, may well have
- been planted by the police.

Criminal Trial - Investigation - Inquest report - Held:
Genesis of crime should ordinarily emerge from inquest H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 2 S.C.R.

A report, specially when it is in respect of a patent fact.

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Appmciation
of - Held: Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order
can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution - In a
case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must
8
establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the
determination that the inference being drawn from the
evidence is the only inescapable conclusion - In the absence
of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be
entitled to the benefit of doubt.
c
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Interference in
criminal matters - Scope - Benefit of acquittal to similarly
placed non-appealing co-accused - Robbery and murder
case - Appellant-accused (A-1) and non-appealing co-
D accused (A-2) were convicted by Courts below on the same
evidence and for the same reasons - A-1 acquitted by
Supreme Court in instant appeal - Held: To do complete
justice, such relief extended to A-2 - A-2 a/so directed to be
acquitted - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 392 and 302 rlw s.34.
E
The accused-appellant(A-1) and co-accused 'Sibi'(A-
2) were convicted by the Courts below under Sec:tion 302
and 392 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced to life
imprisonment for having robbed a woman 'P' of the gold
ornaments worn by her and for having murdered her by
F forcibly dragging her into the water and suffocating her
thereby causing her death by drowning, when she was
sitting on the ghat (place leading into water) steps leading
to the paddy field, washing utensils. The conviction of
the accused was based on circumstantial evidence.
G Principally, the conviction was ordered on the basis of
confessional statements made by the appellanft and the
co-accused to PW21, Circle Inspector of Police,
consequent to which the police recovered gold chain as
also six gold bangles. The other material evidence taken
H into consideration by the courts below, to rnturn the
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 989

conviction of the appellant (as also the co-accused) was A
~the factum of their having been sighted close to the place
of occurrence at or around the time of occurrence.
Appellant challenged his conviction before this Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Court B
HELD: 1. Only circumstantial evidence of a very high
order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal
prosecution. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence,
the prosecution must establish a complete unbroken
chain of events leading to the determination that the C
inference being drawn from the evidence is the only
inescapable conclusion. In the absence of convincing
circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to
the benefit of doubt. [Para 5] [1000-F-H]
D
2.1. The most significant issue in the present
controversy is the veracity of the confessional
statements made by the appellant and the other accused
Sibi before PW21, Circle Inspector of Police. It is evident
that the aforesaid statements were made by the accused E
before a police officer while the accused were in custody
of the police. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act
postulates that a confession made by an accused to a
police officer cannot be proved against him. Additionally,
Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act stipulates that a
F
confession made by an accused while in police custody
cannot be proved against him. It is evident from the
factual position, that the statements made by the
appellant and Sibi were made to a police officer while the
accused were in police custody. It is, therefore, apparent
that in terms of the mandate of Sections 25 and 26 of the G
Indian Evidence Act, the said statements could not be
used against the appellant and the other accused Sibi.
But then, there is an exception to the rule provided for
by Sections 25 and 26 aforesaid, under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act. As an exception, Section 27 of the H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] ~~ S.C.R.

A Indian Evidence Act provides that a confessional
statement made to a police officer or while an accused
is in police custody, can be proved against him; if the
same leads to the discovery of an unknown fact. The
rationale of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act
s is, that police may procure a confession by coercion or
threat. The exception postulated under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional
statement leads to the discovery of some new 1'act. The
relevance under the exception postulated by Se,ction 27
c aforesaid, is limited " ... as it relates distinctly to the fact
thereby discovered .... ". The rationale behind SE!Ction 27
of the Indian Evidence Act is, that the facts in question
would have remained unknown but for the disc~osure of
the same by the accused. Discovery of facts itself,
therefore, substantiates the truth of the confessional
0
statement. And since it is truth that a court must
endeavour to search, Section 27 aforesaid has been
incorporated as an exception to the mandate c:ontained
in Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. [Para
E 17] [1021-C-F, H; 1022-A-D]
2.2. The relevance of the confessional statements ·
would depend on the discovery of facts based on the
· information supplied by the accused. If any fresh facts
have been discovered on the basis of the conifessional
F statement made by the accused, the same would be
relevant. If not, the confessional statement c:annot be
proved against the accused, to the detriment of the
accused. The confessional statements made by the
accused (vide Exhibit P-9 and P-10) cannot be said to
G have led to the discovery of an unkriown. fact, because
the statements of PW7, PW11, PW13 and PV\f15 reveal
that the factual position in respect of the recovery of the
articles from the place from where the same were shown
to have been eventually recovered, was known to the
H public at large by noon (and certainly before 2.30 p.m.)
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 991

i.e., well before the confessional statements had been A
recorded. As per the deposition of P.J. Thomas {PW21),
Circle Inspector of Police, " ... A-2's confession statement
was recorded· at about 2.45 p.m .... ". The public had
become aware of the recovery by "noon", whereas,
appellant was arrested at 1.00 p.m., and Sibi-accused no.2 B
was arrested at 1.30 p.m. and their confessional
statements were recorded by the police after their arrest
In the background of the aforesaid factual position, it is
not possible to conclude that the confessional
statements made by appellant vide Exhibit P-10 and Sibi- c
accused no.2 vide Exhibit P-9, can be stated to have
resulted in the discovery of any fresh facts. The factual
position that recovery of stolen ornaments would be
made by the police was a matter of common knowledge
well before the confessional statements were. made. The 0
· said statements· recorded vide Exhibits P-9 and P-10 are
inadmissible inspite .of the mandate .contained in Section_
27 of the Indian Evidence Act for the simple reason, that
they cannot be stated to have resulted in the discovery
of some new fact. In the factual background of the
present controversy, the gold ornaments which E
eventually came to be recovered by the police, allegedly
. at the instance of accused, may well have been planted
by the police; On account of the fact that the
confessional statements made by appellant and Sibi-
accused no.2, which is the main linking factor in the F
circumstantial evidence of the prosecution version of the
controversy, being inadmissible as the same cannot be
proved against. them, the prosecution's case stands fully
demolished. [Para 18] [1022-F-G; 1024-D-H; 1025-A-D]
G
3. The second significant conglomerate of evidence
to link the accused to the crime in question, is their
' alleged presence at or around the place of occurrence.
This evidence emerges from the statements made by
PW6 to PW9. The prosecution, through these witnesses, H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A have endeavoured to demonstrate the presence of the
accused, in the vicinity of the place of occurrenice, at
around the time of occurrence. The statement of PWG is
wholly insignificant to connect the accused with the~ crime
under reference. PW7 has given his version of having
B seen the accused close to the place of occurrenc:e. But
the statement of PW7 is so unrealistic, that it is worthy
of rejection without recording any reasons. It is strange
that PW7 reached the embankment by swimming upto it
since the last boat had already left. He claims to have kept
c his clothes afloat and above the water while he was
swimming through the water. It is, therefore, tlhat his
clothes had remained dry. Even though, in his statement,
he asserted that " ... I identified him as A-2 in the light of
my torch ... ". He subsequently stated that a person was
seen coming, flashing a torchlight towards east, and that,
0
he was identified by PW7 as appellant. As per the said
·statement, the identification was made on the basis of the .
torch held in the hands of the <l:tppellant. The aforesaid
contradiction is hard to digest. How PW7 retained the
E torch in his hand in a dry condition, while swimming, has
not been explained. If he was holding his torch in one
hand and clothes in the other, it is difficult to understand.
how he swam across the water. And if the accused
himself was carrying the torch, the light would n<>t fall on
his face, and in that situation, the accused could fllOt have
F loeen identified, because by then it was past 9 p.m. These
. and other such like discrepancies, when viewed closely,
leave no room to accept the credibility of the statement
made by PW7'. PW8 was the manager of Toddy Shop
No.86 at Kuttanad. As per the statement of PW8 both the
G accused purchased a bottle of toddy each, and after
drinking the toddy, they left the toddy shc>p. This
· statement does not establish the presence of accused at
or near the place of occurrence. PW9 is the only other
witness produced by the prosecution to show the
H presence of the accused close to the place of
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 993

occurrence, at or around the time of occurrence, on A
8.5.1998. The statement made by PW9, during the course
of his deposition before the Sessions Court, in
connection with his having seen the accused near the
place of occurrence, had not been disclosed by him even
to the police during the course of investigation. In fact B
during the course of his cross-examination he
acknowledged " ... I have not told anybody-else about my
having met the accused persons there, I am speaking
about it for the first time in court ... ". In fact PW9 was
working as a labourer in the house of PW10. PW9 had not c
even disclosed the aforesaid factual position to his
employer PW10, even though he must have known, that
PW10 was the elder brother of husband of the deceased
'P'. In this situation it is difficult to consider the statement
of PW9 as credible. In view of the aforesaid evaluation of 0
the statements of witnesses examined by the
prosecution, to establish the presence of the accused, in
close vicinity of the place of occurrence, there remains
no proved connection of the accused with the
accusations levelled against them. Even otherwise, the E .
presence of the accused close to the residence of 'P' is
inconsequential, because according to the statement of
PW2 (husband of the deceased 'P') both the accused
were known to him as they were his neighbours. Surely,
presence close to ones own residence cannot be the
basis for drawing an adverse inference. This Court is F
therefore satisfied, that the statements of PW6 to PW9, do
not in any manner, further the case of the prosecution.
[Para 19] [1025-E-H; 1026-A-H; 1027-A-F]
4. There are other glaring discrepancies as well. A G
large number of witnesses, including PW1, PW3, PW4,
PW5, PW7, PW10, PW13, PW14, PW15 and PW16,
deposed, that they had seen utensils lying on the steps
of the ghat. Some of the witnesses had gone further to
explain, that some of the utensils were washed whereas H
994 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2. S.C.R.

A some were still to be washed. These statements were
made by the witnesses so as to support the prosecution
version mentioned in the charge-sheet, whereini it was
projected that 'P' had gone out to the steps of the ghat
after taking the supper meal, to wash the dirty utensils.
B The inquest report (Exhibit P-3), however, does not
,disclose the presence of any utensils at the !~hat. In
c:onjunction with the aforesaid, it is relevant to notice, that
during the deposition of PW21, Circle Inspector o·f Police,
who carried out the investigation in the CiilSe, he
c categorically asserted (in response to a pointed question
posed to him), that when he reached the ghat there were
no utensils. He further stated, that none of the wiitnesses
told him, that there were utensils at the ghat 01r on the
. steps leading to the paddy fields. The absence! of any
0 evidence supporting the prosecution case depicting the
ll'eason for 'P' to go out of her house at late hours in the
night, so as to be found alone by the accused, reveals
the lack of evidence to project the prosecution version
reflected in the charge-sheet. But more than that, is the
E contradiction in the statements of PW1, PW3, PVV4, PWS,
PW7, PW10 and PW13 to PW16 on the one hand, and the
statement of PW21 coupled with the details mentioned in
the inquest report on the other. The genesis of the crime
should ordinarily emerge from the inquest report specially
when it is in respect of a patent fact. If utens;ils were
F . actually at the ghat, the mention thereof could not have
been left out therefrom. This would be so even if the
inquest report had been prepared with lhalf the
seriousness required in its preparation. A perus;al of the
inquest report reveals that the same was painstakingly
G recorded, and even minute details have been recorded
therein. It is difficult to state which of the two s;ides has
deposed correctly and/or which one of them has
· deposed falsely. All the same, the instant aspE!Ct of the
deposition creates a serious doubt about the c:redibility
H of the evidence on the instant factual aspect, irrespective
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 995

of the significance thereof in proving the charges. [Para A
20] [1027-G-H; 1028-A-H; 1029-A]

5.1. Additionally, the charge-sheet pointedly records
that appellant caught hold of the plated hair and neck of
'P', and Si bi-accused no.2 caught hold of her feet, and B
forcibly dragged her into the water and suffocated her
thereby cause her death by drowning. This factual
position remained unproved as not a single prosecution
witness narrated the said factual position, so as to
establish the manner in which 'P' came to be drowned
by the two accused. [Para 21] [1029-B-C] C

5.2. PW20 (who had conducted the post-mortem) had
expressed in the post mortem certificate dated 9.5.1998,
and he had affirmed during the course of his deposition
before the Sessions Court, that the death of 'P' had been D
caused by drowning. The fact that she had been
smothered first and thereafter drowned by the appellant
and Si bi cannot be stated to have been established by
the prosecution. No injury whatsoever was suffered by
deceased 'P' either on her neck or on her feet. 'P' was E
47 years old at the time of occurrence. She would not
have easily. allowed two drunkards, who were in a state
of intoxication, to carry her away by holding her by her
neck and feet as has been alleged in the charge-sheet..
'P' would have been expected to fight for her life, F
consequent upon an assault on her, at the hands of the
appellant and Sibi. Injury nos.1 and 2 referred to by the
courts below, so as to infer smothering, is clearly
unacceptable in view of the fact that PW20, in his cross-
examination, clearly asserted, that injury nos.1 and 2 are G
possible if a person falls and during the course of that
fall the right side of the face comes in contact with a
rough hard surface. PW20 also stated during his cross-
examination, that all the injuries suffered by 'P' were
superficial injuries. In the aforesaid view of the matter, H
even the medical evidence produced by the prosecution,
996 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A does not suitably support the prosecution story, that the
deceased 'P' was, first assaulted by the appellant and
Sibi, and thereafter, drowned. The deceased is alle~1ed to
have been dragged, smothered and forcibly drowned.
The instant version of the prosecution story, is wholly
B unacceptable, keeping in mind the statement of PW20.
[Para 22] [1029-D-H; 1030-A-B]

6. The motive for the accused tn committing the
murder of 'P' is stated to be theft of her gold ornaments.
Appellant is a labourer, and Sibi-accused no.2 is a toddy
C trapper. If the motive had been theft, so as to snatch away
the jewellery of 'P', it is difficult to understand why the
accused only took away the golden chain around the
neck of the deceased, and the six bangles on heir right
arm, and forsake the earrings on the person 1Jf the
D deceased. It is relevant to mention, that the factum of the
earrings found on the person of the deceased has been
explained in a wishy-washy manner. PW21, Circle
Inspector of Police, has specifically deposed c>n the
recovery, retention and return of the earrings to the family
E of the deceased. The statement of PW21 reveals e11 sorry
state of affairs in handling the investigation of th1:! case
in hand. According to the statement of PW21, the earrings
were removed from the dead body of 'P', by one of the
policemen who was assisting him in the preparation of
F inquest report on 9.5.1998. There is no documentary
record of this. The earrings were then (according to
PW21) retained by the writer at the police station. This
again, without maintaining any record. On 11.6.1998, the
said earrings are stated to have been returned to PW2,
G husband of deceased 'P'. It was also deposed by PW21,
that PW2 had visited the police station to take back the
earrings. Accordingly, the earrings were returned to him.
Yet again, without maintaining any record. Coupled with
the conclusion drawn in respect of the gold chain and the
H six gold bangles, allegedly recovered at the instance of
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 997

appellant and Sibi, this Court is of the view that it may well A
be, that the ornaments were never taken away from the
person of the deceased 'P', because if the motive had
been theft of gold ornaments, then all the gold ornaments
would have been taken away, most certainly the earrings
which were openly and clearly visible. The accused were B
poor persons, for them the earrings alone would have
meant a lot. If nothing else, the earrings would have
balanced (to some extent at least) the spoils in the hands
of the accused. It may well be, that the aforesaid
ornaments came to be planted only with the object of c
solving the case in hand. This aspect of the matter also
creates a serious doubt in the prosecution case. [Para 23]
[1030-C-H; 1031-A-C]

7. The evidence produced by the prosecution does
not, in any way, establish the guilt of the accused. The D
prosecution had endeavoured to prove the allegations
levelled against the accused on the basis of
circumstantial evidence. The mainstay of the prosecution
evidence is the recovery of the gold ornaments belonging
to the deceased 'P' at the instance of the appellant and E
Sibi. The statements made by the appellant and Sibi (vide
Exhibits P-10 and P-9 respectively) cannot be proved
against the accused, or to their detriment. This by itself
removes the most vital link in the chain of events sought
to be established by the prosecution against the F
accused. Evidence produced to establish the presence
of the accused near the place of occurrence, at or about
the time of the commission of the crime has also been
found to be irrelevant. This because, the accused were
in any case neighbours of the deceased 'P'. The theft of G
. the golden ornaments worn by the deceased 'P' was also
doubtful. The explanation tendered by the prosecution of
the earrings worn by the deceased 'P' when her body
was recovered, is also far from satisfactory. From the
statement of PW20, and the surrounding facts, it cannot H
998 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A be positively inferred that the deceased 'P' was first
smothered and then drowned as has been alleged by the
prosecution. Also there were serious contradictions ini the
deposition of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution
has failed to establish an unbroken chain of evEmts
B lending to the determination, that the inference bE~ing
drawn from the evidence is the only inescapa1ble
conclusion. In fact the prosecution has not been able to
connect the accused with the alleged crime in any
manner whatsoever. The appellant is liable to be
. c acquitted of the charges levelled against him. [Paras 24,
25] [1031-D-H; 1032-A-C]

8. The evidence to establish the charges against the
co-accused Sibi was on the same lines as that projected
against the appellant-accused. Sibi-accused no.2 was
D accused of the allegations for exactly the same reasons,
as weighed with the courts below against the appellcmt.
He was also convicted for the same reasons. If Sibi-
accused no.2 had preferred an appeal, the result wo11Jld
have been exactly the same, as it has been in the present
E appeal, in respect of the appellant. To do complete justiice,
it would be just and appropriate to extend the same
benefit as has been extended to the appellant, also to
Sibi-accused no.2. Therefore, for exactly the same
reasons as have weighed with this Court in the instcmt
F appeal, to determine the acquittal of the appellant, this
Court hereby orders the acquittal of Sibi-accused no.2 as
well, even though he has not preferred an appeal so •as
to assail the impugned judgment whereby he stands
convicted. [Para 27] [1032-F-G; 1034-E-F]
G
Gurucharan Kumar; & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan (2003)
2 SCC 698:2003 (1) SCR 60 and Pawan Kumar v. State of
Haryana (2003) 11 SCC 241: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 710 -
relied on.
H
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 999

Case Law Reference: A
2003 (1) SCR 60 relied on Para 27
2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 710 relied on Para 27
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal B
No. 522 of 2006.

From the Judgment & Order dated 15.07 .2003 of the High
Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 266 of
2001.
c
Asha Gopalan Nair, for the Appellant.

Liz Mathew, Sana A.R. Khan, for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. 1. The appellant herein,
Madhu Kalikutty Panicker (hereinafter referred to as "Madhu")
· was charged along with Sibi Bhaskaran (hereinafter referred
to as "Sibi") for offences punishable under Section 302 and 392
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for· having E
robbed Padmini Devi alias Omana of her gold ornaments and
thereafter having murdered her on 8.5.1998 at her residence,
i.e., Kalathil House situated in Ward No.IV of Veliyanad Village.
Both Madhu (accused no.1) and Sibi (accused no.2) were also
residing in the neighbourhood of the deceased in the same F
ward and village.

2. The Sessions Judge, Alappuzha convicted the accused
and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10
years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 392 of
the Indian Penal Code. The accused were sentenced to G
imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. The Sessions Judge directed that the aforesaid
sentences would be suffered successively, i.e., one after the
other. In case of default of payment of fine, the accused were
to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A years. The Sessions Judge also directed that the accused
· would be entitled to set off equivalent to the period of their
detention during the course of trial, under Section 428 of the
Criminal Procedure Code.

· 3. On appeal, the High Court of Kerala maintaim~d the
8
conviction of the two accused. On the question of sentence, the
High Court modified the order passed by the Sessions .Judge
to the extent that the sentences would run concurrently. Subject
to the aforesaid modification, even the sentences awarded by
the Sessions Court were maintained.
c
4. The conviction of the accused at the hands of the
Sessions Judge as also the High Court was based on
circumstantial evidence. Principally, the conviction was ordered
as a consequence of recovery of ornaments worn by the
D deceased, pursuant to the information furnished by the
accused. Based on the aforesaid recovery; the High Court,
relying on Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act inferre?d that
the accused had committed the murder of Padmini Devi, and
thereupon, robbed her off the ornaments worn by her. The only
E other material evidence taken into consideration by the rcourts
below, to return the conviction of the appellant herein (as also
his co-accused Sibi) was the factum of their having been
sighted close to the place of occurrence at or around th1a time
of, occurrence.
F 5. The care and caution with which circumstantial evidence
has to be evaluated stands recognized by judicial prec1:ident.
Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy
the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In a case resting on
circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a
G complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination
that the inference being drawn from the evidence is th1a only
inescapable conclusion. In the absence of convincing
circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the
benefit of doubt. During the course of deliberations i:>f the
H present controversy, we shall endeavour to evaluate the
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1001
[JAGDISH §INGH KHEHAR, J.]

worthiness of circumstantial evidence produced by the A
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. But more
importantly, our endeavour would be to evaluate the
admissibility of the statements made by the accused to the
police, during the course of their detention by the police, .
resulting in the discovery of the gold ornaments, belonging to B
Padmini Devi, after having committed her murder. This piece
of evidence has been relied upon to connect the accused with
the crime.

6. The prosecution case as is revealed from the charge-
sheet, notices that the accused with the deliberate intention of C
committing the murder of Padmini Devi with the motive of
robbing her of the ornaments worn by her, proceeded to Kalathil
House where the deceased was residing. Padmini Devi was
found alone, sitting on the ghat (place leading into water) steps
leading to the paddy field, washing utensils. The ghat was D
situated at about 3 meters (2 meters and 75 ems.) from the last .
door step of the kitchen's eastern door of Padmini Devi's
house (Kalathil House). It is alleged that Madhu - accused no.1,
caught hold of the plated hair and neck of Padmini Devi and
Sibi-accused no.2, held her by her feet, and the two together E
forcibly dragged her into the water. Thereupon, they suffocated
her. The act of drowning of Padmini Devi is alleged to have
been committed by the accused at a place 29 meters from the
south-east of the steps of the ghat. The accused are stated to
have dragged Padmini Devi to the spot from where her body F
was eventually recovered, at a distance of 7 meters north-west
of the foundation of the Snake God Shrine, which is to the south
of the paddy field in question. Madhu-accused no.1, is alleged
to have removed six gold bangles worn by Padmini Devi (on
her left arm), whereas, Sibi-accused no.2, is alleged to have G
removed a gold chain worn by Padmini Devi (around her neck).
The accused were thus alleged to have committed the murder
of Padmini Devi, and the theft of her ornaments jointly.

7. The son of the deceased Asuthosh PW3 is stated to
H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A hav1~ received a phone call from his sister Ambily PW4 at 9.45
p.m. on 8.5.1998. Since Ashutosh's sister Ambily informed him
that she would like to speak to her mother Padmini Devi,
Ashutosh PW3 who was sleeping at the time when the call was
received, got up to call his mother. He found his mother missing.
s He accordingly, approached his relations and neighbours. A
joint search was carried out. The husband of the deceased, i.e.,
Ayyappa Kurup PW2 who, at that point of time, was attending
to his night duty in the Telephone Exchange at Changanac:herry
was s~mmoned. Ayyappa Kurup PW2 reached Kalathil House
c at around 11.30 p.m. The body of the deceased was found at
about 11.45 p.m., from under the water in the field on the
eastern side of Kalathil House. Ayyappa Kurup PW2 asked
Purushottama Kurup PW1 to make a complaint to the police.
This decision was in fact, that the death of Padmini Devi was ·
D shrouded in suspicious circumstances. The aforesaid sus1:>icion
emi:irged on account of absence of her golden necklace {worn
by the deceased on her neck), as also, six bangles (worn by
the deceased around her left arm) when her body was
recovered. Accordingly, Purushothama Kurup PW1 reported
E the matter to the police, disclosing the aforesaid factual position
on the following morning i.e. on 9.5.1998 at 8.30 a.m ..

· 8. On the registration of the FIR, PJ Thomas PW21, Circle
Inspector of Police, reached the place of occurrence, and
prepared the inquest report (Exhibit P-3). As per the inquest
F report. the deceased Padmini Devi alias Omana was ag1ed 47
years. She was found by Karthikeyan Nair PW16, a neighbour
and.a resident of Thundiyil House in Ward No.IV, Veliyanad
Village at 11.45 p.m. from the paddy field on the eastern side
of his house. As per the inquest report, Padmini Devi was last
G seen alive at her residence by her son Aushutosh at 9.1 fi p.m.
on 8.5.1998. As per the inquest report, apart from the dress
worn by her she was wearing a gold chain around her nock of
"thara" fashion weighing about 5-1/2 sovereigns, besides 4-5
golden bangles in her left hand and golden earrings in her ears,
H when Aushutosh saw her for the last time. The inquest report
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1003
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

further depicts, that blood and water was oozing out from her A
" nostrils on both sides, and her tongue was protruding out by Yi
inch, with the mouth slightly open. Water weeds were found
sticking to her hair. Ears had earrings of "claver" design. The
stomach was found to be slightly bloated. The inquest report
records, that at a distance of 2 meter 27 cm. of the first foot- B
step of the kitchen door, there is a ghat (place leading into
water) with three steps. The lower step of the ghat is immersed
in water. At a distance of 50 ems., from the lowest foot-step
the water is 75 ems. deep. The spot in the field from where the
dead body of Padmini Devi was recovered, was 29 meters c
from the lowest foot-step. The depth of the water at the place
from where the dead body was recovered is stated to be 82
ems. deep (32.28 inches, i.e., about 3 feet). The inquest report
also noted, that ornaments worn around the neck and in the left
arm by Padmini Devi were missing. According to the statement
0
of Aushutosh PW3, his mother must have gone to the ghat,
fallen into the water and somehow died. Yet, consequent upon
the discovery of the missing golden ornaments, those present
at the spot at the time of preparation of the inquest report,
expressed doubts about the death of Padmini Devi.
Accordingly, even though at Serial no.XI of the inquest report,
E
it stands recorded that Padmini Devi alias Omana had died
due to drowning, at Serial no.XVI it was mentioned that since
the ornaments worn by her were missing, the persons present
had unanimously raised a doubt about the cause of her death.
F
9. The cqntents of the First Information Report, as also, the
Inquest Report constituted the first factual depiction of an
occurrence. These are of utmost importance. The evidence
produced by the prosecution during the course of trial, will
accordingly have to be evaluated along with the aforesaid G
reports conjointly to substantiate the credibility of the charges
levelled against the accused. During the course of hearing,
some salient facts which constituted the foundation for
establishing the prosecution version emerged. The first and the
foremost in the sequence of events, is the fact that Padmini H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 2 S.C.R.

A Devi is alleged to have gone to·the steps of the ghat after hc:1ving
_taken supper, for washing utensils. The second important.
feature of the prosecution story is the absence of a gold
necklace from around the neck of Padmini Devi, and six gold
bangles worn by her on her left arm. Gold earrings worn by the
B deceased Padmini Devi were found intact on her ears. The
third facet is the factum of the state of body of deceased
Padmini Devi. The prosecution version is that Padmini Devi
was first smothered and thereafter drowned. Thereby inferring
murder, as against death by accidental drowning. The fourth
c component of the prosecution case was the presenc:e of
Madhu-accused no.1 and Sibi-accused no.2 in the vicinity of
the place of occurrence at or around the time of occurrence on
the fateful day i.e., on 8.5.1998. The final and the clinching basis
for establishing the guilt of the accused were the confessional
D statements made by Madhu-accused no.1, i.e., the appE~llant
herein, on 13.5.1998 (Exhibit P-10) to P.J. Thomas P\N21,
Circle Inspector of Police that he had wrapped six gold bangles
belonging to Padmini Devi, in an old plastic paper, and had
hidden them under the earth near the field on the southern side
of his house. He offered that if he was taken to his hous1e, he
E could produce the bangles. Likewise, is the confessional
statement of Sibi-accused no.2 (Exhibit P-9) recorded on
13.5.1998 by PJ Thomas PW21, Circle Inspector of Police, that
he had wrapped the gold chain of Padmini Devi, in a plastic
paper, and had kept the same inside a "chadjan leaf of a
F coconut tree, standing on the eastern side of his house. He
further stated, that he could show the coconut tree and produce
the chain. Consequent upon the aforesaid confessional
statements, (Exhibits P-10 and P-9 respectively), the police
recovered the gold chain as also the six gold bangle!s on
G 13.5.1998 at the instance of the accused. These ornaments
came to be identified as the necklace and bangles worn by the
deceased Padmini Devi.

10. The evidence produced by the prosecution also falls
H in different compartments. One set of witnesses were
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1005
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

produced to establish the search conducted for the recovery A
of the body of the deceased Padmini Devi on 8.5.1998. The
same set ofwitnesses deposed about the presence of utensils
on the steps of the ghat. The second set of witnesses was
produced by the prosecution to establish the presence of
Madhu-accused no.1 and Sibi-accused no.2, near the place of B
occurrence, at or around the time of occurrence on the fateful
day i.e., on 8.5.1998. The third set of witnesses deposed about
the recovery of the missing gold ornaments, at the instance of
. the accused. Besides the aforesaid three sets of witnesses,
the prosecution examined Dr.Radhakrishnan, Principal, Medical c
College, Alappuzha as PW20. Dr.Radhakrishnan had
conducted the post mortem examination of the body of the
deceased. The only other witness whose statement was
recorded was PJ Thomas PW21, the then Circle Inspector of
Police, whose statement was recorded to show the course and D .
process of investigation. , ...
·~ , 1 · , 1~~ .~. r
11. Since the prosecution cendeavoured to establish tthe
• ' - • •_ .
........ ~.. < --

crime on the basis of circumstantial.,evidence, it shall. be
necessary for us to record a bird's eye view. pf the statements .
of witnesses produced by th~ pros~~~tior}. ': . :.. : . , ·~ rj -E

First and foremost"'the·~ pros·ecuHo"n · produc'e'd
Purushotharna Kurup as PW1 .~Puru~llothama Kurup, 'depdse'ci
that he had recorded trye Firl?t lnformatiop Report, He also
asserted, that he had called the husband of the deceased F
Ayyappa Kurup (PW2) on telephone, to infornfhimthat Padmini
Devi was missing. Puru§hot~ema Kurtip PVIJ~ als.o deposed,
that on being informed that P,admini Devi was missing, he1had
reached the house of th~ deqe~·s~~, andparticipated in -her
search. PW1 in his cro§.s.~exami_n~tion)~epo~~d, t~at he ha9 _G
seen utensils, some of which were washed, and some were · ·
unwashed, at the upper,stepJeading to the field, even though
it was acknowledged, that he had 'not made any statement to
the aforesaid effect to the police. Purushothama Kurup' PW1
in his deposition also narrated the fact, that a gold chain of H
1 .j If
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A "thara" fashion weighing about 5-1/2 sovereigns and six gold
bangles were missing when the dead body of Padamini Devi
was recovered. In his cross-examination he affirmed that he had
made the aforesaid assertion, on the basis of the statement
made by the deceased's husband Ayyappa Kurup (PW2), after
B the dead body of the deceased was recovered.
'' The statement of the husband of the deceased Ayyappa
Kurup (PW2) recorded before the Sessions Court reveals, that
both the accused Madhu and Sibi were known to him as they .
were his neighbours. He affirmed that on 13.5.1998, P.J.
C Thomas PW21, Circle Inspector of Police, brought the acc:used
to his residence at about 6 p.m. The police party showed him
six gold bangles, five of which were hand-cut whereas om~ was
machine made. The police also showed him the recovered gold
necklace. Ayyappa Kurup PW2 identified the recovered gold
D ornaments, as the ones which were worn by the deceased
Padmini Devi around her neck and left arm. PW2 did not
depose about the gold earrings worn by the deceased Padmini
Devi, which were found on her ears at the time of recov1:lry of
her dead body. Ayyappa Kurup asserted during the course of
E his cross examination, that he had seen the utensils at the ghat,
and that, the same had been taken and restored to the house,
and were available at his residence.

Aushutosh, son of the deceased Padmini Devi was
F examined as PW3. He asserted, that the accused Madhu and
Sibi were known to him. He confirmed that utensils were found
lying on the eastern ghat when the search for his mother
Padmini Devi was carried out. Like his father, he also identified
the recovered ornaments on 13.5.1998, when the police party
G produced the same along with the accused at their residence .
. Ambily, the daughter of the deceased Padmini Devi
deposed as PW4. She confirmed having spoken to her brother
ove.r the telephone, whereupon, her brother Aushuthosh PW3 .
who had been sleeping, went out in search of his mother
H Padmini Devi, and found her missing. PW4 asserted that she
MAOHU v. STJ,1.TE OF KERALA 1007
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

had reached her parents house, after she had received a call A
informing her that her mother was missing. She also asserted
that as usual, her mother had gone to wash utensils at the field.
She also deposed that her mother's gold chain and six bangles
were missing when her dead body was recovered.
B
Vijayalakshmi was produced by the prosecution as PWS.
Vijayalakshmi deposed that the deceased Padmini Devi, as
also, both the accused Madhu and Sibi were known to her, as
they were residing in her neighbourhood. Vijayalakshmi had
joined the search party when Padmini Devi was found missing. C
In her statement she deposed that she had gone to the ghat
on the fateful day, where she had seen two/three utensils. She
asserted that the utensils were lying on the steps of tbe ghat.
She further asserted that some of the utensils were~washed
while some were still unwashed. She asserted that the
deceased was her aunt, and that, the golden necklace and the D
golden bangles worn by her aunt were missing when her body
was recovered. She however acknowledged, that her aunt was
still wearing the golden earrings when her body was recovered.

It would be relevant to indicate here, that all the aforesaid E
witnesses (PW1 to PWS) were primarily associated with the
search and recovery of the body of deceased Padmini Devi
as also, to support the prosecution version that Padmini Devi
had gone out of the house to wash utensils at the ghat, on the
fateful day. All these witnesses also deposed about the F
missing gold ornaments, namely, a gold chain and six gold
bangles.

12. The next set of witnesses produced by the prosecution
was to establish the presence of accused Madhu and Sibi
close to the scene of occurrence at or around the time of G
occurrence on 8.5.1998, as well as, matters associated
therewith.

The first witness produced for the aforesaid purpose was
Kamalama PW6. Kamalama in her deposition asserted, that H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A the accused Madhu and Sibi had come to her residence at
about 8.30 p.in. on 8.5.1998 as it was raining heavily at that
time. She asserted that she had served two plantains ea1ch to
the accused. As per the statement' of Kamalama PWE>, the
accused had come to her house to borrow an umbrella. In her
B statement she also deposed, that both the accused were
intoxicated and were smelling of liquor. She stated that the
accused left her house when the rain subsided.

Madhu, a labourer appeared as PW7. Relevant part of the
statement of Madhu PW7 needs to be extracted herein. The
C same is therefore reproduced hereunder:

. "I ·swam from the eastern bank of the boat jetty to its
northern bank. It should have been 9.30 p.m. then. I swam
by taking out by shirt and keeping it aloft. A person was
D seen walking from the Western side and turning to the
North. I identified him as A-2 in the light of my torch. I asked.
whether he is Sibi. Saying that he is Sibi, he walked
towards South. While I walked away and reached on the
West of the shutter of Kuttachi's chira, a person was seen
E coming flashing torch-light towards East. On reachin!~ near
me, I identified him as A-1. I asked him whether he was
swimming. A-1 told me that it is so. He also added that
he is a little intoxicated and that he swam and got into the
Karumuppathu ghat. A-1 was wearing a kyli rnundu
F (dhothi). The dhoti was wet. There was a country-boat in .
the Karumuppathu ghat. A-1 told me that if I am to proceed
to that jetty, I can cross to the other side. Witness identified
both the accused persons. A-1 proceeded toward!; East
and I went to my house."

G Besides the aforesaid, Madhu PW7 also deposed about the
recovery of gold ornaments at the instance of accused Madhu .
and Sibi. He asserted that a golden necklace was recc1vered
from a palm tree at the instance of Sibi-accused no.2, from the
compound of his residence, whereas, six gold bangles were
H recovered from under the earth at the instance of Madhu-
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1009
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

accused no.1 from the compound of his residence. In his cross A
examination he asserted that the death of the deceased
Padmini Devi was not natural as the gold ornaments worn by
her were missing. It was however clarified by him, that the fact
that ornaments worn by the deceased Padmini Devi were
missing came to his notice on account of an assertion made B
to the aforesaid effect by Ayyappa Kurup PW2. His statement
relating to his having seen the accused close to the place of
occurrence on 8.5.1998, emerges from his cross-examination
which is being extracted hereunder:

"When it was found that ornaments were missing, it was
c
suspected that it should have been a case of murder. I
realized that the ornaments were missing when PW.2 told
about it. I did not tell them that I had seen the accused
persons (on 8.5.1998). I was summoned to appear before
the Police Station on 12.~.1998 at 8.00 a.m. A constable D
came to my house on the. 11th and asked me to come to
the Police Station .... I am speaking about this for the first
. time in Court. Raju is staying just near my house. I swam
ashore. At that time, it should have been 9.30 p.m. which
fact I did not tell the Police. I had also not told the Police E
that I had removed my dress and kept it aloft while .
swimming.

Q. Are you not speaking about this also for the first time
in Court? F

A. Yes.
The person whom I saw first, proceeded to the West and
then turned to the South. I had not stated during the chief-
examination that he turned to the North." G

It is also important to extract herein the cross-examination of
Madhu PW7 on his incidental presence, which led to his having
sighted the accused Madhu and Sibi, close to the place of
occurrence: H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A "To swam ashore some 4/5 minutes are enough. Until I
swam ashore and saw the 2nd accused I did not meet
anybody else. I was walking by flashing the torch-light.
When I got down after the turning, and flashed the torch, I
identified the person: The turning is on the East of the
B Shutter, which is on the East of Kuttachi Chira, and on the
West of the Narayanan Achari. A-2 came from thei West
, and turned to the South. I saw him come 15 feet away. I
had seen very clearly. I did not notice the colour of thE~ dress
of A-2. He was wearing a kyli mundu (dhothi), is what I
c remember. I did not care to notice whether his dress was
wet. I asked him whether he is Sibi. He was walking.

Q. Did he try to run away?

A. No. He walked speedily.
D
I had not told the Police tha.t he had walked speedily. I had
not told the Police how I was able to identify Sibi. There
are inmates in the house of Narayanan Achari. Sibi did not .
stand there talking to me. After answering me tha1t he is
Sibi, he proceeded towards South. Within two/three
E
minutes I saw A-1. I saw A-1, some 20 feet on tht3 West
of fhe shutter. Both had not come there together. One was
proceeding from behind and the other was walking in front.
I saw A-1 some 30 feet away from the place when3 I saw
A-2. My dress was not wet. I was walking along by wearing
F dhoti and shirt. A-1 asked me whether I was swimming. I
told I was swimming. It seems that the dhoti worn by A-1
was of blue colour. I had not told the Police about thei colour
of that dhoti."

G It would be relevant to mention that Madhu PW7 also deposed
the presence of utensils on the steps of the ghat. In his
statement he affirmed, that he had seen one utensil on the
upper step and one utensil on the lower step of the ghat. In
response to cross-examination he stated, that he had not made
H ~statement in connection with the utensils on the ghat, because
. MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1011
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

he was not questioned in connection therewith by the police. A
· His presence, at the time of recovery of the gold ornaments at
the instance of accused Madhu and Sibi, is also relevant. The
same is also accordingly being extracted hereunder:

"I went for work on 13th at 7.30 a.m. In the afternoon, I
8
reached my house at about 2.30 p.m. I had gone back
home on coming to learn that the accused will be brought
there around 4.00 p.m. I do not remember who told me so.
A lot of people had gone to the Jetty. Seeing this, I too
proceeded there.
c
Q. Did the people know that the accused will be brought
there and there will be recovery or seizure of ornaments?

A. I do not know about it.

I had not told the Police that as people were seen
o·
proceeding to the Jetty, I too proceeded there. I had told
the.Police that I heard it said by Sibi to the Police that the
ornaments are hidden under the cadjan leaf."

Madhu PW7 also deposed that he remained present when the E
recovery of the gold necklace was made at the behest of Sibi-
accused no.2, and also thereafter, when the recovery of six gold
bangles were made at the behest of Madhu-accused no.1.

Rajankutty was produced by the prosecution as PW8. He F
deposed that he was the Manager of the Toddy Shop from
where Madhu-accused no.1 and Sibi-accused no.2, had
purchased one bottle of toddy each at 8.00 p.m. on the fateful
day, i.e., 8.5.1998.

Sasseendran Nair was produced by the prosecution as PW9. G
He deposed that he had seen the accused close to the place
of occurrence on the fateful day. He also deposed that he had
left the house of Chandrasekhara Kurup PW10 at 9 p.m. on
8.5.1998, when the electricity was restored after the power cut.
He stated that when he reached near the bridge on the western H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20t?J 2 S.C.R.

A side of the house of Ayyappa Kurup PW2, he had seen a
person ascending the bridge, and then proceeding to the
eastern bank. He had also seen another person following him
and going towards the east. The first person he had noticed
was Sibi-accused no.2, whereas the person who followed Sibi
B was Madhu-accused no.1. The cross-examination of PW9, in
connection with his having sighted the accused is significant,
relevant extract thereof is accordingly reproduced hereunder:

"I first met Sibi. I saw Sibi standing under the bridge. Each of
the accused persons were seen 'crossing the bridge from the
C · Western bank to the Eastern bank. I had told the Police that I
saw (these persons) crossing the b~idge from Western bank
to the Eastern bank.

Q. Why is it not been noted by the Police?
D
A. May be, the Police had not noted it down.
I have not stated that one person alone was seen getting
down to the Eastern bank. I had not stated that then one
person crossed over the bridge from Western bank and
E descended on the Eastern bank. Marked Ext.D-3. They
were seen turning towards North.

Q. Did you notice any one standing there?

A. I did not see.
F
I had told the Police that a person along with another came
there and turned to the North. What I had seen was both
the accused going together towards the North. I had not
noted one person standing there and turning to the North
G along with another. I had not told the Police what was the
dress worn by the accused persons or the colour of their
dress. I have not told anybody else about my having met
the accused persons there. I am speaking about it for the
first time in Court. I had told the Police about this.
H
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1013
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

Q. I put it to you that you had not noticed the accused A
persons on that day and that due to influence brought to
bear upon by Chandrasekhara Kurup, you are speaking
about what you had not Personally seen?

A. I had only spoken the truth.". B
13. The next set of witnesses deposed mainly on the
subject of recovery and identification of the stolen gold
ornaments and matters associated therewith.

Chandrasekhara Kurup appeared before the Sessions Court C
as PW10. The deceased Padmini Devi was described by him
as the wife of his younger brother Ayyappa Kurup PW2.
Chandrasekhara Kurup PW10 deposed about the presence of
utensils lying on the steps of the ghat. He also deposed, that
he had not only participated in the search but had also gathered D
people to find Padmini Devi. He asserted that he was present
when the dead body of Padmini Devi was found. He confirmed
the presence of earrings on the person of Padmini Devi. He
also deposed about the missing gold chain and gold bangles.
He asserted that he could identify the gold chain, as also, the E
gold bangles if they were shown to him. Accordingly, he
identified the gold chain and bangles recovered at the instance
of the accused, during the course of his deposition.

Neelakantan Nair appeared as PW11. His deposition was
primarily in respect of recovery of the gold chain and the golden F
bangles at the instance of accused Madhu and Sibi. His
presence at the time of recovery of ornaments, as deposed
during the course of his cross-examination, has an important
bearing on the controversy, the same is accordingly being
reproduced hereunder: G

"On the afternoon of 13th, I learnt that the accused persons
have been apprehended. I learnt it from the people in the
locality. I learnt that the accused persons, who had
murdered the teacher, have been arrested. In the morning
H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A itself, it was heard it said that the accused persons will be
brought there for recovering the thondy articles. I had told
the Police that on 13.05.1998 after my lunch at noon, when
I was resting at my house, on coming to know that the
Police are coming with the accused persons, who had
B murdered Omana Te.acher, and that the stolen gold I
ornaments will be recovered, I came to the side of the Boat 1

Jetty, well before 4.00 p.m. A big crowd had assembled '
at the boat jetty. It was widely known that the stolen: booty
of gold ornaments will be recovered. All those assembled
c there were knowing about this. The Police arrived around
4.15 p.m. along with the accused persons. There were two
accused persons. The police took A-2, to A-2 housE~. I too
followed them. By about 4.20 p.m. we reacheid the
residence of A-2 .... After leaving the residence of A-2, the
police along with A-2 boarded the boat. It should have.
D
been 5.00 p.m. at that time. They proceeded from~.there
towards West, to the house of A-1. They reached A-1 's
house, around 5.15 p.m. They got down in front of the house
of A-1 in the boat. I had walked from the house of A-2 to
the residence of A-1. Police and A-1 at first reached the
E house of A-1. I heard the Police asking Madhu about the
thondy articles. I have not given a statement to the Police
that I had heard about this. Madhu dug up the spot with
his own hands and took out the packet."
'
F S. Uthaman appeared as PW12. At the relevant time he was
the Village Officer of Veliyanad Village. He had prepar•ed the
site plan of the scene of occurrence on the directions of the
Circle Inspector of Police, P.J. Thomas PW21. His statement
is formal and needs no further elaboration.
G
Gopinathan was produced by the prosecution as PW13. He
wais produced to establish the recovery of gold chain at the
instance of Sibi-accused no.2. In fact he was asked to climb
the coconut tree pointed out by Sibi-accused no.2. He brought
down the gold chain. His cross-examination on the instant issue
H
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1015
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

is relevant to determine the validity of the confessional A
statements made by accused Madhu and Sibi (vide Exhibits
P-10 and P-9 respectively). Relevant portion from the cross-
examination of PW13 is being reproduced hereunder:

"Q. When did you come to know that the accused persons
B
are coming to recover the gold ornaments?

A. I knew it at 4.45 p.m.

On the 13th May, 1998, while I was sitting at my house, I
learnt that the police party is coming along with accused c
persons. I had gone to Kumarangary Boat Jetty, coming
to know that the accused persons are arriving. The police
arrived there along with accused persons after 4.00 in the
afternoon. They had come there after I reached there. A
large crowd had gathered at the place. There was D
information available by noon that the police party is
coming with the accused persons. I had not noticed the
arrival of the Police with accused persons. I saw A-2
leading with the police party behind him."

Ramesh appeared before the Sessions Court as PW14. He E
was the goldsmith summoned by the investigating agency to
examine the gold ornaments and to indicate the purity thereof
as also the weight of the recovered ornaments. His deposition
being formal needs no further elaboration.
F
14. The remaining witnesses from PW15 to PW19 made
statements on different aspects of the matters. Some of them
were formal witnesses.

Chacko appeared before the Sessions Court as PW15. He
was associated with the search of Padmini Devi. He affirmed G
that on the recovery of the body of Padmini Devi, Ayyappa
Kurup PW2 had asserted that the gold chain around her neck,
and the gold bangles on her left arm were missing. He also
deposed, that he had seen utensils on the eastern ghat at the
time of sear.ch. For the present controversy his staii::ment in H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A respect of recovery of gold ornaments for the purposes of
determining the admissibility of the confessional statements
made by accused Madhu and Sibi is relevant. A relevant extract
of his statement is accordingly being reproduced hereunder:

"The accused were arrested at 2.30 p.m. on the 13th, was
B
what I heard. After reaching the Block Jetty around 4.00
p.m. that day, the accused were taken by the Police to the
house of A-2. There was a large crowd to witness this. I
too went there. After pointing out the coconut tree standing
on the East of A-2's house, A-2 told the C.I. that thei gold
c is deposited on the 3rd step. C.I. asked him to go up and
bring the gold. A-2 said that he was unable to do as he
was tired and feeling unwell. C.I. then asked those
assembled there as to who will go up the tree and bring
. the gold. Gopinathan brought the ladder which was kept
D slanting at the house of A-2 and with the help of the l~idder,
went up and brought down by the Western side of the
coconut tree, a green plastic packet and handed it over
·to C.I. It was seen that he was taking it out from thie 3rd
step. C.I. took out the gold chain and showed it all. Witness
E identified M.O. 1 chain. This itself is the Plastic cover. A
goldsmith appraised the ornament to see whether it i1s real
gold. He also gave the name of the fashion. He said it is
'Kattithara' fashion. A mahazar was prepared. I am a
witness to the Mahazar. I have affixed my signatuire on
F . Ext.P-5."

The statement of Chacko PW15 reiterates the factual position
recorded in the statements of other witnesses including
Gopnathan PW13 and Ramesh PW14. During the course of
G their cross-examination they acknowledged that they had been
the part of search team. They confirmed that at the ghat he had
seen utensils on the steps. They asserted in their c:ross-
examination, that all the people in the locality had assembled
in the courtyard of the house of Sibi-accused no.2 before the
police arrived, as the police was expected to bring the accused
H
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1017
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

to effect recovery of the stolen gold ornaments. A

Karthikeyan Nair appeared before the Sessions Court as
PW16. He was also a member of the search party associated
for finding Padmini Devi. He reiterated the position in respect
of the presence of the utensils at the bathing ghat. He confirmed -8
that the utensils were still there when the police arrived at the
scene.

Sivan was produced by the prosecution as PW17. He and his
nephew Saboo were part of search team. In fact they were
summoned to search out Padmini Devi from the water in the C
paddy fields. He deposed, that when they found Padmini Devi
from under the water in the paddy fields, she was already dead.
He also deposed, that the gold chain and bangles of Padmini
Devi were missing. In his statement he asserted that he did not
·know whether when the body of Padmini Devi was recovered, D
she had earrings. He also stated, that he had no information
about the loss of any earrings. He acknowledged his presence
at the time of preparation of the inquest report. He denied
having noticed utensils at the ghat. He asserted that the depth
of the water at the place from where the body of Padmini Devi E
was recovered was about 2-1 /2 feet. He clarified that the depth
of the water was upto his waist.

Baby C. George appeared as PW18. He is a formal witness .

. Likewise K.D. Sivamony PW19, Sub Inspector of Police was F:'
also a formal witness who deposed in connection with the
recording of the First Information Report, and its dispatch to the
court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, as also, the JFMC.

15. Dr. Radhakrishnan was examined as PW20. He G
conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of
Padmini Devi on 9.5.1998 between 4 and 5 p.m. His
deposition was in consonance with the injuries depicted by him
in the post mortem certificate dated 9.5.1998. He described
the following injuries on the body of the deceased:
H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A "INJURIES ANTEMORTEM

1. Contusion with minute superficial laceration on the
mucosal part of lower lip corresponding to the right lateral
incisor and canine teeth.
B 2. Linear abraded contusion on the whole of the right
ear lobe just in front of the old ear lobule perforation .

3. Linear graze abrasions over an area 7x5 cm on the
•outer aspect of left leg its upper border being 13 ems
c below the knee placed obliquely outwards and upwards."

Besides the aforesaid his other findings were recorded as
under:

'The soft tissue and cartilages of the neck and the hyoid
D bone were intact. The trachea and bronchi contained blood
stained froth. A few particles of fine sand found sticking ·
. on to the inner aspect of trachea. The right and left llung
·weighed 515 and 485 gms respectively. Both lungs were
congested and edematous and crepitus and the.ir cut
E sections exuded copious blood stained frothy fluid. The
valves and chambers of the heart were normal and the
coronary arteries were patent. The stomach was full and
contained 1.2 litre softened rice and vegetables in a watery
fluid medium without any peculiar smell. The uteirus
F measured 7.5x6x2.5 ems in size its os closed and cavity
empty. The valva and vagina were intact. All the other
internal organs of the abdomen were normal but
congested. Sheaths of brain and brain matter were intact.
Skeletal system did not show any injury. Blood visc13ra,
G vaginal swab were collected and preserved for laboratory
examination. Diatom test done with the bone marrow :and
the sample of water from the alleged site of immersion of
the body was negative. Opinion as to cause of death -
Postmortem findings are consistent with death from
drowning. This is the postmortem certificate issued by me
H
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1019
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

which bears my signature and seal. Marked Ext.P7. The A
deceased died within a short time after the last meal. There
is no signs of any sexual assault. Finger nails were bluish,
shows died due to lack of oxygen in the blood. Injuries 1
& 2 could be due to the application of blunt force at that
part of the body. Injury numbers 1 & 2 could be produced B
due to the attempt of smothering. Cardio-vascular system
appeared normal. Keeping a person submerged in water
forcibly need not produce any injury. Time required for
death may vary. But death can occur within 2 to 3 minutes.
There was no smell suggestive of poisoning in the C
stomach contents."

During the course of his cross-examination he asserted that
injury nos.1 and 2 depicted by him in his examination-in-chief,
could be due to attempted smothering. Even though he clarified
by asserting that injury nos.1 and 2 are possible if a person falls D
and during the course of that fall the right side of the face comes
. in contact with a rough hard surface. It was also stated by him
during his cross-examination, that all the injuries suffered by the
deceased Padmini Devi, were superficial in nature.
E
16. P.J. Thomas, Circle Inspector of Police, appeared as
PW21 was the last witness to be examined by the prosecution.
He deposed about the course of investigation carried out by
him. His deposition in respect of the arrest of the Madhu-
accused no.1 and Sibi-accused no.2, as also, the confessional
F
statements made by them is relevant, and is accordingly being
reproduced hereunder:

"On 13.05.1998 at 1.00 p.m. in the afternoon, Madhu (A-
1) was arrested near at the Boat Jetty at Valadi. Same day
at 1.30 p.m. Sibi (A-2) was arrested from near the Toddy G
shop at Valady. They were questioned lawfully and their
statements were recorded. A-1 and A-2 admitted/
confessed about the commission of crime. When A-2 Sibi
was questioned, he said "The (gold) chain I have packed
in an old plastic paper and have kept it hidden at the top H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A of the coconut tree standing on the East of my residential
house. If I am taken there, I shall point out the coconut tree
where I had deposited the chain as well as the gold chain".
i Confession statement is marked as Ext.P9. On questioning
A-1, he confessed :"Six bangles after having packEid them
B in a plastic paper, I have kept hidden under the soil/ earth
on the South of my residential house, adjoining the~ field. If
I am taken there, I shall take them out and deliVE!r it." A-
1's confession statement is marked as Ext.P10 .... The
confession statement from the accused persons was
recorded in between 2.00 and 2.30 p.m. The statements
c were recorded separately. It was A-1 's statement that was
recorded first. It was recorded then and therEi. A-2's
confession statement was recorded at about 2.4!5 p.m."

It is significant to notice, that the presence of utensils were not
D depicted in the inquest report. In consonance with his inquest
report, when questioned about the presence of utensils at the
place of occurrence, PW21 categorically asserted, that there
were no utensils either at the ghat or at the steps to the paddy
fields. On the issue of earrings on the person of the body of
E the deceased at the time of preparation of the inquest report
his statement is of some interest, and is accordingly being
reproduced hereunder:

"The ear-rings were removed from the ears of the dead
body by the Policemen who were assisting mie at the
F
inquest. The\thondy (material) objects seized in a case
would be produced before the Court, the Court will direct
those M.Os. to be kept in the Station after entering them
. in the Sentry Leaf Book; the ear-rings and M.0 . 3 series
have not been entered in the Sentry Book.
G
Q. When were the ear-rings handed back to the nalatives?

A. P.W.2 got back the ear-rings on 11.6.1998. He came
to the Station and took them back. Until then these ear-
H rings were kept by the Writer towhom they were entrusted.
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1021
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

Q. Are there records to show that they were kept in the A
Station?

A. No records are there."

The prosecution closed its evidence after recording the
statement of P.J. Thomas (PW21), Circle Inspector of Police. 8

17. The most significant issue in the present controversy
is the veracity of the confessional statements made by the
accused Madhu and Sibi before P.J. Thomas PW21, Circle
Inspector of Police on 13.5.1998. It is evident that the aforesaid C
statements were made by the accused before a police officer
while the accused were in custody of the police. Section 25 of
the Indian Evidence Act postulates that a confession made by
an accused to a police officer cannot be proved against him.
Additionally, Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act stipulates o
that a confession made by an accused while in police custody
cannot be proved against him. It is evident from the factual
position narrated hereinabove, that the statements made by the
accused Madhu and Sibi were made to a police officer while
the accused were in police custody. It is, therefore, apparent E
that in terms of the mandate of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian
Evidence Act, the said statements could not be used against
accused Madhu and Sibi. But then, there is an exception to the
rule provided for by Sections 25 and 26 aforesaid, under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Indian
F
Evidence Act is being extracted hereunder:

"27. How much of information received from accused may
be proved - Provided that, when any fact is deposed to
as discovered in consequence of information received
from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a G
police officer, so much of such information, whether it
amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the
fact thereby discovered, may be proved."

As an exception, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 2 S.C.R.

A provides that a confessional statement made to a police officer
or while an accused is in police custody, can be proved against
him, if the same leads to the discovery of an unknown fact. The
rationale of Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act is,
that police may procure a confession by coercion or threat. The
s exception postulated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act is applicable only if the confessional statement leads to the
discovery of some new fact. The relevance under the exception
postulated by Section 27 aforesaid, is limited "... as it relates
distinctly to the fact thereby discovered .... ". The ratiionale
c b~hind Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is, that thEi facts
in question would have remained unknown but for the
disclosure of the same by the accused. Discovery of facts itself,
therefore, substantiates the truth of the confessional state!ment.
And since it is truth that a court must endeavour to search,
Section 27 aforesaid has been incorporated as an exoeption .
0
to the mandate contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian
Evidence Act.

18. We shall now endeavour to apply the excoption
postulated in Section 27 of the Indian Evidenoe Act, to tho facts
E of the present controversy, in order to determine whether or not
the confessional statements made by Madhu-accusecl no.1
vide Exhibit P-10, and Sibi-accused no.2 vide Exhibit P-!9, can
be proved against them in view of the exception stipulated in
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. As already n1Jticed
F hereinabove, relevance of the confessional statements would
depend on the discovery of facts based on the information
supplied by the accused. If any fresh facts have been
discovered on the basis of the confessional statement made
by the accused, the same would be relevant. If not, the
G confessional statement cannot be proved against the acc:used,
to the detriment of the accused. We have extracted the relevant
portion of the statement of P.J. Thomas PW21, Circle Inspector
of Police hereinabove. It reveals that Madhu-accused no.1 was
arrested on 13.5.1998 at 1 p.m. from near the boat-je!tty at
H Valadi. On the same day, Sibi-accused no.2 was arrested from

. ',,·
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1023
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

near a toddy shop at Valadi at 1.30 p.m. It is thereupon, that A
the confessional statements of accused Madhu and Sibi came
to be recorded. In his cross-examination P.J. Thomas PW21
has acknowledged, that the confessional statements of the
accused persons were recorded between 2 and 2.45 p.m. It
was sought to be clarified, that the confessional statement of 8
Madhu-accused no.1 was recorded first, and thereafter, the
confessional statement of Sibi-accused no.2 came to be
recorded. As against aforesaid, we would like to refer to the
statements made by Madhu PW?, Neelakantan Nair PW11,
Gopinathan PW13 and Chacko PW15. Madhu PW?, during the C
course of his cross-examination, stated that he had left for his
work on 13.5.1998 at 7.30 a.m. He further stated that he
returned back from his work and reached his residence at 2.30
p.m. In so far as his return from work is concerned, in his
examination-in-chief he stated that he would ordinarily return
back from work only around 9 p.m. at night. The reason for his 0
return back early on 13.5.1998 was explained by stating, that
he had come to know that the accused would be brought to their
residences at around 4 p.m. for the recovery of the stolen gold
articles. He also asserted, that just like him, a lot of people had
gathered at the jetty to witness the recovery and seizure of the E
stolen ornaments. The statement of Madhu PW? clearly
establishes that he came to know that the police would effect
recovery well before 2.30 p.m. Therefore, as an exception to
his coming home from work late in the night, he had reached
his residence at 2.30 p.m. Likewise, the statement of F
Neelakantan Nair PW11 reveals, that in the morning itself, ~n
the date of arrest of the accused i.e., on 13.5.1998 he had
heard, that the accused persons would be brought for recovery
of the stolen articles. He further stated, that a large crowd had
gathered to witness the recovery of the stolen articles, and that, G
he also witnessed the recovery of stolen articles. He reiterated,
that just like him all those who were assembled there were
aware that the police would bring the accused there for recovery
of the stolen articles. Gopinathan PW13 acknowledged, that
there was information available by "noon" that the police party H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A would come along with the accused to recover the stolen
articles. It is, therefore, that he had gone to witness the recovery _
of the stolen articles. Even Chacko PW15 while deposing
before the Sessions Court asserted that a large crowd had
gathered to witness the recovery of the stolen articles at the
8 house of the accused. The statements of PW7, PW11, P'N13
and PW15, narrated (and relevant portions extracted)
hereinabove, clearly lead to the positive conclusion that the fact
that the stolen articles would be recovered from the premises
of the accused was known before the accused were brought
C to the recovery site. These witnesses, as also the crowd
present, were aware of the said factual position at around "noon"
(as per statement of Gopinath PW13) but definitely before 2.30
p.m, (as per the statement of Madhu-PW7). But according to
PJ Thomas (PW21 ), the confessional statements .were
recorded between 2 and 2.45 p.m. The question to be
D determined is whether the confessional statements made by
the accused (vide Exhibit P-9 and P-10) can be said to have
led to the discovery of an unknown fact? The answer to the
aforesaid query has to be in the negative, because the
statements of PW7, PW11, PW13 and PW15 reveal that the
E factual position in respect of the recovery of the articles from
the place from where the same were shown to have been
eventually recovered, was known to the public at large by noon
(and certainly before 2.30 p.m.) i.e., well before the confes1~ional
statements had been recorded. As per the deposition of P.J.
F Thomas (PW21 ), Circle Inspector of Police, " ... A-2's
confession statement was recorded at about 2.45 p.rn .... ".
Interestingly, the public had become aware of the recov•~ry by
"noon", whereas, Madhu-accused no.1 was arrested at 1.00
p.m., and Sibi-accused no.2 was arrested at 1.30 p.m. and their
G confessional statements were recorded by the police after their
arrest. In the background of the aforesaid factual position, it is
not possible for us to conclude that the confessional statements
made by Madhu-accused no.1 vide Exhibit P-10 and Sibi-
accused no.2 vide Exhibit P-9, can be stated to have resulted
H in the discovery of any fresh facts. The factual position that
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1025
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

·recovery of stolen ornaments would be made by the police was A
· a matter of common knowledge well before the confessional
statements were made. The said statements recorded vide
Exhibits P-9 and P-10 are inadmissible inspite of the mandate
contained in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act for the
simple reason, that they cannot be stated to have resulted in B
the discovery of some new fact. In the factual background of
the present controversy, the gold ornaments which eventually
came to be recovered by the police, allegedly at the instance
of accused, may well have been planted by the police. On
account of the fact that the confessional statements made by c
Madhu-accused no.1 and Sibi-accused no.2, which is the main
linking factor in the circumstantial evidence of the prosecution
version of the controversy, being inadmissible as the same
cannot be proved against them, we are of the view that the
prosecution's case stands fully demolished; In view of
0
inadmissibility of evidence which was taken into consideration
by the Trial Court, as well as, the High Court to implicate the
accused with the commission of the offence alleged against
them, shall have to be reconsidered on the basis of the
remaining evidence.

19. The second significant conglomerate of evidence to
link the accused to the crime in question, is their alleged
presence at or around the place of occurrence. This evidence
emerges from the statements made by PW6 to PW9. The
prosecution, through these witnesses,. have endeavoured to F
demonstrate the presence of the accused, in the vicinity of the
place of occurrence, at around the time of occurrence.
According. to the prosecution the occurrence took place on
8.5.1998 at 9.20 p.m. According to the statement of Kamalama
PW6, the accused came to her house and asked for an umbrella G
as it was raining heavily. She offered two plantains each to both
the accused. The accused left her residence when the power
was restored at.9 p.m., after the power cut. She further stated
that both the accused were smelling of liquor and were under
the influence of liquor. According to PW6, after leaving her H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A house the accused turned left, i.e., towards the house of the
deceased Padmini Devi. The statement of Kamalama PW6,
to our mind, is wholly insignificant to connect the accuse:d with
the crime under reference. Madhu PW7 has given his version
of having seen the accused close to the place of occurrence.
s But the statement of PW7 which has been extracted
hereinabove is so unrealistic, that it is worthy of rejection without
recording any reasons. It is strange that Madhu PW7 mached
the embankment by swimming upto it since the last boat had
already left. He calims to have kept his clothes afloat ancl above
c the water while he was swimming through the water. It is,
therefore, that his clothes had remained dry. Even though, in
his statement, he asserted that" ... I identified him as A-2 in the
light of my torch ... ". He subsequently stated that a person was
seen coming, flashing a torchlight towards east, and that, he
was identified by Madhu PW7 as Madhu-accused no.1. As per
0
the said statement, the identification was made on the basis
of the torch held in the hands of Madhu-accused no.1. The
aforesaid contradiction is hard to digest. How PW7 retained
the torch in his hand in a dry condition, while swimming, has
not been explained. If he was holding his torch in one·hand and
E clothes in the other, it is difficult to understand how he swam
across the water. And if the accused himself was carrying the
torch, the light would not fall on his face, and in that situation,
the accused could not have been identified, because by then
F . it was past 9 p.m. These and other such like discn:!pancies,
when viewed closely, leave no room with us to accept the
credibility of the statement made by Madhu PW?. F!ajankutty
PW8 was the manager of Toddy Shop No.86 at Kuttanad. As
per the statement of PW8 both the accused purchasE~d a bottle
of toddy each, and after drinking the toddy, they left the toddy
G shop. This statement does not establish the presence of
accused at or near the place of occurrence. Even so, it
establishes the correctness of the statement of Kamalama
PW6, to the effect that the accused were smelling of liquor, and
were under the influence of liquor. Saseendran Nair 'PW9 is the
H only other witness produced by the prosecution to show the
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1027
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

presence of the accused close to the place of occurrence, at A
or around the time of occurrence, on 8.5.1998. The statement
made by Saseendran Nair PW9, during the course of his
.deposition before the Sessions Court, in connection with his
having seen the accused near the place of occurrence, had not
been disclosed by him even to the police during the course of B
investigation. In fact during the course of his cross-examination
he acknowledged " ... I have not told anybody-else about my
having met the accused persons there, I am speaking about it
for the first time in court ... ". In fact PW9 was working as a
labourer in the house of Chandrasekhara Kurup PW10. c
Sassendran Nair PW9 had not even disclosed the aforesaid
factual position to his employer Chandrasekhara Kurup PW10,
even though he must have known, that Chandrasekahara Kurup
was the elder brother of Ayyappa Kurup (husband of the
deceased Padmini Devi). In this situation it is difficult to
0
consider the statement of Saseendaran Nair PW9 as credible.
In view of the aforesaid evaluation of the statements of
witnesses examined by the prosecution, to establish the
presence of the accused, in close vicinity of the place of
occurrence, there remains no proved connection of the accused
E
with the accusations levelled against them. Even otherwise, in
our view the presence of the accused close to the residence
of Padmini Devi is inconsequential, because according to the
statement of Ayyappa Kurup PW2 (husband of the deceased
Padmini Devi) both the accused Madhu and Sibi were known
to him as they were his neighbours. Surely, presence close to F
ones own residence cannot be the basis for drawing an adverse
inference. We are therefore satisfied, that the statements of
PW6 to PW9, do not in any manner, further the case of the
prosecution.
G
20. There are other glaring discrepancies as well. A large ·
number of witnesses, referred to above, including
Purushothama Kurup PW1, Aushutosh PW3, Ambily PW4,
Vijayalakshmi PW5, Madhu PW7, Chandrasekhara Kurup
PW10, Gopinathan PW13, Ramesh PW14, Chacko PW15 H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S C.R.

A and Karthikeyan Naik PW16, deposed, that they had seen
utensils lying on the steps of the ghat. Some of the witnesses
had gone further to explain, that some of the utensils were
washed whereas some were still to be washed. Obviously,
these statements were made by the witnesses so as to support
B the prosecution version mentioned in the charge-sheet, wherein
it was projected that Padmini Devi had gone out to the steps
of the ghat after taking the supper meal, to wash the dirty
utensils. The inquest report (Exhibit P-3), a translated version
whereof was made available for our consideration, does not
C disclose the presence of any utensils at the ghat. In conjunction
with the aforesaid, it is relevant to notice, that during the
deposition of P.J. Thomas PW21, Circle Inspector of Police,
who carried out the investigation ih the case, he categorically
asserted (in response to a pointed question posed to him), that
D when he reached the ghat there were no utensils. He further
stated, that none of the witnesses told him, that there were
utensils at the ghat or on the steps leading to the paddy fields.
The absence of any evidence supporting the prosecution case
depicting the reason for Padmini Devi to go out of her house
at late hours in the night, so as to be found alone by the
E accused, reveals the lack of evidence to project the prosecution
version reflected in the charge-sheet. But more than that, is the
contradiction in the statements of PW1, PW3, PW4, PVVS,
PW7, PW10 and PW13 to PW16 on the one hand, and the
statement of PW21 coupled with the.details mentioned in the
F inquest report on the other. The genesis of the crime should
ordinarily emerge from the inquest report specially when it is
in respect of a patent fact. If utensils were actually at the ghat,
the mention thereof could not have been left out therefrom. This
would be so even if the inquest report had been prepared with
G half the seriousness required in its preparation. A perusal of
the inquest report reveals that the same was painstakingly
recorded, and even minute details have been recorded there1in.
It is difficult to state which of the two sides has deposed
correctly and/or which one of them has deposed falsely. All the
H same, the instant aspect of the deposition creates a serious
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1029
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

doubt about the credibility of the evidence on the instant factual A
aspect, irrespective of the significance thereof in proving the
charges. ·

21. Additionally, the charge"sheet pointedly records that
Madhu-accused no.1, caught hold of the plated hair and neck B
of Padmini Devi, and Sibi-accused no.2 caught hold of her feet,
and forcibly dragged her into the water and suffocated her
thereby cause her death by drowning. This factual position
remained unproved as not a single prosecution witness narrated
the said factual position, so as to establish the manner in which C
Padmini Devi came to be drowned by the accused Madhu and
Sibi. This issue has been examined from a different
perspective in the next paragraph.

22. It is also essential to properly analyse the statement
of Dr.Radhakrishnan PW20. Dr. Radhakrishnan had expressed D
in the post mortem certificate dated 9.5.1998, and he had
affirmed during the course of his deposition before the Sessions
Court, that the death of Padmini Devi had been caused by
drowning. The fact that she had been smothered first and
thereafter drowned by the accused Madhu and Sibi cannot be E
stated to have been established by the prosecution. No injury
whatSoever was suffered by deceased Padmini Devi either on
her neck or on her feet. Padmini Devi was 47 years old at the
time of occurrence. She would not have easily allowed two
drunkards, who were in a state of intoxication, to carry her away F
by holding her by her neck and feet as has been alleged in the
charge-sheet. Padmini Devi would have been expected to fight
for her life, consequent upon an assault on her, at the hands of
the accused Madhu and Sibi. Injury nos.1 and 2 referred to by
the courts below, so as to infer smothering, is clearly G
unacceptable in view of the fact that Dr. Radhakrishnan PW20,
in his cross-examination, clearly asserted, that injury nos.1 and
2 are possible if a person falls and during the course of that
fall the right side of the face comes in contact with a rough hard
surface. Dr. Radhakrishnan PW20 also stated during his cross-
examination, that all the injuries suffered by Padmini Devi were H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 2 S.C.R.

A superficial injuries. In the aforesaid view of the matter, even the
medical evidence produced by the prosecution, does not
suitably support the prosecution story, that the deceased
Padmini Devi was, first assaulted by the accused Madhu and
Sibi, and thereafter, drowned. The deceased is alleged to have
B been dragged, smothered and forcibly drowned. The instant
version of the prosecution story, is wholly unacceptable,
keeping in mind the statement of Dr.Radhakrishna PW20 .

23. The motive for the accused in committing the murder
of Padmini Devi is stated to. be theft of her gold ornaments.
C Madhu-accused no.1 is a labourer, and Sibi-accused no.2 is
a toddy trapper. If the motive had been theft, so as to snatch
away the jewellery of Padmini Devi, it is difficult to understand
why the accused only took away the golden c~/ain around the
neck of the deceased, and the six bangles on her right arm,
D and forsake the earrings on the person of the deceased. It is
relevant to mention, that the factum of the earrings found on the
person of the deceased has been explained in a wishy-washy
manner. P.J. Thomas PW21, Circle Inspector of Police, has
specifically deposed on the recovery, retention and return of the
E earrings to the family of the deceased. The statement of PW~~1
reveals'a sorry state of affairs in handling the investigation of
the case in hand. According to the statement of PW21, the
earrings were removed from the dead body of Padmini Devi,
by one of the policemen who was assisting him in the
F preparation of inquest report on 9.5.1998. There is no
documentary record of this. The earrings were then (accordin1~
to PW21) retained by the writer at the police station. This again,
without maintaining arny record. On 11.6.1998, the said earring1>
are stated to have been returned to Ayyappa Kurup PW2,
G husband of deceased Padmini Devi. It was also deposed by
PW21, that Ayyappa Kurup PW2 had visited the police station
to take back the earrings. Accordingly, the earrings were
returned to him. Yet again, without maintaining any record.
Coupled with the conclusion drawn by us in respect ofthe gold
H chain and the six gold bangles, allegedly recovered at the
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1031
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

instance of accused Madhu and Sibi, we are of the view that it A
may well be, that the ornaments were never taken away from
the person of the deceased Padmini Devi. This view comes
to our mind because if the motive had been theft of gold
ornaments, then all the gold ornaments would have been taken
away, most certainly the earrings which were openly and clearly B
visible. The accused were poor persons, for them the earrings
alone would have meant a lot. If nothing else, the earrings would
have balanced (to some extent at least) the spoils in the hands
of the accused. It may well be, that the aforesaid ornaments
came to be planted only with the object of solving the case in c
hand. This aspect of the matter also creates a serious doubt
in the prosecution case.

24. For the reasons recorded by us hereinabove, we are
of the view, that the evidence produced by the prosecution
does not, in any way, establish the guilt of the accused. The D
prosecution had endeavoured to prove the allegations levelled
against the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
As noticed above, the mainstay of the prosecution evidence is
the recovery of the gold ornaments belonging to the deceased
Padmini Devi at the instance of the accused Madhu and Sibi. E
We have concluded that the statements made by the accused
Madhu and Sibi (vide Exhibits P-10 and P-9 respectively)
cannot be proved against the accused, or to their detriment.
This by itself removes the most vital link in the chain of events
sought to be established by the prosecution against the F
accused. Evidence produced to establish the presence of the
accused near the place of occurrence, at or about the time of
the commission of the crime has also been found to be
irrelevant. This because, the accused were in any case
neighbours of the deceased Padmini Devi. We have also found, G
that the theft of the golden ornaments worn by the deceased
Padmini Devi was also doubtful. The explanation tendered by
the prosecution of the earrings worn by the deceased Padmini
Devi when her body was recovered, is also far from satisfactory.
From the statement of Dr.Radhakrishnan PW20, and the H
1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A surrounding facts, it cannot be positively inferred that the
deceased Padmini Devi was first smothered and then drowned
as has been alleged by the prosecution. We have als() found
serious contradictions in the deposition of the prosE~cution
witnesses. The prosecution has failed to establish an unbroken
B chain of events lending to the determination, that the inforence
being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable
conclusion. In fact in our view the prosecution has not beem able
to connect the accused with the alleged crime in any manner
whatsoever.
c 25. For all the reasons recorded by us hereinabove, the
appeHant-accused/Madhu, is liable to be acquitted of the
charges levelled against him. Ordered accordingly. He be
released forthwith, unless he is required to continue in detontion
in some other case.
D
26. Resultantly, the instant appeal is allowed and the
judgments rendered by the Trial Court, as also, by the High
Court convicting the appellant-accused/ Madhu are hereby set
aside.
E 27. During the course of the deliberations recorded by us
hereinabove, we have dealt with the evidence projected against
appellant-accused/Madhu. From our determination it emer1led,
that the evidence to establish the charges against his co-
accused Sibi was on the same lines. In fact Sibi-accused no.2
F was accused of the allegations for exactly the same reasons,
as have weighed with the courts below against the appellant-
accused Madhu. He was also convicted for the same reasons.
We are of the view that if Sibi-accused no.2 had preferred an
appeal, the result would have been exactly the same, as it has
G been in the present appeal, in respect of the appellant-accused/
Madhu. But, is it open for us, to extend the benefit of acquittal, ·
determined by us in case of the accused-appellant/Madhu to
Sibi-accused no.2 also? In so far as the instant aspect of tile
matter is concerned, reference may be made to the judgment ·
H rendered by this Court in Gurucharan Kumar.& Anr. vs. State
MAOHU v. STATE OF KERALA 1033
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

of Rajasthan, (2003) 2 SCC 698, wherein this Court had A
observed as under:
"32. As noticed earlier the accused Pravin Kumar,
husband of the deceased Geetu has not preferred an
appeal before this Court, on account of the fact that he has
already served out the sentence imposed against him. B
However, though we cannot obliterate the sufferings of.
Pravin Kumar, we can certainly obliterate the stigma that/·
attaches to him on account of his conviction for a heinous
offence under Section 3048 IPC. This Court has laid down
a judicious principle that even in a case where one of the C
accused has not preferred an appeal, or even if his special
leave petition is dismissed, in case relief is granted to the
remaining accused and the case of the accused who has
either not appealed or whose special leave petition has
been dismissed, stands on the same footing, he should D
not be denied the benefit which is extended to the other
accused. This has been held in Harbans Singh vs. State
of U.P. [(1982) 2 SCC 101], Raja Ram v. State of M.P.
[(1994) 2 SCC 568], Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of
A.P. [(1999) 7 SCC 69] and Akhil ali Jehangir Ali Sayyed E
v. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 2 SCC 708]."
Reference may also be made to the decision rendered by this
Court in Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, · (2003) 11 SCC
241, wherein this Court has held as under:
F
"Apart from the salutary powers exercisable by this Court
under Article 142 of the Constitution for doing complete
justice to the parties, the powers under Article 136 of the
Constitution can be exercised by it in favour of a party even
suo motu when the Court is satisfied that compelling
grounds for its exercise exist but it should be used very G
sparingly with caution and circumspection inasmuch as
only the rarest of rare cases. One of such grounds may be,
as it exists like in the present case, where this Court while
considering appeal of one of the accused comes .to the
conclusion that conviction of appealing as well as non- H
1034 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 2 S.C.R.

A appealing accused both was unwarranted. Upon the
aforesaid conclusion arrived at by the Apex Court of the
land, further detention of the non-appealing accusE~d. by
virtue of the judgment rendered by the High Court upholding
·. ·his conviction, being without any authority of law, infringes
B upon the right to personal liberty guaranteed to the c:itizen
as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. In our
view, in cases akin to the present one, where there is either
a flagrant violation of mandatory provision of any statute
or any provision of the Constitution, it is not that this Court
c has a discretion to exercise its suo motu power but a duty
is enjoined upon it to exercise the same by setting right
the illegality in the judgment of the High Court as it is well
settled that illegality should not be allowed to be
perpetuated and failure by this Court to interfere with the
same would amount to allowing the illegality to be
D
perpetuated. In view of the foregoing discussion, w13 are
' of the opinion that accused Balwinder Singh alias Binder
'is also entitled to be extended the same benefit which we
are granting in favour of the appellant."
E In view of the ratio laid down in the two cases referred to above,
we are satisfied, that to do complete justice, it would be just
and appropriate to extend the same benefit as has been
extended to the appellant-accused/Madhu, also to Sibi-accused
no.2. Therefore, for exactly the same reasons as have wei~Jhed
F with us in the instant appeal, to determine the acquittal of the
appellant-accused/Madhu, we hereby order the acquittal of
Sibi-accused no.2 as well, even though he has not preferred
an appeal so as to assail the impugned judgment whereby he
stands convicted.
G 28. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, even Sibi-
accused no.2 is hereby acquitted. He be released forthwith,
unless he is required to continue in detention in some other
case.
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.
H