JAHIR HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) House trespass, robbery and murder are the charges on which the appellant was convicted, based only on circumstantial evidence, that too mainly on the recoveries made of the various articles which were alleged to have been stolen from the house and sold to various persons or kept in secure places. There were two accused, one of whom was convicted in an earlier trial, since the cases were split up on the present appellant absconding after the Sessions Court had taken the case on file. Later, arrest of the appellant led to the present trial in which he was convicted under Ss.449, 392, 394 & 302. Life imprisonment and fine under S.302 and various terms of imprisonment under the other provisions, with appropriate fine and also default sentences, in the event of failure to pay fines, were imposed.

(2.) Adv. Sruthy K.K., learned State Brief, appeared for the appellant and Sri. Renjith, learned Public Prosecutor appeared for the State. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no single circumstance connecting the accused with the crime, leave alone an unbroken chain of such circumstances. There is absolutely no evidence obtained regarding the murder, either scientific or circumstantial. The motive spoken of is frivolous to say the least and there is no clear ascertainment of ownership or identity of the stolen goods from the house.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand relied on Ganeshlal v. State of Rajasthan [2002 (1) SCC 731] to put forth the contention of the house trespass and murder being a reasonable inference possible from the fact that the stolen goods were recovered at the instance of the accused based on confession statement admissible under S.27 of the Evidence Act. The various recoveries were pointed out and mahazars read out, to emphasize that the there is clear evidence of the stolen goods being in the possession of the accused. The accused offered absolutely no explanation for such possession and he was caught red handed while trying to sell the goods. The various recoveries clearly indicate the goods having been stolen from the house rented out by PW1, wherein he had kept the valuable goods dealt with in the business. The house, as per the testimonies, during daytime would be occupied only by the cook, the person who was murdered. The accused had been an earlier employee and was privy to the manner in which the employees worked and also the time on which they left the house and came back for the night. The accused had also spoken to one of the witnesses regarding the specific business carried on by PW1. He had a motive in so far as fulfilling his love affair, by starting a business; the pre-condition set by his fiancee's family, for which purpose he had ventured into crime. The well laid plans collapsed like a pack of cards only by the prompt action of the police, who responded to the leads offered by the owner of the goods and the co-operation of the various people involved in the business. While asserting that the recoveries of stolen goods amounted to clinching circumstances, it was also alternatively argued that, in any event the recovery of the two bags (MO1 & MO65) belonging to the two employees of PW1, recovered from the possession of the accused would by itself offer a very valid circumstance against the accused. The learned Prosecutor would assert that the conviction is proper and the sentence is appropriate and seek the impugned judgment to be upheld.