1

                                               NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 971 OF 2012

VIDYALAKSHMI @ VIDYA ..APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF KERALA ..RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 852­853 OF 2014

ANAND SABARIRAJ @ AND ETC. ..APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF KERALA ..RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

M.R.SHAH, J.

As common question of law and facts arise in this group of

appeals and as such arise out of the common impugned

2

judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, all these appeals are decided and

disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned

common judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the

High Court,  by  which  the  High Court  has  dismissed the  said

appeals preferred by the respective Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and has

confirmed  the judgment  and order  of conviction and sentence

imposed by the learned trial Court convicting the original

Accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with

Section  34 of the IPC (original  Accused  Nos. 1  &  2), for the

offences punishable under Section 120B of the IPC (original

Accused  Nos. 1  & 3) and for the offences punishable under

Section 302 read with Section 114 of the IPC (original Accused

No.3)  and convicting the  original  Accused  Nos.  1  & 2 for the

offences under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the

original accused Nos. 1 to 3 have preferred the present appeals.

3. As per the case of the prosecution, Accused No.1 and

Accused No.3 had been  lovers  for  more  than  last three years.

The marriage of the Accused No.3 was solemnised on 7.6.2006

with one Anandaraman (the deceased) in Chennai against the will

3

of Accused No.3.  It was the case of the prosecution that after the

solemnisation of the marriage with a view to live with Accused

No.1 after doing away  with Anandaraman before 18.06.2006,

Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 hatched up a conspiracy and

solicited the  assistance  of  A2  and  subsequently  A2  became a

party to the conspiracy.  It was the further case on behalf of the

prosecution that Accused No.3 after the marriage planned with

Anandaraman to go to different tourist centres in Kerala under

the guise of a honeymoon celebration and disclosed the

particulars of  such  journeys and visits to  Accused No.1.  The

couple started from Chennai on 16.06.2006 to Kerala for visiting

Guruvayoor and Munnar.   Accused No.3 with pre­determination

passed information to Accused No.1 through mobile phone,

whereby to facilitate Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 to

pursue/follow the couple.  Accused No.3 led Anandaraman to the

Kundala Dam at Munnar (place of the offence) under the pretext

of going tour and thereafter having boating she took

Anandaraman to a lonely place and brought about the arrival of

first and second accused thereby passing information over mobile

phone.  The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was led

4

by Accused No.3 to a catchment area which afforded opportunity

for implementation of the scheme of conspirators.   

3.1 According to the prosecution, AI and A2 who had reached

there found the opportunity and caused the death of the

deceased by ligature strangulation with MO.7 (Camera Strip) and

smothering.   It  was further the case of the prosecution that

Accused No.2 committed robbery of Rs.13,000/­ kept inside the

pocket  of the  pants  worn by Anandaraman and Accused No.1

committed robbery of wrist watch valued at Rs.2,000/­ and the

camera valuing to Rs.10,000/­, totalling to Rs.25,000/­.   As per

the case of the prosecution, as part of the conspiracy, Accused

No.3 removed herself the gold chain from her neck and entrusted

to Accused No.1 and she herself stained her dress with stain of

blood and after being satisfied from message over mobile phone

that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had escaped, misrepresented the facts

and to create a story as if some unknown persons have

committed the robbery and had killed Anandaraman taking

advantage of the  lonely place. The first  information report was

lodged before the police by PW1 – Sam Vincent, the driver of the

vehicle in which A3 and the deceased had travelled.   The Circle

Police Inspector started investigation.   According to the

5

prosecution, thereafter Accused No.1 & 2 had panicked on seeing

a police van proceeding to Kundala Dam – the scene of the crime.

They came to know that word had gone around that a crime had

been committed and the police were looking for two persons who

had allegedly committed that crime.   They somehow wanted to

leave Munnar to some other place.   Thereafter they made

enquiries with PW2 and others as to how they could hurriedly

leave Munnar.  Their conduct allegedly aroused suspicion in the

mind of PW2 and his friends.  They ensured that A1 and A2 did

not escape and informed the police about the suspicious

activities of A1 and A2.  Thereupon A1 and A2 were taken to the

police station.   

3.2 During the course of the investigation, the Investigating

Officer collected incriminating material against the accused.  The

Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the

concerned witnesses.  The Investigating Officer found that the

clothes worn by A1 to A3 were stained with human blood.  They

further found  that the nail  clippings  of  A1 and A2 had blood

marks on them.   They recovered  MO.6 – tour programme –

itinerary of A3 and the deceased in the handwriting of A3 from

the possession of A1. During the course of the investigation, the

6

IO recovered,  at the instance  of  Accused  Nos. 1  &  2,  watch,

camera and cash of the deceased and the gold chain of A3,

which, according to A3, was taken away from her by force by the

unknown miscreants.   The deceased, at the scene of the crime,

had some scalp hairs of the miscreants within his fingers, which

came to be seized by the police  while preparing the inquest

report.   On conclusion of the investigation, the Investigation

Officer filed the charge sheet/final report against the accused for

the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34

IPC, Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC, Section 302 read

with Section 114 IPC and Section 379 IPC against the respective

Accused Nos. 1 to 3. The case was committed to the Court of

Sessions.  The  accused  pleaded  not guilty  and therefore they

came to be tried by the learned Sessions Court for the aforesaid

offences.   

4. To prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution

examined in all 40 witnesses.  The prosecution also produced on

record through witnesses the documentary evidence – Exhibits

P1 to P80.    M.Os  1 to 51 series  were also  marked  by the

prosecution.   Thereafter, the prosecution submitted the closing

pursis.  The accused did not adduce any evidence at the stage of

7

defence.   However, Exhibit D1 was marked by A2 when PW29

was examined. Thereafter, the statements of the accused under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. were recorded.   In their 313

statements, the accused had taken up the defence of total denial.

It appears that A1 and A3 did not dispute their relationship.  In

fact, they did admit their relationship.   But, according to them,

the relationship had been put to an end in 2004 and that

thereafter,  A3  had  willingly  married  with the  deceased.  They

denied any contact between them after 2004.  A3 filed a detailed

written statement.    It was the case on behalf of the accused that

they  were  not in any  way responsible for the  murder of the

deceased Anandaraman and that they had been falsely

implicated by the police.

5. The learned trial  Court, on  appreciation  of the evidence,

came to the conclusion that the  prosecution  has successfully

established the offence of conspiracy under Section 120B

between A1 and A3.   The learned trial Court also came to the

conclusion that the murder of the deceased Anandaraman was

executed by A1 and A2 in the presence of A3 at the scene of the

crime ­  Kundala dam using MO7 – Camera Strip.  The trial Court

also observed  and found that the  death  of the  deceased  was

8

caused by a ligature strangulation and there were also attempt to

smother the deceased.   The learned trial Court further came to

the conclusion that attempts were made deliberately to mislead

others by stating that it was the case of some unknown

miscreants to commit theft/robbery of valuable articles which the

deceased and A3 were having with them.  Thereafter, the learned

trial Court convicted the original Accused No.1 – Anand for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and also for the

offence under Section 120B and Section 379 of the  IPC.   The

learned trial Court sentenced the original Accused No.1 to

imprisonment  for life  and to pay a  fine of  Rs.  5,000/­ for the

offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, and in default

of  payment  of fine, to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment for  one

year more.  He is also sentenced life imprisonment and to pay a

fine of Rs.5,000/­ under Section 120B of the IPC, and in default

of  payment  of fine, to  undergo  rigorous  imprisonment for  one

year more.   While convicting the original Accused No.1 for the

offence punishable under Section 379 of  the  IPC,  learned trial

Court further  sentenced to undergo rigorous  imprisonment  for

three years.  

9

5.1 The learned trial Court convicted original Accused No.2 for

the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him

life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/­, in default of

payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for one year more.   The

learned trial  Court sentenced  Accused  No.2 to  undergo three

years rigorous  imprisonment for the  offence  punishable  under

Section 379 of the IPC.

5.2 The learned trial Court convicted the Accused No.3 for the

offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 114 of the IPC

and sentenced her to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine

of Rs.50,000/­, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo

three years rigorous imprisonment.   Accused No.3 is also

sentenced for life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/­

under Section 120B of the IPC, and in default of payment of fine,

to further undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.   

5.3 The learned trial Court ordered that the substantive

sentences of imprisonment awarded to each of the accused shall

run concurrently.

6. Feeling  aggrieved and dissatisfied  with  the judgment  and

order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court,

the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 preferred appeals before the High

10

Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.   By the common impugned

judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the appeals.

Hence, the present appeals.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective

appellants have vehemently submitted that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, both, the learned trial Court as well as

the High Court have committed a grave error in convicting the

respective accused for the offences punishable under Section 302

of the IPC with the aid of Section 34, 114 and Section 120B of the

IPC.

7.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing

on  behalf of the respective appellants that as such the  High

Court has not properly appreciated the fact that it was a case of

circumstantial evidence, and therefore the prosecution is

obligated to prove all those circumstances which leave no manner

of doubt that all the circumstances are linked up with one

another and the chain has not broken in between.   It is

submitted  therefore that  unless the  chain  of  circumstances is

complete  leading to the only conclusion that  it is the accused

alone had committed the offence, the Court is  not justified  in

convicting the accused.

11

7.2 It is further submitted on behalf of the respective appellants

that both the Courts below have materially erred in holding that

Accused  No.3  and  Accused  No.1 entered into  a  conspiracy to

murder the deceased Anandaraman.

7.3 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the

respective appellants that even the prosecution has failed to

prove the motive put forward by the prosecution.  It is submitted

that, according to the prosecution, marriage against the will of

the Accused No.3 was the motive.  It is however submitted by the

learned counsel that Accused No.3 categorically stated in her 313

statement and in the written statement that she was very much

happy with the deceased and in fact there were no relationship

continued  with  Accused  No.1 after the  marriage and/or even

after 2004.

7.4 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for

the respective appellants that the Courts below have materially

erred  in holding that  Accused No.3 and Accused No.1 entered

into a conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased solely on

the basis of the call details/calls from deceased phone to Accused

No.1.   It is further submitted by the learned counsel that even

the prosecution has failed to prove that the love letters between

12

Accused No.3 and Accused No.1 were in existence even at the

time of the incident.  It is submitted that the evidence of PWs 22,

23 and 35 even if at the face value do not prove that the love

affair between the A3 and A1 was in existence.   

7.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel that even the

prosecution has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence that

the itinerary  –  MO.6 which was alleged  to  be found  from A1,

which was alleged to be in the handwriting of A3 was in fact in

the handwriting of A3.  

7.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of Accused Nos. 1 & 2 that the prosecution has failed to

prove by leading cogent evidence the presence of Accused Nos. 1

& 2 at  Guruvayoor.   It is further submitted by the learned

counsel appearing for A1 and A2 and even by the learned counsel

appearing for  A3 that the  prosecution  has failed to prove  by

leading cogent evidence that Accused Nos. 1 & 2 met Accused

No.3 at Arunodhayam Tourist Home.

7.7 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of  Accused  No.1 that the courts  below have  materially

erred in holding that the tour programme/itinerary of Accused

No.3 and the deceased was recovered from Accused No.1.  

13

7.8 Making the  above submissions, it is  prayed to  allow  the

present appeals by setting aside the impugned common judgment

and order passed by the High Court confirming the judgment and

order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions

Court and consequently acquit the accused for the offences for

which they are held to be guilty.

8. The present appeals are vehemently opposed by the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State.

8.1 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the respondent­State that in the facts and

circumstances of the present case and on appreciation of

evidence on record, the Courts below have rightly held the

accused guilty for having committed the murder of the deceased

Anandaraman.

8.2 It is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel that in

the present case the prosecution has been successful in proving

by leading cogent evidence that the Accused No.1 and Accused

No.3 were in love and were having relationship which even

continued after the marriage of A3.  It is further submitted by the

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent­State that

prosecution in the present case has been successful in proving

14

the conspiracy between the accused to commit the murder of the

deceased.

8.3 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent­

State that in the present case the prosecution has been

successful in establishing and proving the presence of A1 and A2

at all the places where A3 and the deceased went and that from

even Guruvayoor to  Echo  Point  where the incident  has taken

place.   It is submitted that the aforesaid is established and

proved by the prosecution by examining the relevant witnesses,

namely PW2 and PW4 and also by leading documentary evidence.

8.4 It is further submitted that even the detailed itinerary/tour

programme of A3 and the deceased, which was in the

handwriting of A3 was recovered from A1 and it was established

and proved that wherever A3 and the deceased went as per the

tour programme, A1 and A2 also followed.  It is further submitted

by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State that in

the present case the prosecution has been successful in proving

that all throughout A1 and A3 were in touch and having

conversation on mobile phones.  

15

8.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the

respondent­State that even there was a recovery from Accused

Nos. 1 & 2 of the cash, gold chain, which was also looted.   

8.6 It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in the

present case the prosecution has been successful in completing

the chain of  events  leading to the conclusion that  (1) accused

hatched the conspiracy; (2) the relationship between A1 & A3; (3)

that  A1  &  A2 followed  A3 and the  deceased   and they  were

present at all the places where A3 and the deceased went/stayed;

(4) that  all through out  A3 and A1 were in contact  and were

having conversation over mobile phones; and (5) that the recovery

of MO6 – tour programme of A3 and the deceased, which was in

the handwriting of A3 and which was recovered from A1. It is

submitted  by the learned counsel appearing on  behalf of the

State that all the above circumstances lead to irresistible

concliusion of guilt against accused persons.  It is submitted that

the links in the chain of circumstances has been completely

established by  the prosecution.   It is  submitted  that therefore

neither the learned Sessions  Court nor the  High  Court have

committed an error in  convicting the  accused  for the  offences

punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Sections, 34, 114,

16

120B and 379 of the IPC.  Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the

present appeals.

9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respective parties at length.

9.1 At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present

case, original Accused Nos. 1 & 2 are convicted for the offences

punishable under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of Section

34 of the IPC, original Accused Nos. 1& 3 are convicted for the

offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC with the aid of

Section 120B of the IPC and original Accused No.3 is also

convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the

IPC read with Section 114 of the IPC.  Original Accused Nos. 1 &

2 are also convicted for the offences under Section 379 read with

Section 34 of the IPC.

9.2 That the learned Sessions Court on appreciation of evidence

on record, both oral as well as documentary, held that the

prosecution has been successful in establishing and proving that

the accused entered into a conspiracy to commit the murder of

the deceased.   On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court

found and held that original Accused Nos. 1 & 2 right from the

beginning followed Accused No.3 and the deceased and wherever

17

the Accused No.3 and deceased visited/stayed, the original

Accused Nos. 1 & 2 followed them.  The learned trial Court also

found that all through out Accused Nos. 1 & 2 and Accused No.3

were  in contact  and were having the conversation over mobile

phones.  Right from the very beginning from Guruvayoor to Echo

Point where the incident had taken place the presence of Accused

Nos. 1 & 2 has been established and proved.   That the learned

trial Court convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and

sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and other

sentences noted hereinabove and the same have been confirmed

by the High Court by the impugned common judgment and order.

10. It is mainly contended on behalf of the accused that as it is

case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to establish

and prove and/or complete the chain of  circumstances,  which

would  lead  to the  only  conclusion  that it is the  accused who

committed the offence.   It is also the case on behalf of the

accused that the prosecution failed to establish and prove the

motive, as according to Accused No.3 there was no relationship

since long and at least at the time of  marriage and/or post

marriage.  We are conscious of the  fact  that  this  is  a case of

circumstantial evidence and therefore the prosecution has to

18

establish  and  prove  and  complete the chain  of circumstances

which lead to the guilt of the accused.   

11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and

on appreciation of the evidence on record, we are satisfied that in

the present case the prosecution has been successful in proving

and/or completing the chain of circumstances which would lead

to the only conclusion that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 entered into a

conspiracy; that Accused Nos. 1 & 2 committed the murder of the

deceased and Accused No.3 was a party to the conspiracy.

12. From the judgment and order passed by the learned trial

Court, it appears that the learned trial  Court enumerated  as

many  as  33  circumstances  against the  accused  and  the  High

Court considered as many as 28 relevant circumstances against

the accused.  The 33 circumstances enumerated and considered

by the learned trial Court against the accused are stated in

paragraph 58 and the 28 circumstances considered by the High

Court  while  holding the  accused  guilty for the  murder  of the

deceased are narrated in paragraph 18 of the impugned

judgment and order.   On considering the entire evidence on

record, both oral as well as documentary, the prosecution has

been  successful in  proving that  Accused  Nos.  1  &  2 followed

19

Accused No.3 and the deceased at Guruvayoor, Munnar and also

at Echo Point.   There was a recovery of detailed itinerary/tour

programme of A3 and the deceased from A1 which was in the

handwriting of A3.  The prosecution has also been successful in

proving that A1 and A2 met A3 at Arunodhayam Tourist Home

where A3 and the deceased stayed (from the deposition of PW4).

The prosecution has also established and proved that Accused

Nos. 1 & 3 stayed at Munnar on 17.06.2006 by leading cogent

evidence and examining PW5 – Abdul Rasheed, Manager of Arafa

Tourist Home at Munnar, and also by leading the documentary

evidence – P5, the tourist home register. The prosecution has also

been successful in proving by leading cogent evidence that

Accused Nos. 1  & 2  went to Echo Point where A3 and the

deceased had gone and the place where the deceased was

murdered.  The aforesaid has been established and proved by the

prosecution by examining PW2.   Thus, the presence of Accused

Nos. 1 & 2 was found right from the beginning at Guruvayoor,

Munnar, Kundala Dam and Echo Point.   This is required to be

appreciated from the fact that there was a recovery of

itinerary/tour programme of A3 and the deceased from A1 which

was found  to  be in the  handwriting  of  A3.   It  has  also  been

20

established and proved by leading cogent evidence by examining

the BSNL personnel that there was a conversation on the mobile

phones  between  A3 and  A1 from  the  mobile of the deceased

(which was used by A3) and the mobile of A1.  Therefore, it has

been established and proved that Accused  Nos. 1  & 2  were

following  A3  and the  deceased  as  per the instructions  by  A3

and/or that all the accused were in contact with each other even

at the time when the incident had taken place. All the aforesaid

circumstances lead to irresistible conclusion of guilt against the

accused persons.   The aforesaid circumstances lead to the

conclusion that the prosecution case can be taken to have been

proved beyond all reasonable doubts.   From the aforesaid

circumstances proved, it can be said that the links in the chain of

circumstances have been completely established.   All the

aforesaid circumstances leave no manner of doubt that all  the

circumstances are linked up with one another and the chain is

not broken in between. Thus, the prosecution has been

successful in completing the chain of circumstances leading to

the only conclusion that all the accused entered into a conspiracy

to commit the murder of the deceased and that in fact A1 and A2

committed the murder of the deceased.

21

13. So far as the submission of the Accused No.1 and Accused

No.3 that in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove

the  motive and to prove by leading cogent evidence that the

relationship between A1 and A3 continued even after the

marriage  is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such

Accused No.1 in fact denied having any love affair with Accused

No.3.   However, Accused No.3 herself  in her written statement

had admitted that they were in love earlier.   But, according to

Accused  No.3, thereafter there  was  no relationship continued.

Therefore, Accused No.1 came out with a false defence.  Be that

as it may, when the prosecution has been successful in proving

the conspiracy between the accused as well as the accused

committed the murder of the deceased, motive may not have that

much relevance.  We are more than satisfied that in the present

case the  prosecution has  been successful in  proving the  case

against the accused.  We are in complete agreement with the view

taken by the High Court as well as the learned trial Court.   We

see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court.

14. In view of the  aforesaid reasons,  all the  appeals fail  and

deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.

22

……………………………………J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT]

NEW DELHI; ……………………………………J. FEBRUARY 15, 2019. [M.R. SHAH]