Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1239 (KER)

Abraham @ Jose, S/o. Zacharias v. State Of Kerala

2024-09-27

G.GIRISH, RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

body2024
JUDGMENT : Sri. Abraham, the appellant herein, a 40 year old man, who was working as an employee of the Nedumkandam Service Cooperative Bank has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Thodupuzha under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC for having committed the murder of his father, Zachariah and for causing disappearance of evidence. He has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and to undergo RI for 6 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC, both with a default clause. This has led him to prefer this appeal before this Court assailing the finding of guilt, conviction, and sentence. 2. The deceased, Zachariah, a man aged about 66 years, was an agriculturist and in good health for his age. He had a wife, Mary, and three children. However, due to an unduly strained relationship with his wife, Zachariah was living alone on his 2-acre property. PW1 to PW9 are his neighbors. Zachariah’s eldest child was a daughter who worked as a teacher at the UP School in Mattathippara. He also had two sons—the appellant, who was the elder son working in the Bank as mentioned above, and PW13, the younger son, who was employed as a driver of a pickup truck. Mary had been living separately from the deceased for the past 3 ½ years, and it was the appellant who had been taking care of her during this time. Due to the severely deteriorated relationship between Zachariah and his children, they were not supporting him and as a result, Zachariah decided to take legal action against them. He decided to seek maintenance by invoking the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, before the RDO at Devikulam. In the process of filing his claim, Zachariah was asked by the officer at the SDM to provide his daughter’s address so that a notice could be sent to her. To obtain her address and whereabouts, Zachariah approached PW20, an Office Attendant at the Holy Cross UP School in Mattathippara, where his daughter worked. He also inquired with PW20, a shopkeeper who ran a store near the school. 3. On 16.11.2013, at about 1:20 p.m., Sri. To obtain her address and whereabouts, Zachariah approached PW20, an Office Attendant at the Holy Cross UP School in Mattathippara, where his daughter worked. He also inquired with PW20, a shopkeeper who ran a store near the school. 3. On 16.11.2013, at about 1:20 p.m., Sri. Johnny Cherian (PW1), a neighbor with property adjacent to the deceased, Zachariah, went to Zachariah’s house to wash his clothes, as he normally did. Upon arriving, he found Zachariah lying on the open ground near the cowshed, his shirt unbuttoned, and injuries covering his body. Alarmed, PW1 immediately ran back to alert the neighbors, who were later examined as PWs 2 to 9 in court. The police were informed promptly and arrived at the scene without delay. Signs of a struggle were evident and they also noticed that a heavy stone had been dropped on the leg of the deceased. The neighbors took a dhoti and covered the body before informing the police again. At around 4:00 p.m. that same day, PW30, the Sub-Inspector of Police from Vellathooval Police Station, arrived at the scene to conduct the inquest. In his report, he noted that Zachariah’s body was lying on the northeastern side of House No. VGP V/371, which the deceased owned. Multiple injuries were recorded, and traces of vomit were found on Zachariah’s face and ears. His shirt was torn, and mud was smeared across his clothes and body. His right knee was fractured, and a large stone (MO1) was placed on his left leg. Additional findings included a teapoy in the sit-out, along with a beer bottle and glass. Inside an almirah affixed to the kitchen wall, numerous beer bottles were found. During the inquest, one of the statements taken was that of the appellant. The inquest concluded by 6:00 p.m. on 16.11.2013, after which Zachariah’s body was sent to the Medical College Hospital in Kottayam for an autopsy. Before the body was moved, the crime was registered as Crime No. 689/2013, based on the information provided by PW1 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Autopsy was conducted by PW25, the Police Surgeon, who noted 20 antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased. He has stated that Injury Nos. 4, 15 and 16 are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury Nos.4, 15 and 16 reads as under: 4. 4. Autopsy was conducted by PW25, the Police Surgeon, who noted 20 antemortem injuries on the body of the deceased. He has stated that Injury Nos. 4, 15 and 16 are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury Nos.4, 15 and 16 reads as under: 4. Abraded contusion 7x6 to 4 cm on right side of front and adjacent portion on top of head, 9cm above root of nose, the inner end just at the midline. On dissection there was contusion 24x16 cm evolving whole thickness of scalp oever the fronto temporal parietal region, the skull showed a depressed fracture, fragmentation (12x12x0.8 cm) on rt. fronto tempero parietal region with fissuring of the left temero parietal bone and fracture fragmentation of the anterior cranial fossae. The dura mater underneath showed tear. There were lacerations of the frontal lobes, the left temporal pole and the right parieto temporal lobe with thick subdural hematoma of either cerebral hemisphere and a diffuse subarachnoid haemorrhage—flattening of gyri and shallowing of sulci present due to raised intra craniel tension. 15. Crushed lacerated wound 15x3 cm, vertical on front of right leg, 3 cm below knee with fracture displacement and splitting of shaft of tibia beneath. The wound was found contaminated with mud. 16. Lacerated wound 0.5x0.4 cm on outer aspect of right leg, 4 cm below the ankle with fracture separation of both bones of the leg beneath. The rest of the injuries noted are abrasions on various parts of the body. The Doctor stated that the cause of death was injuries sustained to the head and right lower limb. According to him, there was internal bleeding in the brain and blood loss due to the injury on the right leg. The doctor said that MO1 stone, MO3 spade and MO10 wooden sticks could cause the injuries. 5. PW36, the Inspector of Police, Munnar took up the investigation on 18.11.2013. After questioning the witnesses, he came to the conclusion that the appellant is the accused. The only incriminating statements given before the investigating officer about the likelihood of the appellant committing patricide are the statements of PW10 and PW11, the brothers of the deceased. The appellant was arrested on 21.11.2013 at 4 p.m. as per Ext. P46 arrest memo. He is alleged to have made a confession that he had perpetrated the heinous act. The only incriminating statements given before the investigating officer about the likelihood of the appellant committing patricide are the statements of PW10 and PW11, the brothers of the deceased. The appellant was arrested on 21.11.2013 at 4 p.m. as per Ext. P46 arrest memo. He is alleged to have made a confession that he had perpetrated the heinous act. He effected recovery of the shirt, torch, pants, and shoes of the accused on the strength of Ext.P22(a) disclosure statement allegedly given by the accused while he was in police custody. He stated that on detailed questioning, the appellant disclosed that the gloves, mobile phone of the deceased, and the spade with which injuries were inflicted were thrown into the Chenkulam Dam. Though an attempt was made to recover the same on 22.11.2023 with the assistance of local divers, the effort was not fruitful. Later, after a month, on 22.12.2023, the spade was successfully recovered from the Dam with the assistance of PW26 and PW32, employees of Neel Underwater Services, Kochi, a private concern. The investigation was then taken over by the Inspector of Police Sri. A.E.Kuriyan, who seized Ext.P48 agreement executed by the appellant in respect of a motor bike bearing Reg. No.KL-24/4733 from PW27, Sri. Siby A.M. However, Sri. A.E.Kuriyan expired before the commencement of the trial. PW35, the Circle Inspector of Adimali Police Station completed the investigation and laid the final report before the court. 6. The prosecution case is purely based on circumstantial evidence. Based on the materials collected and probably based on intuition and guesswork, the allegations against the accused, which the prosecution intended to prove by letting in legal evidence, was as under: On 15.11.2013, driven by previous enmity and enraged by the deceased’s audacity in inquiring about his sister’s address at her school, the accused allegedly rode MO15, a bike bearing No.KL-24/4733, from his home in Nedumkandom, after office hours and travelled about 80 kms to reach the house of the deceased at around 9:30 p.m. that night. Upon arrival, the accused entered the courtyard of House No. VGP/V/371, where the deceased, Zachariah, was living alone. The appellant allegedly launched a brutal attack and struck Zachariah with a stick, causing him to fall. The appellant is further alleged to have grabbed MO3, a spade found at the scene, and attacked his father again after blinding him by sprinkling sand into his eyes. The appellant allegedly launched a brutal attack and struck Zachariah with a stick, causing him to fall. The appellant is further alleged to have grabbed MO3, a spade found at the scene, and attacked his father again after blinding him by sprinkling sand into his eyes. When Zachariah collapsed, the appellant is said to have lifted MO1, a heavy stone, and dropped it on his father’s legs, fracturing his bones. While Zachariah lay defenseless, the appellant allegedly continued his assault, mercilessly beating him with the spade (MO3) until he died. After ensuring that Zachariah was dead, the accused is alleged to have taken the victim’s mobile phone and the spade (MO3) on his bike (MO15) to the Chenkulam Dam, located about 2 kilometers from the crime scene. There, he is accused of discarding the mobile phone, the spade, and the gloves he wore during the attack into the dam’s catchment area, with the clear intent of destroying evidence. Based on these allegations, the appellant was charged with committing offenses punishable under Sections 449, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. After the committal, the case was made over to the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Thodupuzha. To prove the case of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 36 were examined and through them, Ext.P1 to P54 were exhibited and marked. MOs 1 to 23 series were produced and identified. On the side of the defence, case diary contradictions were marked as Exts.D1 to D15. After the close of prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating circumstances. He went on to state that it was based on information furnished by his mother that he came to know that his father was no more. According to him, the relationship between the father and the rest of the family was strained. His father had three children and he is the middle child. He had an elder sister and a younger brother. On receiving the information, he rushed to the place to have a last look at his father. He stated that his mother was residing separately from his father from 2012 onwards. According to him, he became aware of the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate only after the death of his father. On receiving the information, he rushed to the place to have a last look at his father. He stated that his mother was residing separately from his father from 2012 onwards. According to him, he became aware of the proceedings pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate only after the death of his father. He stated that he used to visit his father, once in two or three months and they had an amicable relationship. His father’s brother, Thomas (PW10), is a Police Officer, and based on his request, the accused went with him to the Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 18.11.2013. He asserted that he had not confessed to the murder of his father. He denied that based on the information furnished by him, any weapon of offence or any item related to the murder was recovered. He denied that he is in possession of a bike and according to him, as the death of his father was on a hartal day, he had gone to the house in another vehicle. According to him, PW10 (Thomas) was not on good terms with him, and utilizing his influence in the Police Department, the appellant was falsely implicated without any evidence whatsoever. According to him, his mother was always ready and willing to rejoin his father, but her efforts were thwarted by the deceased. He asserted that he was innocent. No evidence was adduced on his side. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, after evaluating the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case and accordingly convicted the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, while arriving at the finding of guilt, was intensely persuaded by the following circumstances which clearly linked the accused with the murder of his father. a) The sample of mud seized from the place of occurrence and the mud found on the shoes of the accused, which were recovered based on Ext.P22 (a) disclosure statement from the house of the appellant, on 21.11.2013, along with the shirt and pants allegedly worn by him at the time of occurrence cemented the case of the prosecution that the appellant had gone to the house of the deceased as alleged. The appellant failed to offer proper explanation for these incriminating circumstances. The appellant failed to offer proper explanation for these incriminating circumstances. b) While in custody, on 22.11.2013, the appellant had disclosed to CW15, who conducted investigation for a brief period, that he had thrown MO3 spade and the gloves, used for commission of the offence, along with the mobile phone of the deceased into the Chenkulam Dam, situated about 2 kms away from the place of occurrence. Based on the said statement, recovery was effected on 22.12.2013 as per Ext.P4 seizure mahazar. The officer to whom the disclosure statement was made had by then expired and though the recovery was not in the presence of the accused, there is no reason to doubt the credibility of the recovery. c) Seizure of the motor cycle which was used by the accused to travel from his place of residence to the place of occurrence. Though there is a distance of about 80 kms., the accused could have easily traversed the distance and reached the place of occurrence by 9 p.m. The said vehicle was parked by the appellant in the house of PW14, the uncle of his wife. Ext.P25 seizure mahazar would reveal that a jacket and helmet were also seized along with the bike. d) The evidence of PWs 10 and 11, the brothers of the deceased, clearly proves that the relationship between the deceased and the appellant was sour and on numerous occasions, the appellant had threatened to finish his father off. 9. Sri. P. Vijaya Bhanu, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, assisted by Ms. Sruthy, submitted that no legal evidence worth the name was adduced by the prosecution to link the accused with the crime. He argued that the circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions Judge to convict the appellant did not link the appellant with the gruesome crime. Instead of finding the actual culprit by a proper investigation, the investigating officer was persuaded by the false narrative given by PW10 and PW11, who had nursed animosity towards the children and wife of the deceased. The learned Sessions Judge, without properly evaluating the evidence, arrived at an incorrect conclusion, leading to the conviction of an innocent person. According to the learned counsel, the chain of circumstances presented by the prosecution is incomplete and broken, making it impossible to conclude that the murder was committed by the appellant and no one else. The learned Sessions Judge, without properly evaluating the evidence, arrived at an incorrect conclusion, leading to the conviction of an innocent person. According to the learned counsel, the chain of circumstances presented by the prosecution is incomplete and broken, making it impossible to conclude that the murder was committed by the appellant and no one else. The presence of mud in the shoes of the appellant could not have been taken to be an incriminating circumstance as the appellant had admittedly gone to the house of his father on hearing of his demise and was instrumental in shifting him to the hospital. It is submitted that insofar as recovery of MO3 (spade) on 22.12.2013 is concerned, the same was inadmissible on numerous counts. It is pointed out that none of the prosecution witnesses, except PW10 and PW11, had spoken anything about the complicity of the appellant. All that PW11 and 12 had stated in their evidence was to the bad conduct of the appellant as a child, his prowess as an athlete, and his repeated assertions to harm the deceased, which aspects were not stated by the witnesses to the police when their statement was recorded. Even those statements could not have been relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge to arrive at a finding of guilt. 10. Smt. Neema, the learned Public Prosecutor would rely on the presence of mud in the shoes, which were identical to the soil found at the scene of the crime, the recovery of the motorbike and the spade and also the evidence of PWs 10 and 11 and it is urged that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly arrived at the finding of guilt. 11. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the entire records. Before dealing with the circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions Judge, we deem it fit to mention the essence of the legal evidence let in by the prosecution. We find that PWs 1 to 6 and PW9 are immediate neighbours of the deceased. Only PW9 spoke about hearing some cries from the house of the accused at about 9.30 pm. However, he did not enquire into the same. PWs 5 and 6 stated that the deceased was having a good relationship with his children. We find that PWs 1 to 6 and PW9 are immediate neighbours of the deceased. Only PW9 spoke about hearing some cries from the house of the accused at about 9.30 pm. However, he did not enquire into the same. PWs 5 and 6 stated that the deceased was having a good relationship with his children. The witnesses who came to the spot stated that there were signs of a scuffle in and around the scene of crime. PW2 also stated that the deceased, though in his 60’s, was a very healthy man. Insofar as MO1 stone is concerned, PWs 1 and 2 stated that the stone could be lifted only by three or four persons and it is that heavy. In other words, the case of the prosecution that the appellant lifted MO1 stone and dropped the same on the leg of the deceased has been spoken to as highly improbable by the prosecution witnesses themselves. PW4 is an attestor to MO3 spade. He did not support the case of the prosecution. He stated that he did not see the spade being taken from the dam but he was asked to sign on the document. Most of the witnesses including PW6 stated that the children of the deceased had reached the house of the deceased in the evening. As stated earlier, the appellant was questioned by the police at the time of inquest. The other children of the deceased were examined as PW12 and PW13. They stated that they were unaware of the proceedings initiated by their father before the SDM Court and that they had not received any summons. Thus the motive alleged by the prosecution that the appellant was enraged that his father chose to file a petition seeking maintenance bites the dust. Even the Peon of the School and the provision shop owner, who were examined as PWs 20 and 21 to prove that the deceased made enquiries in and around the school of his daughter to find her address did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution examined PW27 to prove that he had entered into an agreement with the accused in respect of MO15 bike bearing registration No KL-24/4733, which was allegedly used by the appellant to travel from Nedumkandam to the scene of crime, did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution examined PW27 to prove that he had entered into an agreement with the accused in respect of MO15 bike bearing registration No KL-24/4733, which was allegedly used by the appellant to travel from Nedumkandam to the scene of crime, did not support the case of the prosecution. He stated that he was asked to sign on a prepared agreement which he refused. He denied that he had sold the vehicle to the appellant. PW14 was examined to prove that the accused had left the bike, helmet and jacket in his residence. However, the said witness refused to support the case of the prosecution. It also came out that on 16.11.2014, a bundh was declared in the area and the witness went on to state that vehicles used to be obstructed on such days in the area, highlighting that it was quite unlikely for the appellant to ride all the way to the house of the witness. PW15, who was examined to prove that he had witnessed the recovery of shirt, pants, and shoes from the house of the accused, also did not support the prosecution. The witnesses who stated in unmistakable terms that the likely assailant was the appellant are PWs 10 and PW11, the brothers of the deceased. PW10 is an ASI of Police and he is a resident of Kasargod, situated about 500 kms away from the place of occurrence. All that they had stated is that the appellant was nursing animosity towards the deceased and he has on multiple occasions stated to them that he would do away with his father. Except for asserting their dislike to the appellant, the evidence tendered by the said witnesses has nothing to offer but their own hunches and assumptions. 12. Now we shall come to the circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions Judge. Our endeavor is to consider how much of each of the above circumstances have been proved by the prosecution and whether the proved circumstances add up to something which is consistent only with the guilt of the accused and is altogether inconsistent with his innocence. The fundamental principle is that in a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The fundamental principle is that in a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The circumstances must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offences to the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not necessary that each circumstance by itself be conclusive but cumulatively must form an unbroken chain of events leading to the proof of the guilt of the accused. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. In assessing the evidence, imaginary possibilities have no role to play. What is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities. The chain of events furnished by the circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. If any of the circumstances proved in a case are consistent with the innocence of the accused or the chain of the continuity of the circumstances is broken, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. In assessing the evidence to find these principles, it is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic facts on one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them, on the other. In regard to the proof of basic or primary facts, the court has to judge the evidence in an ordinary way, and in appreciation of the evidence in proof of those basic facts or primary facts, there is no scope for the application of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The court has to consider the evidence and decide whether the evidence proves a particular fact or not. The court has to consider the evidence and decide whether the evidence proves a particular fact or not. Whether that fact leads to the inference of the guilt of the accused or not is another aspect and in dealing with this aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved facts are inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and are consistent only with his guilt. There is a long distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’. The prosecution has to travel all the way to establish fully the chain of events which should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and those circumstances should be of conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude all hypotheses but the one proposed to be proved by the prosecution. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far consistent and complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that in all probability the act must have been done by the accused and the accused alone (See: Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1991) 1 SCC 286 )). 13. The first and foremost circumstance was the detection of the same type of soil in the shoes of the appellant seized from his residence, from the sample soil seized from the place of occurrence. PW31, the Scientific Expert, in her evidence, stated that the sample soil seized from the place of occurrence was similar in respect of their colour, nature, constituent particles and density when compared to the soil found in the shoes seized from the house of the appellant on 21.11.2013 and which was allegedly worn by the appellant at the time of commission of the offence. It needs to be noted that Zachariah was found dead by noon on 16.11.2013 and on being informed by his mother, the appellant had reached the house of the deceased and he was instrumental in shifting the body to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam for conducting the autopsy. It needs to be noted that Zachariah was found dead by noon on 16.11.2013 and on being informed by his mother, the appellant had reached the house of the deceased and he was instrumental in shifting the body to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam for conducting the autopsy. It was on 21.11.2013 at 4 p.m., that the appellant was arrested and it is thereafter that based on the disclosure statement furnished by him, the shoes were seized from his own residence. The statement of the appellant has been recorded in the inquest and his presence has been spoken to even by PW10 and PW11. If that be the case, there is nothing unusual in detecting the same type of soil in the shoes of the accused. It is without appreciating the above aspect that the learned Sessions Judge has considered the same as a circumstance to link him with the crime. 14. The second circumstance relied on by the learned Sessions Judge is the alleged recovery of MO3, the spade, from the Chenkulam Dam. PW36 stated in his evidence that, during interrogation, the appellant disclosed that he had thrown the gloves, his father’s mobile phone, and MO3 into the Chenkulam Dam. A reading of the mahazar reveals that the location pointed out by the appellant was nearly in the middle of the dam, to the south of the protection wall between Pillar Nos. 2 and 3. Based on this disclosure, the investigating officer attempted to recover the items from the bed of the water body. Ext. P6, the mahazar prepared on 22.11.2013, shows that the services of two divers, Rajesh and Jayan, were enlisted to search the dam for the allegedly discarded items. However, due to the depth of the water in the catchment area and the intense cold, they were unable to retrieve anything. What followed is even more curious. The investigating officer, in his testimony, claimed that he had written to the District Collector to request the assistance of Navy personnel to dive into the dam and recover the items. Yet, according to the records, a month later, on 22.12.2013, the services of a private firm, "Neel Underwater Services, Kochi," were brought in to make another attempt at retrieval. Exhibit P4 is the mahazar documenting this second attempt. Yet, according to the records, a month later, on 22.12.2013, the services of a private firm, "Neel Underwater Services, Kochi," were brought in to make another attempt at retrieval. Exhibit P4 is the mahazar documenting this second attempt. Notably, in this mahazar, it is mentioned that the divers searched an area on the northern side of the eastern protection wall and eventually retrieved the spade (MO3) between Pillar Nos. 4 and 5, approximately 5 meters to the east, a completely different location from that initially identified. Moreover, the accused was not present during this alleged recovery. PW32, the diver, testified that he was taken to a location near the catchment area and instructed to dive, where he found the spade. He also confirmed that his establishment is a private entity. When specifically asked whether the brother of the deceased had directed him to the spot, he ambiguously replied that "one person" had accompanied him. Interestingly, PW10 testified that he was present when the spade was recovered. It doesn't take much to conclude that the spade was not recovered from the location described in Ext.P6. As rightly argued by the appellant’s counsel, there is a significant possibility that PW10 or the investigating officer planted the spade in a known location and later "discovered" it, a month after the incident. PW19, the attestor to the mahazar, also testified that he merely signed the document and had not witnessed the spade being recovered. Furthermore, the officer who recorded the appellant’s disclosure statement was unavailable for examination, as he had passed away, and the appellant was not present during the recovery of the spade. There is yet another reason to doubt the credibility of this recovery. Public information about the Chenkulam Dam indicates that it is a gravity dam made of masonry, primarily used for hydroelectric power generation. The dam stands at a height of about 88 feet, with a total length of approximately 470 feet, and the reservoir’s catchment area covers around 5.18km². It is highly improbable that a spade, allegedly thrown from the top of the dam into such a vast reservoir, could have been traced and recovered after a month. 15. It is profitable to note at this juncture that the statement which is admissible under Section 27 is the one which is the information leading to discovery. It is highly improbable that a spade, allegedly thrown from the top of the dam into such a vast reservoir, could have been traced and recovered after a month. 15. It is profitable to note at this juncture that the statement which is admissible under Section 27 is the one which is the information leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words, the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and the prosecution that information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. 16. In State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Singh, (1997) 10 SCC 675 , the Apex Court has observed the following as the conditions prescribed in Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 for unwrapping the cover of the ban against the admissibility of the statement of the accused to the police (1) a fact should have been discovered in consequence of the information received from the accused; (2) he should have been accused of an offence; (3) he should have been in the custody of a police officer when he supplied the information; (4) the fact so discovered should have been deposed to by the witness. The Court observed that if these conditions are satisfied, that part of the information given by the accused which led to such recovery gets denuded of the wrapper of prohibition and it becomes admissible in evidence. 17. In view of the serious inconsistencies that we have noted, we are of the view that the recovery of the spade on 22.11.2013 does not inspire our confidence. 18. The next circumstance is the seizure of the MO15 Bike from the house of PW14, the uncle of the wife of the accused. 17. In view of the serious inconsistencies that we have noted, we are of the view that the recovery of the spade on 22.11.2013 does not inspire our confidence. 18. The next circumstance is the seizure of the MO15 Bike from the house of PW14, the uncle of the wife of the accused. While examined before court, PW14 stated that the accused had not come to his residence and he had not parked his bike there. He also stated that on 16.11.2013, certain political parties had declared an All Kerala Bandh and there was a restriction in the movement of vehicles. Furthermore, PW27 was examined by the prosecution to prove that the bike produced as MO15 bearing Reg. No. KL-27/4733 was in fact sold by him to the appellant. However, when he was examined in court he stated that he has no connection with the appellant. He stated that he had sold his bike to a person by name Mathew. When the sale agreement dated 21.05.2012 was shown, he denied that it was executed by him. He stated that the police officer had told him to affix his signature on a document. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the bike which was seized from the house of PW14 belonged to the appellant or that it was in the said bike that the appellant had travelled from Nedumkandom to commit the murder. 19. This case does not involve any eye witnesses to the murder. Therefore, the prosecution was not required to present a complete, detailed picture of the crime. Instead, they only needed to prove incriminating circumstances that could reasonably connect the accused to the crime. However, the investigating officer has concocted a story that stretches the limits of believability, even for someone with an active imagination. It is glaringly evident that PW10, a police officer and the brother of the deceased, wielded his influence to fabricate a version of events designed to falsely implicate the appellant. As for the alleged motive, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish one. None of the children of the deceased were aware that the deceased had lodged a complaint against them before the SDM. As for the alleged motive, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish one. None of the children of the deceased were aware that the deceased had lodged a complaint against them before the SDM. There is also no evidence to show that the appellant traveled from Nedumkandom in a Bike owned by him to the house of the deceased on 15.11.2013, nor is there any credible proof that they engaged in a fight around 9:30 p.m., in the courtyard of his father. Furthermore, no material suggests that the appellant could have lifted MO1 stone, and dropped it on the deceased’s leg. The inquest, the post-mortem report and the scene mahazar reveal that there was indeed a scuffle at the scene of crime and the deceased, a healthy man and an agriculturist had given a stiff fight. If there had indeed been a fight, as suggested by the injuries on the deceased’s body, there would surely be signs of a recent fight or struggle on the appellant's body. Not even a single scratch was found on him. The prosecution also failed to prove that the appellant fled with the spade and threw it into the Chenkulam Dam. The recovery of the spade is not only implausible, but the evidence surrounding it is also inadmissible. Additionally, the presence of sand on the shoes of the appellant does not link him to the crime, as a proper explanation exists for this in the prosecution's own case. The numerous discrepancies and glaring gaps in the evidence severely undermine the case put forth by the prosecution. We are satisfied that none of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution has been satisfactorily established. We are of the view that the circumstances add up to nothing. As such, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has failed to prove the accusations against the appellant with any legal evidence. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence against the appellant in S.C.No. 276/2015 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Thodupuzha are set aside. We acquit the appellant and direct that he be set at liberty forthwith if his continued incarceration is not required in any other case.