Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1218 (KER)

Vijayakumar S/o Thankappan v. State of Kerala

2025-05-19

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN, RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.

body2025
JUDGMENT : Raja Vijayaraghavan, J. 1. The appellants herein are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 1421 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge for the Trial of Cases relating to Atrocities and Sexual Violence against Women and Children, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Crl. A. No.661 of 2019 has been filed by the 1st accused and Crl. A. No. 258 of 2019 has been filed by the 2nd accused. These appeals are heard and disposed of by a common judgment. 3. The appellants stood charged for having committed offence punishable under Sections 120B , 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC for allegedly committing the murder of one Syamala, an employee of the “Nisha Pappad” Shop at Thekkumoodu, Thiruvananthapuram. 4. As per the impugned judgment, the appellants were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs for the offence under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC . They were also found guilty and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC . Default sentences were also imposed for non-payment of fine. Facts in brief: 5. PW29 (Abraham Jacob) is the owner of an establishment by name “St. Mary’s Enterprises” which manufactures pappad in the name of “Nisha pappad”. Deceased Syamala was an employee of the said shop. PW7 (Saritha), PW8 (Bindhu S), PW14 (Bindhu), PW15 (Moly), PW32 (Bindhu), and PW33 (Preetha) were also employees of the very same concern. The case projected by the prosecution is that Vijayakumar (2nd accused), a married man, was in a relationship with PW15 (Moly). The 2nd accused and PW15 used to visit Syamala at her house at Pravachambalam and spend hours there. In order to freshen up, they used to go to the nearby house of PW3 (Santhi). A2 and PW15 gave an impression to all that they were husband and wife. While so, Syamala came to know that the 2nd accused was in a relationship with PW14 (Bindhu), who was also an employee of Nisha Pappad. In order to freshen up, they used to go to the nearby house of PW3 (Santhi). A2 and PW15 gave an impression to all that they were husband and wife. While so, Syamala came to know that the 2nd accused was in a relationship with PW14 (Bindhu), who was also an employee of Nisha Pappad. The deceased is alleged to have questioned the 2nd accused about this relationship. This led to an altercation between the 2nd accused and the deceased. Later, PW15 came to know about the relationship between the 2nd accused and PW14 and she confronted the 2nd accused. The 2nd accused under the impression that it was the deceased who had spilled the beans, confronted the deceased and threatened her that she would be done away with, if she were to interfere in his personal matters. It is alleged that the 2nd accused decided to teach Syamala a lesson for interfering in his affairs, for which purpose, he is alleged to have entered into a conspiracy with the 1st accused. 6. It was the practice at “Nisha Pappad” Company that the workers who worked overtime would be picked up from the concern and dropped off at various bus stops to enable them to reach their homes. The 1st accused was entrusted with the contract of dropping the employees in four trips commencing at 8.45 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. He used his vehicle bearing Reg. No. KCT-9207 for the said purpose. On 25.06.2001, the first trip was taken by PW7 (Saritha), her sister Sajitha, and the deceased. PW7 and her sister alighted from the autorickshaw at PMG Junction and Syamala had to be dropped near the Public Library at Palayam. In pursuance to the conspiracy hatched by accused Nos. 1 and 2 to murder Syamala, on 25.06.2001, the 1st accused, on the guise of dropping her near the Public Library at Palayam, took the deceased in his autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.KCT-9207 to Sukumar Auto Works and Service Station near AKG Centre, where the 2nd accused lay waiting. They attacked Syamala, and the 2nd accused is alleged to have caught hold of her neck and banged her head on a G.I. pipe, causing a fracture on the occipital region of her head. After causing injuries, the accused attempted to take her in the very same autorickshaw. However, due to some mechanical problem, the autorickshaw refused to start. They attacked Syamala, and the 2nd accused is alleged to have caught hold of her neck and banged her head on a G.I. pipe, causing a fracture on the occipital region of her head. After causing injuries, the accused attempted to take her in the very same autorickshaw. However, due to some mechanical problem, the autorickshaw refused to start. The injured was then taken to the Vanchiyoor-Pattoor road in an autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.KCV-1134 which was possessed by the 2nd accused, and she was made to sit with her back on the compound wall of a building opposite to Latha Timbers. After dropping the half-dead Syamala, the accused returned to the Service Station, and the autorickshaws were cleaned and washed with a service pump to cause the disappearance of evidence. Registration of the Crime and its aftermath. 7. PW12 (Mahesh), a Social worker, while sitting in the Party Office, received information that a lady was lying injured at Pattoor. He immediately went to the spot and thereafter informed the Vanchiyoor Police. The police reached the spot and shifted the injured to the Medical College Hospital. The relatives of the injured were informed. PW2, the brother of Syamala, rushed to the Medical College Hospital and identified his sister. 8. PW2 furnished Ext.P1 FI Statement based on which, Ext.P46 FIR was registered on 26.06.2001 at 10.30 am under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. by PW43, the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Vanchiyoor Police Station. In the FI Statement, it is mentioned that Syamala met with an accident. 9. It appears that initially, all concerned, including the police, were under the impression that Syamala had met with an accident. PW43 prepared Ext.P47 inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The ornaments and clothes found on the body of the deceased were forwarded to the SDM Court. Thereafter, the Officer prepared Ext.P45 scene mahazar and seized a plastic cover containing a tiffin carrier, umbrella, steel plate, purse, diary and 25 bundles of pappad from the scene as per Ext.P45 mahazar. 10. Autorickshaws bearing Reg. Nos. KCT-9207 and KCV-1134 were seized as per Ext.P14 mahazar. The vehicles were later released after the same were examined by the Forensic Experts. The items seized from the scene and the clothes of the deceased were forwarded to the court. 11. 10. Autorickshaws bearing Reg. Nos. KCT-9207 and KCV-1134 were seized as per Ext.P14 mahazar. The vehicles were later released after the same were examined by the Forensic Experts. The items seized from the scene and the clothes of the deceased were forwarded to the court. 11. While so, by order dated 27.04.2002 of the Director General of Police, the investigation was handed over to the CBCID. The same was taken over by PW46 (Vasudevan Nair) on 15.05.2002. He filed an application before the jurisdictional court seeking to hand over the material objects seized in connection with the crime. On 10.03.2003, a search was conducted in the premises of Sukumar Auto Works as per Ext.P44 search list. Trace evidence was recovered from various places. Later, Ext.P18 mahazar, in respect of the place where Syamala was found lying with the injuries, was prepared. The report from the Forensic Science Lab was obtained on 19.09.2003. In the course of investigation, since it was revealed that the offence under Section 302 of the IPC had been committed, a report was submitted before the court to incorporate Section 302 of the IPC after deleting Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. Report detailing the address of the accused was forwarded to the court on 15.12.2003. Later, Section 120B and Section 201 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC were added. The request was made to obtain the services of a Forensic Expert to inspect the alleged scene of crime. The saree and blouse containing smudge, as well as the red laterite soil taken from the scene of crime, were forwarded to the Forensic Science Lab as per Ext.P58 Forwarding Note. On 14.11.2003, at 5.30 p.m., the 1st accused was arrested as per Ext.P59 arrest memo. On 15.11.2003, at 6.00 p.m., the 2nd accused was arrested as per Ext.P62 arrest memo. On 15.11.2003, Ext.P65 report detailing the name and address of the accused was forwarded to the court. On 17.11.2003 at 10.00 a.m., Ext.P15 scene mahazar was prepared. The lock and key of Sukumar Auto Works and Service Centre were seized as per Ext.P16 scene mahazar. The autorickshaw bearing Reg. No. KCT-9207 was produced before the court as per Ext.P68 report 28.02.2006 and the autorickshaw bearing Reg. No. KCV-1134 was produced before the court as per Ext.P69 report dated 27.02.2006. 12. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW47, Detective Inspector, on 13.06.2008. The autorickshaw bearing Reg. No. KCT-9207 was produced before the court as per Ext.P68 report 28.02.2006 and the autorickshaw bearing Reg. No. KCV-1134 was produced before the court as per Ext.P69 report dated 27.02.2006. 12. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW47, Detective Inspector, on 13.06.2008. He obtained the ownership certificate in respect of Sukumar Auto Works and Service Centre. The Doctor who treated Syamala was questioned, and a treatment certificate was obtained. The Village Officer was directed to prepare a site plan in respect of the scene of crime. 13. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by PW48, the Detective Inspector, on 13.07.2010. The case records relating to the treatment of the deceased were obtained. 14. The investigation was then taken over by PW49, the Detective Officer of CBCID on 6.12.2011. He verified the investigation and filed the final report before court. Committal 15. Committal proceedings were initiated by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the law, and the case was committed to the Court of Session. The case was later made over to the Additional Sessions Court-VI for trial and disposal. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, charges were framed under Sections 120B , 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . When the same was read over, the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed that they be tried in accordance with the law. Evidence Tendered 16. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 49 to prove its case, and through them, Exts.P1 to P75 were exhibited and marked. Material Objects were produced and identified as MOs I to VII. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. They emphatically denied the circumstances brought out against them and maintained their innocence. On the side of the defence, the daughter of the 2nd accused was examined as DW1. Exts. D1 to D16 case diary contradictions were marked. 17. Findings of the learned Sessions Judge: (a) The circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly established beyond any semblance of doubt that it was the accused who had committed the murder of Syamala. (b) The medical evidence revealed that the death of Syamala was homicidal. (c) The 2nd accused had ample motive to annihilate Syamala as she had revealed his affair with PW14 (Bindhu) to PW15 (Moly). (b) The medical evidence revealed that the death of Syamala was homicidal. (c) The 2nd accused had ample motive to annihilate Syamala as she had revealed his affair with PW14 (Bindhu) to PW15 (Moly). (d) The evidence let in by PW7 established that Syamala was last seen with the 1st accused in his autorickshaw bearing Reg. No. KCT-9207 at about 8.45 p.m., shortly before she was found in an injured state in front of Latha Timbers at Vanchiyoor-Pattoor road. (e) The fact that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had hatched a conspiracy to do away with Syamala is revealed from their joint presence at the scene of crime, the manner in which the murder was committed and the attempt made by the accused to cause the disappearance of evidence and dispose of the body. (f) The autorickshaws bearing Reg. Nos. KCT-9207 and KCV-1134 were found to contain blood. (g) The yellow coloured blouse with black stains and the green coloured Saree worn by the deceased contained particles that were similar to the particles found in the swab taken from the floor on the south-eastern corner of the Sukumar Auto Works and Service Station. These particles were similar to those found in the soil collected by the investigating officer from the floor of the Service Station. (h) The evidence tendered by PW41 is that an item of soil sample collected from the crevice underneath the parapet contained human blood. (i) Ext.P43 FSL Report revealed that the sample of smudge found in the workshop was similar to the smudge found in the Saree and blouse worn by the deceased. Evidence also revealed that the smudge was oily and dark in colour and was entirely different from the red earth collected from the place where the body was found. (j) The evidence tendered by PWs 3 and 9 that Syamala had disclosed about the threat of harm by the 2nd accused if Syamala were to interfere in his personal matters. The contentions of the appellants: 18. Sri. C.S. Manilal, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st accused, submitted that none of the circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions Judge could be considered as reliable enough to point unerringly toward the guilt of the appellant. The contentions of the appellants: 18. Sri. C.S. Manilal, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st accused, submitted that none of the circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions Judge could be considered as reliable enough to point unerringly toward the guilt of the appellant. He referred to the observations as regards appreciation of evidence in cases resting on circumstantial evidence as elucidated in Kishore Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh , (1991) 1 SCC 286 and it is urged that the circumstances established in the instant case were not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The learned counsel would point out that the learned Sessions Judge erred in applying the last seen theory in the facts and circumstances. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the 1st accused, after dropping Syamala at the Bus Stop near the Public Library, had gone for three other trips. This fact is spoken to by PW7, PW8, PW14, PW32 and PW33. If their unchallenged testimony is accepted, the substratum of the case of prosecution will fall to the ground. The learned counsel would further urge that in respect of an incident which took place on 25.06.2001, the final report was laid before the court only after a decade. The accused were also arrested only on 15.11.2003 and 16.11.2003, respectively. The reliance placed by the learned Sessions Judge on the scientific evidence is clearly unsustainable as the autorickshaws seized as per Ext.P14 mahazar on 4.7.2001 and parked on the police were examined by the Scientific Expert only on 7.8.2001, after a month. It is urged that in the autorickshaws, only traces of blood were found, and the same was insufficient to detect its origin. Insofar as the soil particles found on the clothes are concerned, it is urged that the report only says the particles were similar and not identical, and the same will not advance the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the prosecution has not let in any evidence whatsoever to show that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have any connection between them and that they had any occasion to enter into a conspiracy to murder Syamala. Referring to the medical records, it is submitted that it is more likely that Syamala had died in a road traffic accident. 19. Sri. 1 and 2 have any connection between them and that they had any occasion to enter into a conspiracy to murder Syamala. Referring to the medical records, it is submitted that it is more likely that Syamala had died in a road traffic accident. 19. Sri. Sasthamangalam S. Ajith Kumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the 2nd accused, reiterated the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st accused. According to the learned counsel, there is not even a semblance of evidence against the 2nd accused. A reading of the evidence would reveal that the learned Sessions Judge relied on pure hearsay evidence to convict the 2nd accused. Submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor: 20. Sri. Renjith. T.R. , the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that the incriminating circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions Judge established will not show that it was the appellants who had committed the heinous act. He would point out that the evidence of PW7 clearly would reveal that Syamala was with the 1st accused when they were dropped near the Muscat Hotel. She was found dead later. No explanation is offered by the appellants. The scientific evidence clearly links the accused with the crime. Reliance is placed on the observation in Joseph vs. State of Kerala , (2000) 5 SCC 197 and Padala Veera Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , 1990 AIR SC 79 , and it is argued that the chain of circumstances cumulatively and unequivocally points towards the guilt of the appellants. Principles governing the evaluation of cases resting on circumstantial evidence: 21. The finding of guilt of the appellants is grounded entirely in circumstantial evidence. One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that the burden of proof squarely rests on the prosecution and that the general burden never shifts. There can be no conviction on the basis of surmises, conjectures or suspicion, however grave it may be. Strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that the burden of proof squarely rests on the prosecution and that the general burden never shifts. There can be no conviction on the basis of surmises, conjectures or suspicion, however grave it may be. Strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. The onus of the prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious factors to inculpate the accused nor falsity of defence could take the place of proof which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed, though a false plea by the defence at best, be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances unfailingly point to the guilt 22. It has been reiterated time and time again that even if the offence is a shocking one, the gravity of offence cannot, by itself, overweigh as far as legal proof is concerned. In cases depending highly upon the circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court has to be watchful and ensure that conjecture and suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. (See Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa , (1991) 3 SCC 27 ) 23. In order to sustain the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the following three conditions must be satisfied: (i) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; (ii) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and (iii) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else, and it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. 24. In Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala , 1993 Supp (3) SCC 745 , the Apex Court has held that suspicion is not a substitute for proof. 24. In Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala , 1993 Supp (3) SCC 745 , the Apex Court has held that suspicion is not a substitute for proof. There is a long distance between “may be true” and “must be true”, and the prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 25. In Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam , (2013) 12 SCC 406 , the Apex Court, while examining the distinction between “proof beyond reasonable doubt” and “suspicion”, has held as under: “13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that “may be” proved, and something that “will be proved”. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense.” 26. It is also a well-settled principle that in criminal cases, if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one binding to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence [See: Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh , (1973) 2 SCC 808 ]. 27. We now turn to examine whether the circumstances relied upon to prove the guilt of the appellants have been clearly and conclusively established, and whether they are strong enough to link the appellants to the crime. The law requires that the chain of circumstances must be complete and unbroken, leaving no reasonable doubt about the involvement of the appellants. The Court must be fully satisfied that each fact presented by the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof. We must also take care not to let emotion or the seriousness of the offence influence our judgment in the absence of clear and reliable evidence. Cause of Death: 28. To prove that the death of Syamala was a case of homicide, the prosecution has examined PW30, the Senior Lecturer, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, who saw the injured first and PW38, the Lecturer in Forensic Medicine and Assistant Police Surgeon, Medical College Hospital, who conducted the autopsy. PW30 noted that the injured had sustained a lacerated wound on the occipital area. The patient was not conscious and the pupils were dilated. He issued Ext.P27 wound certificate. PW2, the brother of the deceased, stated that he had gone to the hospital hearing about the accident and found Syamala lying in the hospital bed. He stated that the police told him that his sister was no more. PW38, the Forensic Surgeon, noted 12 injuries on the body of the deceased. Injury No. 4 was a fissured fracture of the skull extending from the occiput to the foramen magnum just to the right of the midline. Subdural haemorrhage was seen at the base. Thick subarachnoid haemorrhage on both sides. The gyri were flattened and the sulci were narrowed. According to him, death was due to head injury. Injury No. 4 was a fissured fracture of the skull extending from the occiput to the foramen magnum just to the right of the midline. Subdural haemorrhage was seen at the base. Thick subarachnoid haemorrhage on both sides. The gyri were flattened and the sulci were narrowed. According to him, death was due to head injury. He categorically denied the fact that injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by an accident. In view of the emphatic evidence tendered by the medical professionals, it can be held without any manner of doubt that the death of Syamala was a case of homicide. Evaluation of the various circumstances. 29. The next contention is whether the prosecution has been able to prove that all the links in the chain of events have been established beyond reasonable doubt, and the established circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. 30. We have already detailed the circumstances relied on by the learned Sessions Judge to arrive at the finding of guilt. They are: a) The deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused by PW7. b) The 2nd accused had a motive to do away with the deceased. c) The stains of blood detected in the autorickshaws bearing Registration Nos. KCT-9207 and KCV-1134 were possessed by accused Nos. 1 and 2. d) The deceased's clothes contained soil in Sukumar Auto Works and Service Centre and smudges which were similar to the particles. 31. We shall evaluate each of the above circumstances and see if the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the same. 32. Before dealing with the last-seen theory propounded by the prosecution, it would be profitable to have a look at the court charge. 33. Court Charge ? That you, on 25.06.2001, had entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Shyamala, aged 40 years, daughter of Meenakshi, Meleputhen Veettil House, and thereby committed the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code ? That on 25.06.2001, at about 8.40pm, at Gas House Junction, in Kannamula Ward, in Vanchiyoor Village, you had jointly in furtherance of your common intention caused death of the aforesaid Shyamala by pushing down Shyamala and hitting her head on a G.I. pipe. ? That on 25.06.2001, at about 8.40pm, at Gas House Junction, in Kannamula Ward, in Vanchiyoor Village, you had jointly in furtherance of your common intention caused death of the aforesaid Shyamala by pushing down Shyamala and hitting her head on a G.I. pipe. ? A2 had brought Shyamala to the said place in an auto rickshaw bearing registration number KCT-9207 for the purpose of committing murder of Shyamala: and you have committed the murder punishable under Section 302 r/w.Section 34 of the IPC . ? Thereafter, you had removed the body of Shyamala to a different place and destroyed evidence by cleaning the bloodstains in their auto-rickshaw. You have thereby committed the offence of destroying evidence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC . Theory of Last Seen 34. In the charge, it is shown that the 2nd accused had brought Syamala to the gas house junction, which is clearly an error. However, what the accused are called upon to answer is that the 1st accused had brought Syamala to the Gas House Junction at 8.40 pm and on reaching there, the deceased was attacked by the accused and injuries were inflicted. The prosecution emphatically relies on the evidence of PW7 to bring home the last-seen theory. Now we shall consider whether the said circumstance has been established. 35. PW29 (Abraham Jacob) runs the establishment St.Marys Enterprises, where Syamala was employed. He stated that there are about 25 employees, the majority of whom are women. According to him, the normal work hours are between 8.30 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. and from 1 p.m to 5 p.m. However, there will be overtime work on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and on such days the employees may have to work till 8.30 pm. He stated that during days when the workers may have to stay overtime, Vijayan Nair (A1) used to drop the employees either at their homes or at the nearest bus stop. There used to be four trips on those days. The first trip will be at 8.45 pm and the last trip will be between 10 and 10.15 pm. He said Saritha (PW7), her sister Sajitha and the deceased used to go on the first trip. Syamala used to be dropped near the public library, at Palayam. 36. PW7 (Saritha) stated that she and her sister were employees of Nisha Pappad. He said Saritha (PW7), her sister Sajitha and the deceased used to go on the first trip. Syamala used to be dropped near the public library, at Palayam. 36. PW7 (Saritha) stated that she and her sister were employees of Nisha Pappad. They had to do overtime work on Mondays to Wednesdays, on which days the work would get over only at 8.30 pm. After work, she, along with her sister (Sajitha) and Syamala, would be taken by the 1st accused to the bus stand. PW7 and her sister used to be dropped off at the PMG junction. Syamala would get down near the Public Library at Palayam. She stated that, on the next day, she came to know that Syamala was no more. She added that Syamala was seen alive on the previous day as they had travelled together. She stated that they boarded the autorickshaw at 8.30 p.m. and when the vehicle reached PMG Junction, the time was about 8.45 pm. Syamala was in the autorickshaw, and Vijayan Nair rode it towards the direction of Palayam. These aspects of the matter are undisputed. The witness, however, did not support the case of the prosecution in its entirety. Exts.P2 to P5 case diary contradictions were marked while she was in the box. She stated in cross-examination that there used to be about 4 trips on Mondays to Wednesdays and the last trip would be at 10 p.m. 37. PW8 (Bindhu), another employee of Nisha Pappad, stated that on 25.06.2001, after overtime work, Syamala, Saritha and Savita boarded the autorickshaw of the 1st accused at 8.45 p.m. At 9 p.m., she boarded the autorickshaw which was driven by the 1st accused. Along with her, Bindu of Kumarapuram and Moly were there in the autorickshaw. She stated that on 26.06.2001, the 1st accused had come for work. 38. PW10 (Priya) is another employee of Nisha Pappad. She stated that on 25.06.2001, after overtime work, she was taken in the autorickshaw driven by the 1st accused at 9.30 p.m. She stated that she believed that she went on the last trip and the autorickshaw was driven by the 1st accused. 39. PW14 (Bindhu) stated that she was employed with Nisha Pappad in the year 2001. On days in which she had to do overtime work, she used to go home in the autorickshaw of the 1st accused at night. 39. PW14 (Bindhu) stated that she was employed with Nisha Pappad in the year 2001. On days in which she had to do overtime work, she used to go home in the autorickshaw of the 1st accused at night. She stated that she took the second trip on such days, and along with her, there used to be Bindhu (PW8) and Moly (PW15), and Vijayan Nair (A1) had driven the autorickshaw. On 26.6.2001, she came to know that Syamala was no more. 40. PW15 (Moly) stated that she was employed at the Nisha Pappad Company during the year 2001. According to her, on 25.06.2001, she had gone home in the autorickshaw of the 1st accused. PW8 (Bindhu) and PW14 (Bindhu) were with her. She added that Syamala was taken by the 1st accused in the first trip. She denied that she had gone with the 2nd accused Vijayakumar to Syamala’s house. Exts.P8 to P12 contradictions were marked when she did not support the case of the prosecution in full. 41. PW32 is one Bindhu. She was also an employee of Nisha Pappad Company. She stated that the work hours are from 8.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. and on days with overtime, the employees may have to work till 8.30 p.m. She stated that she used to be dropped home in the autorickshaw driven by the 1st accused, and she used to take the 4th trip. She stated that on 25.6.2001, Syamala, Saritha and Sajitha took the 1st trip which was at 8.30 p.m. and the autorickshaw was driven by the 1st accused. In cross-examination, it was brought out that the 4th trip commenced after 10 p.m. and she would reach home only at about 11 p.m. 42. PW33 (Preethi) is yet another employee of Nisha Pappad. She stated that after doing overtime, all workers leave in the autorickshaw driven by the 1st accused. She took the 3rd trip. On 25.6.2001, Syamala, Saritha and Sajitha took the 1st trip. 43. In light of the above evidence, we shall now examine whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the 1st accused. She took the 3rd trip. On 25.6.2001, Syamala, Saritha and Sajitha took the 1st trip. 43. In light of the above evidence, we shall now examine whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the 1st accused. As is evident from the charge, the case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused took the deceased to Sukumar Motor Works, where she was allegedly assaulted by both accused at around 8:40 p.m. The evidence adduced, however, reveals that the 1st accused made four trips in his autorickshaw on the day in question. During the first trip at 8:30 p.m., the deceased, Saritha, and Sajitha are said to have travelled together. If the prosecution version is to be accepted, the 1st accused would have taken the deceased, Syamala, directly to Sukumar Auto Works, where he was joined by the 2nd accused, and both allegedly assaulted her. Subsequently, the injured would have to be transported to Pattor Road in the autorickshaw of the 2nd accused. However, the prosecution itself has adduced evidence that contradicts this narrative. PW9 stated that she, along with Bindhu and Moly, boarded the autorickshaw of the 1st accused at 9:00 p.m. and that all were dropped at their respective destinations. PW33 testified about the third trip, and PW44 confirmed a fourth trip that ended only at 11:00 p.m. 44. It needs to be borne in mind at this juncture that the Last Seen theory is applicable in cases where an individual is last seen in the company of the deceased and subsequently the latter is found dead. In such circumstances, the person last seen is expected to offer a plausible and satisfactory explanation as to how and when he parted company with the deceased. If the explanation offered is credible, the burden is deemed to have been discharged. However, if the individual fails to offer such an explanation, despite the facts being within his special knowledge—he fails to discharge the burden imposed upon him by Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. This legal presumption, however, must be invoked cautiously and only when the surrounding circumstances justify such a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. In the case on hand, the learned Sessions Judge has applied the Last Seen theory on the premise that PW7 had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused. This legal presumption, however, must be invoked cautiously and only when the surrounding circumstances justify such a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. In the case on hand, the learned Sessions Judge has applied the Last Seen theory on the premise that PW7 had last seen the deceased in the company of the accused. If the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are accepted, it becomes clear that the 1st accused remained actively engaged in his work until 11:00 p.m., making it implausible that he could have assaulted the deceased after the first trip and subsequently transported her to the Pattor–Vanchiyoor Road. This contradiction substantially weakens the first major circumstance relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge—namely, the Last Seen theory—as a basis for linking the accused to the crime. It is also crucial to note that the deceased was found lying by the roadside at around 10:30 p.m., as observed by independent witnesses. This vital aspect appears to have been overlooked by the learned Sessions Judge. When the prosecution's own evidence negates the possibility of the accused being last seen with the deceased, there arises no legal obligation on the accused to furnish a reasonable explanation as to the cause of her death. It is well settled that the Last Seen theory must be applied by evaluating the case of the prosecution in its entirety, bearing in mind the chain of circumstances that precede and follow the alleged point of being last seen together. 45. It is difficult to comprehend why the prosecution would introduce evidence suggesting that the 1st accused was diligently working until 11:00 p.m., attending to employee drop-offs, while simultaneously claiming that he was present at Sukumar Auto Works at 8:40 a.m., accompanying the 2nd accused to confine and assault the deceased. This inconsistency strikes at the root of the prosecution’s narrative and raises serious doubts about the reliability of the sequence of events presented. Presence of blood stains in the autorickshaws 46. The next significant circumstance relied upon is the presence of bloodstains in the autorickshaws bearing Registration Nos.KCT-9207 and KCV-1134, allegedly in the possession of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Ext.P14 shows that the local police seized these autorickshaws pursuant to the mahazar dated 04.07.2001, whereas the alleged incident occurred on 25.06.2001. PW40 examined the autorickshaws only on 07.08.2001, as evidenced by Ext.P40. 1 and 2. Ext.P14 shows that the local police seized these autorickshaws pursuant to the mahazar dated 04.07.2001, whereas the alleged incident occurred on 25.06.2001. PW40 examined the autorickshaws only on 07.08.2001, as evidenced by Ext.P40. There is no material on record to indicate the basis on which the police decided to seize both autorickshaws in the first place. That apart, it has emerged from Ext.P40 that the vehicles remained in police custody from the date of their seizure. The unexplained delay of nearly two months in conducting the forensic examination raises serious questions. PW40 stated that blood was detected on the passenger seat, the running board, and the metallic bars in front of the passenger seat. However, the scientific analysis failed to identify the origin of the blood. While the clothes of the deceased were found to contain human blood, the mere presence of unidentified bloodstains in the vehicles—especially after a significant delay and while in police custody—does not substantially support the case of the prosecution. Failure to identify the blood stain as that of the deceased would further weaken the prosecution version. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, that the prolonged custody of the vehicles by the police could facilitate the planting of evidence, cannot be brushed aside lightly, particularly when the possibility of the autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KCT-9207 having come into contact with blood appears remote. Detection of soil and smudge in the clothes of the deceased “similar” to that found at the place of occurrence 47. Another circumstance projected by the prosecution is the presence of soil and smudge particles on the clothes of the deceased, which were allegedly similar to those found at Sukumar Auto Works. It is revealed that the clothes of the deceased were seized during the inquest and subsequently forwarded to the SDM Court. However, the records are silent as to whether these items were sealed or rendered tamper-proof at any stage. PW41, the Joint Director (Research) of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, conducted an examination of the scene of crime on 10.03.2003 in the presence of Sri P. Vasudevan Nair, Detective Inspector. He deposed that a detailed examination of the doors, parapet walls, and floor of the service station was carried out to detect biological trace evidence such as blood. PW41, the Joint Director (Research) of the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram, conducted an examination of the scene of crime on 10.03.2003 in the presence of Sri P. Vasudevan Nair, Detective Inspector. He deposed that a detailed examination of the doors, parapet walls, and floor of the service station was carried out to detect biological trace evidence such as blood. Blood traces were reportedly found on the cut pipe near the southeastern corner of the parapet, on the northern side of the parapet adjacent to the cut pipe, on the eastern floor corner, and in the crevice below the parapet. However, PW41 categorically stated that the blood traces found at locations 1 to 4 were insufficient for testing. Only Sample No. 5, collected from beneath the parapet crevice, was found to contain human blood. It is of particular significance that this trace was discovered nearly two years after the commission of the offence, thereby severely diminishing its probative value in advancing the case of the prosecution. The report prepared by PW41, marked as Ext.P42, further records that certain material objects forwarded by Thomas Alexander were subjected to scientific examination and compared with the Saree and blouse worn by the deceased. The Scientific Assistant observed that the particles found on the deceased’s clothing were “similar” to those found in Item No. 4. During cross-examination, PW41 admitted that none of the samples were sealed and that he personally collected and retained them. More importantly, Ext.P42 merely uses the term “similar,” and not “identical,” to describe the comparative findings. 48. We are unable to place reliance on the above scientific evidence for multiple reasons. PW46, the Investigating Officer, stated that the Saree and blouse retained at the police station, along with the red soil collected from the place where Syamala was found, were forwarded to the court on 15.03.2003, accompanied by Ext.P58 forwarding note. PW41 had earlier examined the scene of crime on 10.03.2003 and had collected soil samples from various locations. While it was reported that the blouse and saree contained particles “similar” to those seized from the scene, the lack of sealing or chain of custody procedures seriously compromises the integrity of the samples. Moreover, while the presence of similar soil may suggest a possible connection, it does not establish a definitive or exclusive link. While it was reported that the blouse and saree contained particles “similar” to those seized from the scene, the lack of sealing or chain of custody procedures seriously compromises the integrity of the samples. Moreover, while the presence of similar soil may suggest a possible connection, it does not establish a definitive or exclusive link. Soil comparison must take into account not just superficial characteristics like grain size and color, but also deeper features such as mineral composition and chemical makeup. These critical parameters are neither analyzed nor documented in the report. Unless the expert report clearly states that the samples are “identical” in composition and origin, a mere assertion of “similarity” cannot be treated as conclusive or incriminating. Two samples may appear alike in certain respects but could still originate from entirely different sources. There exists a substantial and material distinction between the terms “identical” and “similar.” Therefore, the report’s use of the term “similar” falls short of the standard required to establish an incriminating circumstance against the appellants. Motive 49. The case of the prosecution is that the 2nd accused had ample motive to do away with the deceased as she divulged the relationship that the 2nd accused had with PW14 Bindu to PW15 Bindu. Both PW14 and PW15 denied that either of them had any relationship with the 2nd accused. Furthermore, it is the specific case of the prosecution that both PW14 and PW15, who are considered rivals, travelled together in the very same auto for the 2nd trip back home. True, in a case of circumstantial evidence motive assumes great significance and importance for the reason that the absence of motive would put the court on its guard and cause it to scrutinise each piece of evidence very closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof. In the case on hand the evidence on record does not suggest any motive for the 2nd accused to commit a crime, or for that matter for the 1st accused to be a willing conspirator to aid the 2nd accused. There is no evidence even to suggest that the accused were known to each other and that there was any reason for the 1st accused to aid the 2nd accused to commit any heinous act let alone murder. Conclusion: 50. There is no evidence even to suggest that the accused were known to each other and that there was any reason for the 1st accused to aid the 2nd accused to commit any heinous act let alone murder. Conclusion: 50. In view of the discussion above, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn. We are convinced that the circumstances presented by the prosecution are not of a conclusive nature so as to exclude every hypothesis, but the guilt of the accused. The chain of evidence does not show that, within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused and the accused alone. It is by now well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken, the accused must get the benefit thereof. There is paucity of legal evidence to reach the exclusive conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellants. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a case of no evidence. 51. In the result, these appeals will stand allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants in S.C. No. 1421 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, are set aside. We acquit the appellants and direct that they be set at liberty forthwith, if their continued incarceration is not required in any other case.