Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 640 (KER)

Kaliraja S/o. R. Thangam v. State Of Kerala

2025-03-18

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., VIJU ABRAHAM

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.) The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 303 of 2016, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pala. In the said case, he was indicted for having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code . By the impugned judgment, he was found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-, with a default clause, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC . He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, with a default clause for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC . The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The deceased, Ramar, was a stone cutter by profession. He, along with his father Alakar Swami (PW8), Easki (PW6), the brother of the deceased, and the appellant, worked under a contractor named Sidique (PW1) and they all worked in the property of one Murali (PW2). All of them resided in a rented house owned by one Sasi, which was provided for housing the employees. According to the prosecution, on 24.01.2016, PWs 6 and 8 left for their native place in Tamil Nadu at 12 noon and after that the deceased and the appellant were together. As per the charge, at approximately 8:00 p.m., the appellant, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, attacked the deceased with a wooden stump and delivered a blow to his head. When the wooden stump broke into two pieces, the appellant took firewood from the kitchen fireplace and struck the deceased on the head again. It is further alleged that the injured Ramar was then pushed into a small chamber beneath the fireplace behind the kitchen and the appellant covered him with clothes and then set him on fire. Ramar’s body was completely charred and rendered unidentifiable. 3. The prosecution alleged that in pursuance to the commission of the offence as aforesaid, the appellant allegedly fled to his native place. On 25.01.2016, at around 11:00 p.m., he reached his home in Tamil Nadu and met his wife, Mariammal (PW7). The prosecution contends that the appellant confessed to the crime before his wife and at that time, Pandiyammal (PW9), the wife of the deceased, was also present. On 25.01.2016, at around 11:00 p.m., he reached his home in Tamil Nadu and met his wife, Mariammal (PW7). The prosecution contends that the appellant confessed to the crime before his wife and at that time, Pandiyammal (PW9), the wife of the deceased, was also present. The appellant is alleged to have confessed the crime before PW9 and begged for forgiveness. Pandiyammal immediately informed Narasingam (PW10), her father. Both PW9 and PW10 proceeded to the Othakkada Police Station, where they reported the incident to S.Thanka Durai (PW30). Subsequently, the appellant was summoned to the Police Station, and the Kerala Police were intimated. 4. PW1 (Sidique), the contractor, visited the house where his employees were staying and found an unidentifiable charred body of a human being at 6:00 p.m. on 25.01.2016 lying at the back of the house. He rushed to the Ramapuram Police Station and lodged information based on which Crime No.82 of 2016 was registered under Section 174 of the Cr.PC. 5. The investigation was subsequently taken over by PW32, the Circle Inspector of Police, Ramapuram Police Station. He conducted an inquest over the dead body (Ext.P6) and, with the assistance of forensic experts, collected scientific evidence from the crime scene. The materials gathered by the Scientific Assistant were seized and forwarded to the Court. 6. On 27.01.2016, at 3:00 p.m., the appellant was arrested as per Ext.P21 Arrest Memo. Based on Ext.P4(a) confessional statement, MO2 Wooden Stump was seized in the presence of witnesses. MO3 (lungi) allegedly worn by the appellant at the time of occurrence was seized as per Ext.P5 Mahazar. 7. Autopsy of the charred dead body was conducted by PW23. To establish the identity of the deceased, the femur bone was handed over by the doctor who conducted the autopsy. The same was forwarded for DNA analysis to PW20 along with the blood sample of Alakar Swami for comparison. The DNA analysis confirmed the dead body was that of Ramar. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted before the Jurisdictional Magistrate, Pala. 8. 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 finally made over to the Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, charges were framed under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code . 8. 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 finally made over to the Additional Sessions Judge for trial and disposal. After hearing the prosecution and the accused, charges were framed under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code . When the same was read over, the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed that he be tried in accordance with the law. 9. To prove the case of the prosecution, 32 witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 32 and through them, Exts.P1 to P30 were exhibited and marked. MOs 1 to 7(a) were produced and identified. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials arising from the evidence were put to the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He maintained that he was innocent. He added that he had never resided in the home along with Ramar and others. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. On his side, Ext.D1 case diary contradiction was marked. 10. The learned Sessions Judge evaluated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that there was no direct evidence to establish the commission of the offence by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge identified as many as 16 circumstances to prove the involvement of the appellant. The key circumstances relied upon by the Sessions Judge include the Last Seen theory proven by examining Vinod T.V. ( PW12), the extra-judicial confessions made by the appellant to Pandi Ammal, the wife of the deceased, and to Easki (PW6), the brother of the deceased. On the basis of DNA profiling, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the deceased was Ramar, the son of Alakar Swami (PW8). The Court also placed reliance on the recovery of MO2, the stick, which was allegedly used by the appellant to inflict injuries on the deceased. The Court also came to the conclusion that the conduct of the appellant in leaving his worksite without informing his employer was an additional circumstance to connect the appellant with the death of Ramar. The Sessions Judge finally concluded that the chain of these proven circumstances was complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. 11. Sri. The Sessions Judge finally concluded that the chain of these proven circumstances was complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, excluding any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. 11. Sri. P.G. Jayasankar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence let in, in its proper perspective and has entered into the finding of guilt on incorrect inferences. According to the learned counsel, there was no evidence, let alone any worthwhile evidence, to link the appellant with the murder of Ramar. It is urged that the appellant had disputed that he was residing in the rented premises of Sasi and that he was working under PW1. None of the neighbours were examined to prove that the appellant had been residing there with the rest of the accused. He would urge that the ‘principle of last seen’ was wrongly applied by the learned Session Judge, as there was no reliable evidence to establish the said fact. According to the learned counsel, the learned Sessions Judge has placed implicit reliance on the extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by the appellant to the wife of the deceased. He would refer to the principles of law laid by the Apex Court in Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab , [ [ (2012) 11 SCC 768 ] ] and it is urged that extrajudicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and it cannot be the basis for arriving at a conviction in a case of murder. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts, and there was no justification in insisting that the accused was bound to explain what had happened to the deceased by applying Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further submitted that recovery of the alleged weapon of offence could not have been relied upon, as the recovery has not been proven in accordance with law. He would refer to the principles of law laid in Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396] , and in Subramanya v. State of Karnataka , [[2022 SCC OnLine SC 1400]] , and it is urged that the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the above judgments have been observed more by its breach than by compliance. State of Uttar Pradesh , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396] , and in Subramanya v. State of Karnataka , [[2022 SCC OnLine SC 1400]] , and it is urged that the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the above judgments have been observed more by its breach than by compliance. The learned counsel would then submit that, though MO2 was found to contain human blood, the failure of the prosecution to conduct a serological test to determine the origin of the blood in both the weapon of offence and the clothes of the accused is fatal. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence and has erroneously arrived at the finding of guilt. 12. Smt. Neema T.V., the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel. She would point out that the learned Sessions Judge has delineated as many as 16 circumstances which were convincingly proved by the prosecution. Each of the circumstances formed a chain and provided a strong link, connecting the appellant to the death of Ramar. It is further submitted that the appellant and the deceased were alone in the house, and it is for the appellant to explain how his close friend and associate was found with head injuries and completely charred. She would urge that the wife of the deceased is a near relative of the appellant herein, and there is absolutely no reason to suspect the sanctity of the confession made by the accused. 13. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced and have perused the entire records. 14. PW1 is one Sidique. He is also a stone cutter by profession. According to him, he was working as a subcontractor under one Aneesh. On 24.01.2016, he found the charred remains of a human body at the back of the house rented by Murali. He stated that, in the said house, Easki (PW6), Kaliraja , and Ramar had been residing till 24.01.2016. He stated that a sum of Rs.1200/- was given by the wife of PW2 to Nirmala to hand it over to PW3 for disbursing the wages to the stone cutters. On 25.01.2016, at about 5:00 p.m., when he reached the house where these employees were residing, he found the door to the house locked. He stated that a sum of Rs.1200/- was given by the wife of PW2 to Nirmala to hand it over to PW3 for disbursing the wages to the stone cutters. On 25.01.2016, at about 5:00 p.m., when he reached the house where these employees were residing, he found the door to the house locked. Though he made telephone calls to the employees, he found that their phones were switched off. Later, he noticed smoke and the smell of burning flesh in and around the house. Upon seeing the charred remains, he immediately rushed to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. 15. PW2 is P. A. Murali, the owner of the property where stone-cutting works were being carried out. 16. PW3 is one Sindhu Thankappan. She stated that she is a tailor and that the house of PW2 is situated near her tailoring shop. She stated that she is acquainted with the contractor. According to her, on 25.01.2016, the appellant approached her and handed over the key to the house. She stated that Nirmala had entrusted her with the wages of the stone cutters as instructed by PW1. Accordingly, she gave the said sum to the appellant. She also stated that the appellant told her that he was leaving. Later, she realized that the charred remains of a human being had been found at the back side of the house. 17. PW4 is an autorickshaw driver. He stated that he is aware of the cutting of stones being carried out on the property of Murali. According to him, the said area is situated near the autostand. He identified the accused as one of the employees who had been working there. He stated that on 24.01.2016, at about 10:00 a.m., four of the employees rented his autorickshaw and went to Ramapuram to purchase alcohol. Thereafter, he dropped all four of them on the road beneath their house, which according to him is almost 200 meters from their house. He stated that Shaji and Sunny, also autorickshaw drivers, enquired whether the persons who hired his vehicle had paid him the fare. They told them that some money was due from the Tamil workers. Later, he was informed that the charred remains of a body had been found at the back of the house. He stated that Shaji and Sunny, also autorickshaw drivers, enquired whether the persons who hired his vehicle had paid him the fare. They told them that some money was due from the Tamil workers. Later, he was informed that the charred remains of a body had been found at the back of the house. In cross-examination, it was brought out that the employees had entered his autorickshaw about three years earlier, and he was not able to recollect any specific identifying features of those passengers. 18. PW5 is Sunny Augustin, also an autorickshaw driver. He stated that he had witnessed the Tamil workers renting the autorickshaw of PW4. As some money was due to him, he went to the house where the Tamil workers were residing at about noon on 24.01.2016 and pressured them to pay the amount due to him. On the next day, at about 12 noon, he saw the appellant standing near a tea shop. He enquired with him in sign language as to what he was doing and where he was going. The accused responded that he was going to his native place. He stated that when he went to the house the previous day, there were around 3-4 people there. In cross-examination, it was brought out that numerous persons from Tamil Nadu had been residing in the area, and he was not able to recollect any specific identifying features to recognize those people. 19. PW6 is Easki, the brother of the deceased. He stated that on 24.01.2016, at about noon, he and his father had gone back to their native place. He also stated that he along with the appellant, the deceased and his father Alakar Swami were working together under Sidique and residing in the rented house arranged by Murali. On 25.01.2016, at midnight, upon hearing information about the murder, they went to the Othakkada Police Station. According to him, the appellant confessed to him that after consuming alcohol, he attacked Ramar with a firewood stick. He stated that this was not the information given to him by Kaliraja, but rather, he had overheard what Kaliraja had stated to the police while at the Police Station. He stated that Kaliraja used to behave very well towards him, and he is unaware of how Kaliraja behaved after consuming alcohol. 20. PW7 is Mariammal, the wife of the appellant herein. He stated that Kaliraja used to behave very well towards him, and he is unaware of how Kaliraja behaved after consuming alcohol. 20. PW7 is Mariammal, the wife of the appellant herein. She did not support the case of the prosecution. In her previous statement, she had stated that the accused had confessed to her about the murder, was confronted when she was in the box and the same was marked as Ext. P2. 21. PW8 is Alakar Swami, the father of the deceased. He stated that all of them were staying together in the same building at the workplace. He also stated that his blood sample was taken by the police. 22. PW9 is Pandiyammal, the wife of the deceased. According to her, the deceased was working under Sidique, a contractor. She stated that she had gone to the house of Kaliraja to enquire whether Ramar had called him. It was then that she was told that the appellant had murdered her husband. She stated that the appellant then prostrated in front of her and confessed that he had murdered her husband. He stated that after attacking him with a firewood stick, he burned the deceased by pouring diesel on him. According to her, the appellant confessed that the incident occurred at 11:00 p.m. on 25.01.2016. She further stated that when her parents went to the Othukkada Police Station, she was also with them. She identified MO1, Sandal of Kaliraja. In cross-examination, it was brought out that her mother, father, and the wife of the appellant were present when she went to the Othukkada Police Station. She also stated in cross-examination that her father, Narasingam (PW10), had stayed with the deceased and the appellant for a few days on 22.01.2016 and 23.01.2016. She stated that Kaliraja is also a near relative of hers. When asked whether Kaliraja was under the influence of alcohol, she denied the same. 23. PW10 is Narasingam, the father of PW9. He stated that he along with his daughter had gone to the Othukkada Police Station. He stated that the appellant had confessed to him that he had murdered his son-in-law and begged for forgiveness. In cross-examination, he stated that when the appellant had confessed, he had not consumed alcohol. He added that the appellant never consumed alcohol and that he had never stayed with him. 24. He stated that the appellant had confessed to him that he had murdered his son-in-law and begged for forgiveness. In cross-examination, he stated that when the appellant had confessed, he had not consumed alcohol. He added that the appellant never consumed alcohol and that he had never stayed with him. 24. PW11 is P.A.Thankappan, the salesman of the Toddy Shop in Aanichuvadu. He stated that on 24.01.2016, at 9:30 a.m., four Tamil workers came to his toddy shop and drank alcohol. He stated that one among them was standing in the dock. 25. PW12 is one Vinod T.V. According to him, he runs a tea shop at Aanichuvadu, near Amanakkara. He stated that certain Tamil workers were engaged in rock cutting on the property of Murali, and they used to come to his shop for tea. He stated that on 24.01.2016, four of them came to his tea shop for tea at about 9:00 a.m. Along with them, an old man was also present. They did not pay any money for the tea. At noon, he saw the old man, along with another person going towards Pala on a bus. In the evening, between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m., he heard a loud conversation between two persons outside his tea shop. He noticed them because they were talking in a very loud voice. Thereafter, he saw them walking together to their house. One of the two people who were having a loud conversation was identified as the appellant standing in the dock. He stated that he had never seen the other person again. It was brought out in cross-examination that he had not mentioned the time of hearing the conversation as between 6.00 and 7.00 p.m. 26. PW15 was examined to prove the recovery of MO2, a wooden stick. He stated that on 27.01.2016, at 3:00 p.m., he saw the accused taking a wooden piece from the property. He identified MO2 as the wooden stump. In cross-examination, it was brought out that he was residing about 500 meters away from the house of Murali. According to him, on seeing the police personnel walking towards the house, he followed them. 27. PW16 is an attestor to Ext.P5 Mahazar, as per which MO3 (Kaili), which was worn by the accused at the time of the occurrence, was seized. 28. According to him, on seeing the police personnel walking towards the house, he followed them. 27. PW16 is an attestor to Ext.P5 Mahazar, as per which MO3 (Kaili), which was worn by the accused at the time of the occurrence, was seized. 28. PW17 is the wife of Sasi, in whose building, the workers who used to cut stones on the property of Murali stayed. No rent deed was executed. Sasi is no more and as the witness was staying at Ernakulam, no deed was executed. 29. PW18 is the attestor to Ext.P6 inquest. Through him, MO1 (chappal), MO4 (Kannas having a capacity of 5 Liters), MO5 (stove), MO6 (Branch of tree), MO7 series (plastic chair and leg of the plastic chair), and Ext.P3 and Ext.P7 bills from the Beverages Corporation were marked. PW19 is the Secretary, Veliyannoor Grama Panchayat, through whom the ownership certificate of Building No. 273 in ward VIII of the said Panchayat stated to be owned by one Sasi as on 14.1.2016 was marked as Ext.P8. 30. PW20 is the Scientific Assistant, was then attached to the District Crime Records Bureau, Kottayam. She examined the scene of occurrence in connection with the crime. She noted the dead body found on the rear side of the house in a completely burnt condition. She collected samples and the same was handed over to the investigating officer for the purpose of analysis. Ext.P10 is the report which was marked through her. She stated that while working in the DNA Division as a Scientific Officer Biology, certain packets were forwarded to the Serology Division, which included a piece of partially burnt bone and some black hairs. The blood sample of Alakar Swami had also been forwarded for comparison. She stated that the stains on the floor belonged to a male person and it matched with the DNA profile of the bone of the deceased person. It was also found that the sample bone belonged to the son of Sri. Alakar Swami, the admitted father of the deceased. 31. PW23 is the Assistant Professor at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. He conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Ramar, S/o. Alakar Swami and issued Ext.P13 certificate. He noted that the body consisted of charred and partially incinerated remains of a man with a length of 92 cm and weight of 11.2 Kg. 31. PW23 is the Assistant Professor at Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. He conducted the postmortem examination on the body of Ramar, S/o. Alakar Swami and issued Ext.P13 certificate. He noted that the body consisted of charred and partially incinerated remains of a man with a length of 92 cm and weight of 11.2 Kg. He noted that the skull showed a fissured fracture 12 cm in length on the back of the head involving the occipital bone on the right side extending to the base of the skull on the right posterior cranial fossa where the edges of the fracture showed slight infiltration of blood stain. The brain also showed a desiccated blood clot 6x3x1 cm suggestive of antemortem intra cerebral bleeding. According to him, the death was due to blunt injury sustained to the head. It is also stated that the injury found on the body was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In cross-examination, it was brought out that MO2 was a dry stick. He added that a forceful fall from a height can also cause an injury of the nature noted by him. 32. PW25 is the Village Officer, Veliyannoor, who prepared Ext.P15 scene plan based on the descriptions in the inquest report. In cross-examination, she stated that she had not noted the location of the neighbouring houses. She added that one has to walk about 300 metres through a footpath to reach the house where the incident had occurred. 33. PW28 is the ASI of Police, Ramapuram Police Station. He stated that in connection with the investigation, he went to the Othakkada Police Station in Madurai District and located the residential home of the appellant. 34. PW30 is Thanga Durai, the Special Sub Inspector, Othakkada Police Station. He stated that on 25.01.2016, while he was on night duty, PW9, Pandiyammal, along with the relatives approached him and told him that the husband of Mariammal (PW7) had picked up a fight with Ramar and had hit him with a stick and thereafter, burnt him by pouring diesel on his body. He dispatched the police officer and brought Kaliraja to the Police Station. On the next day, Officers from the Kerala Police came to the station and took Kaliraja into custody. He identified the appellant who was standing in the box as the person who was summoned to the Station on that day. He dispatched the police officer and brought Kaliraja to the Police Station. On the next day, Officers from the Kerala Police came to the station and took Kaliraja into custody. He identified the appellant who was standing in the box as the person who was summoned to the Station on that day. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not register an FIR on the basis of the information received. He stated that when he was summoned, Kaliraja was not under the influence of alcohol. He denied having given a statement that Kaliraja was drunk and was in a euphoric state. 35. In light of the evidence adduced, the first question is whether the death of Ramar was homicidal. In order to fix the identity of the incinerated body, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW20, the Scientific Assistant. We find that the sample of blood of Alakar Swami was drawn and the same was analysed with the DNA extracted from the bone of the deceased person. PW20, who conducted the analysis, stated that the stains found on the floor were that of a male person and the same matched with the DNA profile of the person whose bone was forwarded. Furthermore, it was also found that the DNA profile matches that of Alakar Swami, the admitted father of the suspect. In that view of the matter, it has been proven beyond any matter of suspicion that the incinerated body was that of Ramar, S/o. Alakar Swami. The Postmortem Certificate which was marked through PW23 revealed that the deceased had suffered antemortem injuries which include a fracture to the skull and the same was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. In that view of the matter, there is no semblance of doubt that the incinerated body found in the house of Sasi was that of Ramar and that prior to him suffering burns, he had suffered a skull injury that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 36. The next question is whether there is any legal evidence to prove that Ramar was residing with the deceased, Easki, and Alakar Swami in the house bearing Building No. 273 in Ward VIII of the Veliyannoor Grama Panchayat. To prove that the house belongs to Sasi , the prosecution examined the wife of Sasi as well as the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. To prove that the house belongs to Sasi , the prosecution examined the wife of Sasi as well as the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. There is no serious dispute with regard to the same. It is PW1 Sidique, the Contractor, who stated that his employees, which include Easki (PW6), Alakar Swami (PW8), the deceased Ramar and the appellant were staying together in the month of January 2016, in the house owned by one Sasi. He asserted that Kaliraja was one of his workers. Easki (PW6), the brother of the deceased, had also stayed along with the appellant and the deceased. He stated that they had all stayed together in the house arranged by PW2. This assertion by PW6 is not challenged by the appellant. PW7, the wife of the accused, stated that the appellant and Ramar had stayed together. She also stated that her husband had told her that Ramar had consumed poison and had died. She stated that her husband had worked along with Ramar, PW8, PW6 under PW1 contractor. PW17, the wife of Sasi was examined by the prosecution to substantiate that the workers who were working in the property of Murali were staying in the house owned by Sasi on rent. MO1 Chappal was secured from the spot during the inquest conducted on the body of the deceased. Easki (PW6) and Pandiyammal (PW9) identified MO1 chappal as belonging to the deceased Ramar. In her evidence, to a pointed question in cross-examination, she stated that her home was whitewashed during the Sabarimala season and some stains had fallen on the chappals enabling her to correctly identify the same. In view of the overwhelming evidence let in by the prosecution, the fact that the appellant and Ramar along with PWs 6 and 8 were residing together in the house owned by Sasi bearing No. 273 in Ward No. VIII of Veliyannoor Grama Panchayat stands established. 37. Now the question is whether the prosecution has established that the appellant was with the deceased Ramar in the rented premises and whether the learned Sessions Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the theory of last seen stands established. 38. We have already observed that the deceased Ramar along with PWs 6, and 8 were residing in the same building as the appellant. 38. We have already observed that the deceased Ramar along with PWs 6, and 8 were residing in the same building as the appellant. Easki (PW6) had stated in his evidence that on 24.01.2016 at 12 noon, he along with his father Alakar Swami went to his native place leaving behind his brother Ramar and the appellant. PW5 stated that on 23.01.2016, his autorickshaw was taken on hire by the appellant and two others to go to the Beverages shop. They were brought back to the house where they were residing. However, he was not paid any amount. He stated that later he went to the house where they were living on 24.01.2016 before lunch and obtained the hire charges. He stated that the appellant and 3-4 others were there. On the next day, at about 12 noon, the appellant was standing next to the tea shop and when he enquired the appellant told him that he was going back to his native place. PW12, Vinod T.V., stated that between 6:00 and 7:00 pm, on 24.01.2016, he saw the appellant and another person engaged in a loud conversation outside his shop. He said that the appellant used to come to his shop often and he was able to identify him. He stated that after some time, both persons were found walking in the direction of their house. From the evidence of the above witnesses, it can be seen that the appellant was in the company of a person who could not have been anyone but the deceased late in the evening on 24.01.2016. It has also come out that the appellant left the place on 25.01.2016 at noon. At 6:00 pm on 25.1.2016, the burnt body of Ramar was found on the back side of the house where they were all staying together. 39. The principle of last seen comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that the possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. Undoubtedly, the last-seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. Undoubtedly, the last-seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. But this theory can be applied in this case while taking into consideration the case of the prosecution in its entirety and keeping in mind the circumstances that precede and follow the point of being so last seen. 40. Now we shall deal with what had transpired on 25.01.2016. As is borne out from the evidence of PW12, the appellant left his place of employment and went to his native place. PW7, Mariammal, the wife of the accused, stated that on Monday, i.e., on 25.01.2016 at about 11:00 p.m., the appellant came home and told her that Ramar had consumed poison. Though she had stated to the police that her husband had beaten Ramar to death and thereafter burnt the body with clothes and diesel, when she was examined before the Court, she resiled from her earlier version and the said portion was marked as Ext.P2. She stated that immediately thereafter, her husband was summoned to the Police Station. However, the fact remains that the appellant had told his own wife that his friend Ramar was no more and gave a false version of what had transpired. Coming from the mouth of his own wife, the disclosure assumes significance. PW9, Pandiyammal, the wife of the deceased, stated that when she reached the house of the appellant, he prostrated before her and confessed that he had beaten her husband to death and thereafter burnt the dead body with diesel. He went on to state that the said act was committed in the house where they were residing together. On hearing the said information, she divulged the same to her parents and they all went to the Othakkada Police Station. Immediately the police officers went to the house of the appellant and took him in custody. On the next day, the police officers attached to the Ramapuram Police Station came to the Othakkada Station and took the appellant to Kerala. She has also stated that the appellant is her father’s elder brother’s son. PW10, Narasingam, the father of PW9, has supported her testimony. He stated that based on the disclosure made by the appellant, he along with his family members went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint on 25.01.2016. 41. She has also stated that the appellant is her father’s elder brother’s son. PW10, Narasingam, the father of PW9, has supported her testimony. He stated that based on the disclosure made by the appellant, he along with his family members went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint on 25.01.2016. 41. This sequence of events is corroborated by the evidence tendered by PW31. PW31 stated that after the crime was registered, they learned that the accused and the deceased were residents of Madurai and within the limits of Othakkada Police Station. They went to the said place and, upon enquiry, came to understand that the appellant had confessed to the crime to his near relatives. The accused as well Easki were then brought to the Ramapuram Police Station after following the procedure. 42. There is no doubt that in the present case, there is no eye witness to the gruesome incident. It is a case based on circumstantial evidence. In case of circumstantial evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of events which shall undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused. Furthermore, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, where the prosecution relies upon an extra-judicial confession, the court has to examine the same with a greater degree of care and caution. 43. Extra-judicial confession by its very nature is a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. When an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It is generally for this reason that the court generally looks for independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such a confession. The value of an extrajudicial confession depends on the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. The reliability of the evidence will depend upon the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made, and the credibility of the witness to whom it is made. Corroboration of extra-judicial confession in material particulars is necessary to base the conviction, but it can be accepted without corroboration if the same inspires confidence. The reliability of the evidence will depend upon the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession is made, and the credibility of the witness to whom it is made. Corroboration of extra-judicial confession in material particulars is necessary to base the conviction, but it can be accepted without corroboration if the same inspires confidence. An extra-judicial confession if satisfactorily proved to have been voluntarily made, may be the basis of conviction even in the absence of corroboration, but it being a weak piece of evidence, the court would normally expect sufficient reliable corroboration to such type of evidence. 44. While explaining the dimensions of the principles governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an extra-judicial confession, the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram , [ (2003) 8 SCC 180 ] observed as under: “19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The value of the evidence as to the confession depends on the reliability of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. It would depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak to such a confession. Such a confession can be relied upon and conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it. After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction if it passes the test of credibility. 45. Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear and unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it. ( Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State Of West Bengal , [[ (2011) 11 SCC 754 ]] . and Pancho v. State Of Haryana , [[ (2011) 10 SCC 165 ]] ). 46. Distilling the principles laid down in past precedents, the Apex Court in Sahadevan And Another v. State Of Tamil Nadu , [2012 AIR SC 2435] had laid down as follows: 6. Upon a proper analysis of the above referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. 47. In the present case, PW9, the wife of the deceased, narrated in explicit detail the manner in which the accused fell at her feet and confessed to the crime. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. 47. In the present case, PW9, the wife of the deceased, narrated in explicit detail the manner in which the accused fell at her feet and confessed to the crime. As the evidence was recorded through a translator and in Malayalam, the exact words spoken by the appellant were translated from Tamil into Malayalam. A significant aspect of this case is the close familial relationship between the appellant and PW9—the appellant being the son of her father's elder brother. More pertinently, the wife of the appellant was also present when the confession was made. Though she deviated from her previous statement, the said portion was confronted and the same was marked as Ext.P2. Another crucial factor is that, immediately after the confession, PW9, PW10, and the mother of PW9, along with the wife of the appellant proceeded to the Othakkada Police Station and disclosed the nature of the confession made by the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant was summoned to the Police Station, where PW6, Easki , in his testimony, affirmed that he personally heard the appellant confess to the murder. This fact finds further corroboration in the testimony of PW10, Narasingam, who is also a close relative of the accused. Moreover, the wife of the appellant, Mariyammal, stated that on the late evening of 25.01.2016, the appellant came to her house and informed her that Ramar had died. She also testified that the appellant was taken to the Police Station later that same day. 48. Considering the close familial ties between the parties and the sequence of events that unfolded on the evening of 25.01.2016, we find no reason to doubt the credibility of the witness to whom the extra-judicial confession was made. Though PW9 is the wife of the deceased, the tenor of her statement, when read in conjunction with the testimonies of PWs 6, 7, and 10, instils confidence and can be relied upon. We hold that the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to PW9 is reliable, credible and trustworthy, as it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. We do not think that extra-judicial confession does not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. 49. Another circumstance is the recovery of a stump, identified as MO2. We do not think that extra-judicial confession does not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. 49. Another circumstance is the recovery of a stump, identified as MO2. According to the PW15, on the basis of the disclosure statement given by the appellant, the police recovered a wooden stick, split into two pieces. This recovery was documented in Ext. P4 Mahazar, and the witness stated that he saw the accused and the police going to the location where the stick was found. Ext. P13 postmortem certificate indicated that the deceased died due to a blunt head injury, which, according to the PW23 could have been caused by a weapon like MO2. 50. Sri. P.G.Jayasankar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, had pointed out that there are certain erasions and interlineations in the FIR which would render the prosecution version doubtful. We have carefully gone through the FIR in the light of the contentions raised. There appears to be merit that the date of registration of the crime has been corrected as 7.45 p.m. on 25.01.2016 whereas, in the header on the next page, the page is seen to have been generated on 26.01.2016. However, we find that the crime is seen registered under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and in Column No. 12, all that is mentioned is that the first informant had seen the burnt body of a human on the rear side of the house, where his employees were residing. It does not appear to us that in the facts and circumstances, the correction in the FIR is in any way material. Another contention advanced by the learned counsel is that Alakar Swami (PW8) and Vinod T.V. (PW12) were recalled after the evidence and Ext.P18 photograph of the deceased was shown. It is argued that serious prejudice has been caused as the application to produce the photograph was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor and that too without producing the negative of the photograph or by examining the photographer. While appreciating the evidence of PW12, we did not rely on his version that it was the deceased who was seen with the accused on the evening of 24.1.2016 outside his shop. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the accused. 51. While appreciating the evidence of PW12, we did not rely on his version that it was the deceased who was seen with the accused on the evening of 24.1.2016 outside his shop. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the accused. 51. The classic enunciation of law pertaining to circumstantial evidence, its relevance and decisiveness, as proof of charge of a criminal offence, is amongst others traceable to the decision of the Apex Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra , [ (1984) 4 SCC 116 ] . The relevant excerpts from Paragraph No. 153 are time and again quoted with felicity. The same reads as under: “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [ (1973) 2 SCC 793 ] where the observations were made: (SCC p. 807, para 19) Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.’ (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. 52. 52. In the case on hand, the circumstances culled out by the learned Sessions Judge can be briefly stated as follows: a) The rented home of PW17 was inhabited by four individuals who were working on the property of one Murali under PW1, the contractor. Two of them, Alakar Swami and Easki, had left by noon on 24.01.2016. b) PW12 last saw the accused with another man from Tamil Nadu between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Though the witness identified the deceased as the man in the photograph shown to him, the identification inspires confidence. c) On 25.01.2016, before lunch, the accused left for his hometown, entrusting the house key to PW3, as witnessed by PW5. d) After reaching his hometown, the accused met the wife of the deceased and made an extra-judicial confession to her, seeking her forgiveness. In clear terms, he admitted that he had killed Ramar by striking his head with a wooden stump and later set the body on fire using diesel. e) The forensic autopsy confirmed that the antemortem injuries were consistent with the details of the confession. f) DNA analysis confirmed that the femur bone belonged to the son of Alakar Swami. Bloodstains found in the room also matched the same DNA profile. Alakar Swami affirmed that his only son, Ramar, was the deceased. g) The recovery of MO1 chappal, identified by witnesses, including PW9, the wife of the deceased, further corroborates that the incinerated body was that of Ramar. h) The accused informed his wife that Alakar Swami had died but falsely stated that the cause of death was poison consumption. 53. Though each one of the aforementioned circumstances may not by itself be sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant, we are satisfied that the cumulative effect thereof satisfies the test of proof of the guilt of the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence for the commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code. We are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge has evaluated all the circumstances in its proper perspective and have correctly arrived at the finding of guilt. The appeal being devoid of any merit is, thus, dismissed confirming the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge.