Pala Nun Murder | Kerala High Court Confirms Accused's Murder Conviction; Sets Aside Rape Charge

The Kerala High Court on Monday confirmed the conviction of the 38 year old accused of murdering a sexagenarian nun in the year 2015 under Section 302 of IPC. 

The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John discerned that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution established beyond doubt that the accused had caused the death of the nun, although there was no evidence as regards the weapon used by him to cause her death. 

"The fact that there is no evidence as regards the weapon used by the accused to commit the crime is of no consequence, as it is now trite that recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused," the Court observed. 

It however set aside the conviction under Section 376 IPC for rape, since there was no evidence as to the time of the death of the victim for determining whether she had been alive at the time of commission of rape. 

"...The evidence on record indicates that the accused committed rape on the body of the victim after inflicting fatal blows on her head. In order to attract the offence of rape, the victim should be a living person. To ascertain whether the victim was alive at the time of commission of rape, there must be evidence as regards the time of death. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence as to the time of the death of the victim. If that be so, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence of rape. Needless to say, the conviction of the accused under Section 376 IPC is unsustainable in law," the Court found. 

The Case

The victim had been found lying on her back on her cot in a pool of blood in her night dress in her room at the convent. 

The prosecution case was that the accused had trespassed into the convent at night on the fateful day, to commit robbery. It was alleged that the accused inflicted two blows on the victim's head when she arose sensing the presence of the former in her room, with the intention to kill her. It was further alleged that the accused committed rape on the victim when she went into a moribund state after receiving the blows to her head, and thereafter committed theft of Rs. 2000/-, along with the Rs. 500/- that had been taken by him from another room before entering the victims. 

The Sessions Judge held the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 302 ('punishment for murder'), 376 ('Punishment for Sexual Assault'), 449 ('House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death'), and 457 ('Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment') of IPC. 

The counsel for the appellant-accused argued in the present appeal that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who had committed the crime. It was averred that the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution, even if believable, was insufficient to conclusively link the accused with the crime.

It was alleged by the appellant that the chance fingerprints stated to have been lifted by the fingerprint experts from the scene of occurrence and its surroundings were manipulated by the investigating officer after the arrest of the accused. Additionally, it was submitted that there was nothing to connect the axe that had been seized by the prosecution with the occurrence. 

Findings of the Court 

Fingerprint Evidence:

Relying on the fingerprint evidence that was collected, and the evidence of the experts, the Court rejected the allegation of the appellant regarding manipulation of the chance fingerprints.

It ascertained that 13 of the chance fingerprints lifted by the fingerprint experts from the scene of occurrence matched with the specimen fingerprint of the accused. 

It thus determined that the prosecution had established that the chance fingerprints had been lifted from the top portion of the outer side of the door to the room where the body of the victim was found, beyond reasonable doubt. 

DNA Evidence:

The Court, on perusal of the Autosomal DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the accused, and that obtained from the vaginal swab and smear of the victim, discerned that what had to have been mentioned in the report was that the Autosomal DNA profiling was not possible for want of male DNA sufficient for the same from the vaginal swab and smear of the victim. 

The Court at this juncture, also remarked on the shortcomings of current DNA profiling techniques in the inability to get a male profile from the evidence collected in sexual assault cases. 

"...it is necessary to mention that the shortcoming of current DNA profiling techniques is the inability to get a male profile from the evidence collected in sexual assault cases, as when female cells vastly outnumber the available sperm cells, the amount of the DNA of the female is so great compared to the DNA of the male that the former swamps the process making the laboratory analysis extremely difficult," it said. 

It determined that the only inference that could be drawn from the DNA profiling was that the perpetrator of the crime was a person in the same paternal lineage as the accused. It thus ascertained that the report could be considered as one of the incriminating circumstances against the accused. 

Discovery and Seizure of Axe

On this aspect, the Court found certain inconsistencies. The Court took note of the investigating officer's testimony that the axe had been discovered on the information received from the accused regarding the location where it had been kept by him. It noted the investigating officer's further admission that a spade had been discovered and seized based on the information from the appellant-accused, which was found to have blood on it as per the Forensic Report. 

The Court thus observed that there ought to have been an investigation as to how the accused knew that such a weapon was hidden in a place in the premises of the convent and as to the source of blood on the said weapon, and determined that the suppression of this fact by the investigating officer was suspicious. 

It therefore opined that it would not be safe to place any reliance on the evidence tendered by the prosecution as regards the weapon of offence. 

However, in light of the other circumstantial evidence, the Court observed that the absence of evidence as regards the weapon used to commit the offence would not be of any consequence, particularly considering that the recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused.

Further, as there was no evidence regarding the time of death of the victim to determine whether she had been alive when the accused committed rape on her, the Court held that the conviction of the accused under Section 376 IPC was unsustainable. 

The conviction of the appellant under Sections 302, 449 and 457 IPC and the sentence imposed thereon was thus confirmed, while that under Section 376 IPC was set aside. 

Counsel for the Appellant: Advocate Joseph Jerard Samson Rodrigues

Counsel for the Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Ambika Devi 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 721

Case Title: Satheesh Babu v. State of Kerala & Anr. 

Case Number: Crl.A. No. 811 of 2019 

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment