Three Agencies Including CBI 'Blotched-Up' Investigation: Kerala High Court Acquits Jyothikumar Sentenced To Life For Patricide

The Kerala High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of B.W. Jyothikumar who had been accused of patricide back in 2007.

The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha lamented the 'blotched-up' manner in which the investigation was conducted as a result of which the culprit would 'scot-free'. 

"Inspite of three agencies conducting the investigation they have been unable to give an answer to the question, ‘whodunit’. Even the CBI seems to have been groping in the dark with no definite leads or clue leading them to the culprit. The CBI has established some points to suspect the accused. Suspicion, however grave, is not sufficient to find the accused guilty of the offences alleged against him. The links in the chain of circumstances leading to the hypothesis that it is the accused and no one else who has committed the crime, has not been established. The chain of evidence is not complete as to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused and accused alone. Hence in these circumstances we are afraid we will have to give the accused the benefit of doubt. The trial court, in our opinion, went wrong in relying on the aforesaid unsatisfactory evidence to conclude that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt," the Court observed, while allowing the appeal. 

The prosecution case was that the appellant-accused Jyothikumar, harbouring ill feelings, murdered his father by stabbing with a knife. The appellant was also accused of destroying evidence and giving false information to mislead the police.

Initially, one Wilfred and his son, Roland Wilfred, had been arrayed as the accused in the crime, on the evidence tendered by the wife of the deceased, who is also the mother of the present accused. Subsequently, pursuant to the investigation being handed over to the CBI, Wilfred and Roland were found to be innocent, and the present accused was identified.

While the CBI could not find any involvement of Wilfred and Roland based on the Polygraph and Narco analysis test, it said the examination of the appellant-accused revealed that his answers were deceptive. He was thus alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 ('Punishment for Murder'), 201 ('Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender'), and 203 ('Giving false information respecting an offence committed') IPC. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to life.

The Court in this case was faced with the question as to whether the prosecution, in a case under Section 300 IPC based on circumstantial evidence, could succeed relying on a few instances of suspicious conduct of the accused added with a weak motive.

Findings of the Court

The Court perused the evidence of the Associate Professor, ENT, Government Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram ('PW20'), and observed that there was an attempt to bring in evidence regarding some 'foul play' by the accused while admitting his father (the deceased), to the hospital. 

The Court noted that while the Wound Certificate indicated that the deceased had sustained only four injuries, the postmortem certificate showed that the deceased had sustained other injuries as well. The Court thus discerned from the cross examination of the ENT Associate Professor that an attempt had been made to show that the accused had tried to accelerate the death of his father, by removing the Ryle's tube. The Court however, ascertained that there was no evidence to prove that the tube had been removed against medical advice. It thus remarked, 

"The accused is liable to answer only the charge against him and not new theories developed in the evidence for the first time in the court. Bringing a new allegation at the evidence stage would certainly cause prejudice to the accused, as he would never have had notice of the same. The accused must be put on notice as to the allegations he must answer. Therefore, the attempt of the prosecution to bring out such a story through the cross examination of PW20 seems to have been a futile exercise". 

The Court took note of the prosecution's reasons as to the motive of 'inimical feelings' behind the alleged murder and said that motive is only a 'circumstance' relevant for assessing the evidence.

It thus proceeded to examine whether there were other cogent pieces of evidence to establish the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.

The evidence that the prosecution had relied upon to establish the case against the accused were circumstantial, such as i. the suspicious conduct of the accused; ii. the repeated false accusations by the accused against Wilfred and Roland, although he never witnessed the incident; iii. the recovery of the knife from the scene of occurrence; and iv. and the accused's production of his own shirt, instead of the shirt worn by deceased at the time of the incident.

The Court took note of the argument of the defence counsel that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the five golden principles, namely - (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should fully established; (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and pendency; (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and (v) 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 - had not been satisfactorily established in the present case. It thereby expressed its doubts as to the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution.  

The Court further observed that the deceased had also not pointed out the accused as the perpetrator before his death, despite having ample opportunities to do so. 

It noted that the prosecution had not been able to ascertain the actual place of attack, and that the first investigating officer, the Circle Inspector (CI) of Poovar Police Station, had not taken the assistance of a fingerprint expert or the services of a sniffer dog.

The Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the investigation conducted by the CI, as well as the CBI, and added that the CBI had left many 'loose ends' in the prosecution story for the court to assume, and arrive at a decision. 

Additionally, the Court expressed its anguish that the lives of several persons in the locality had also been adversely affected with the shoddy manner in which the investigation had been carried out. 

It took note that the CI, Poovar Station, had beaten up two persons, and another prosecution had even attempted suicide due to the threats issued during the course of the investigation. 

"We refrain from passing any adverse remarks or strictures against PW75 (the CI) as he is neither before us nor has, he been heard. But we certainly need to direct the D.G.P to look into the matter and take necessary action against PW75. The police have no right to commit such atrocities," the Court observed, while criticizing the CI and the then Dy.S.P, Neyyattinkara for terrorizing the locals, and the family of Wilfred. 

The appeal was thus allowed, and the appellant-accused was acquitted. The Court further directed the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Director General of Police and the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Kerala, to take necessary action regarding the observations made by the former with respect to the investigation conducted. 

The appellant-accused was represented by Advocate Shajin S. Hameed. Public Prosecutor K.P. Satheeshan and the Central Government Counsel Sudhinkumar K. appeared on behalf of the CBI. 

Case Title: B.W. Jyothikumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 421 

Case Number: CRL.A NO. 183 OF 201

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment