This article is written by Soumyadutta Shyam. This article deals with the case of Ammini & Others v. State of Kerala. This article discusses in detail the facts of the case, the issues raised before the Court, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal aspects involved in the case, and the judgement of the case.
Table of Contents
Introduction
A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or to accomplish a legal act by illegal means. Since a conspiracy is an agreement, there must be at least two persons involved in it. A criminal conspiracy is not just the intention of two or more persons to commit an illegal act, but the agreement or assent to do an illegal act. When the persons involved in the conspiracy agree to bring it into effect, then it becomes an offence. Conspiracy can be said to be committed when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or act that is not illegal by illegal means. Illegal is defined under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) as everything which is punishable by law, is an offence, or which furnishes the ground for civil action. The offence of criminal conspiracy is defined in Section 120-A of the IPC, and the punishment for criminal conspiracy is provided under Section 120-B of the IPC. In the landmark case of State of Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of police, CBI/SIT v. Nalini (1999), the Apex Court said that an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act constitutes a criminal conspiracy. Each conspirator need not have taken an active part in the commission of every act for the offence of conspiracy to be made out. The prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication under Section 120-B of the IPC.
The present case involved a criminal conspiracy and the subsequent murder of a family. An appeal was filed in this case in the Supreme Court of India against the decision of the High Court of Kerala, which convicted the accused persons for murder. The Apex Court in this case said that a series of implicating events proved in this case were such that it could be logically deduced that the accused persons planned to kill the victims and in fact killed the victims in furtherance of the plan conspired by them.
Details of Ammini v. State of Kerala (1997)
Name of the case: Ammini & Ors v. State of Kerala
Case Citation: AIR 1998 SC 260
Appellants: Ammini, Kartikeyan, Johny, and Thomas
Respondent: State of Kerala
Date of the judgement: November 18, 1997
Bench: Justice G.T. Nanavati and Justice M. Jagannadha Rao
Facts of Ammini v. State of Kerala (1997)
Tomy and his brother Francis were engaged in a partnership venture by the name of Rani Silk House at Alwaye (now known as Aluva) in Kerala. Later, another business named Maharani Textiles was opened by the partners. In 1969, they opened a third business, which was at first named Rani Umbrella Mart; later, the name was changed to Rani Cut Piece Centre. Other than Tomy and Francis, Tomy’s wife, Merli, and their sister, Josephine, were partners in the business. After the death of Francis, Ammini was admitted to the first two firms. However, she was excluded from the third firm. Tomy paid certain amounts as maintenance for Ammini and her children. But she was not happy with this provision.
Ammini sometimes borrowed money from her neighbour, Kartikeyan. Gradually, they grew close to each other. In 1979, she was hospitalised for some time. During her hospitalisation, Kartikeyan was often seen with her, and people also knew about their relationship. Once, Tomy also saw them together. Then he questioned Ammini about Kartikeyan and told her that what she was doing was wrong. Ammini doubted that Tomy’s wife had told him about her affair with Kartikeyan. She started resenting Tomy and his wife, Merli, and also considered them to be a hurdle in her affair with Kartikeyan. Then she planned to destroy Tomy and his family. She also tried to use black magic to destroy Tomy’s family, but it was unsuccessful. In 1980, she went to Maharani Textiles to buy clothes for her son’s safari suit. The salesman was about to cut an expensive piece of cloth, but Tomy objected and instructed the salesman to give him a cheaper variety of cloth. She felt insulted by this incident.
Ammini, Kartikeyan, and Johny (the son of Ammini’s maid servant) decided to get rid of Tomy and his family. On 29th May, 1980, Ammini and Johny went to Tomy’s house with an insecticide called ‘Dalf’ but failed. After some time, Thomas also came into contact with Ammini and was enticed into the plan with a promise of a payment of Rs 1 lakh. Thomas obtained the insecticides ‘Parataph’ and ‘Eccalex’. On 10th June,1980, they decided to use the two insecticides after using chloroform, rendering Merli and the children stupefied. The attempt, however, was unsuccessful since Josephine was in the house. Ammini, Kartikeyan, and Thomas made the final decision to use ‘cyanide’, a very potent poison. Thomas was also able to obtain some ‘cyanide’. On 23.06.1980, around 7 p.m., Ammini went to Tomy’s house and initiated a conversation with Merli. A while later, Johny and Thomas also reached there on the pretence of seeing Ammini. Thomas asked Merli to get some water for him to drink. While she was fetching water, Thomas and Johny grabbed her from behind, forcefully opened her mouth, and administered cyanide. Merli died instantly. Then, Ammini and Johny gave cyanide to the children by force. They, too, died on the spot. Ammini then removed a gold chain from Merli’s closet and left. Meanwhile, Johny and Thomas were expecting Tomy to arrive, but he did not come as anticipated. Tomy came and saw the gut wrenching scene and screamed; the neighbours gathered. The police were informed, and an FIR for alleged poisoning was registered. A few days later, it was confirmed that it was murder by means of poisoning. Ammini and Kartikeyan were nabbed by the police on 29th June, 1980. The other two accused were caught by the police on 2nd and 5th July, 1980 respectively.
A considerable amount of evidence relevant to the case was recovered because of the particulars received from the accused. The fourth accused confessed before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st class. After the conclusion of the investigation, the police submitted the final report before the court for offences under Sections 120-B, 452, 303, 201, 109, and 114 of the IPC. Kartikeyan was separately charged under Section 411 of the IPC for receiving Merli’s golden chain from Ammini.
The four accused were tried before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for murdering Merli and her children. However, they were acquitted. An appeal was made by the state to the High Court, and the Hon’ble High Court set aside their acquittal and sentenced them under Section 120-B (1) and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Kartikeyan was also convicted under Section 411 of the IPC. Subsequently, they filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Decision by the High Court of Kerala
The Advocate-General contended before the High Court that the Sessions Judge overlooked or misunderstood the rules and guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court while evaluating the reliability or admissibility of evidence.
According to the High Court, the fourth accused made his confession voluntarily, without any coercion or inducement. A confession that has been retracted could form grounds for the conviction of the person who confessed. The High Court held that based on the evidence presented before the Court in this case, it could be reasonably believed that Ammini and the other accused persons conspired to kill Tomy, Merli, and their children. All the accused acted in furtherance of that common intention.
The High Court observed that the Sessions Judge was persuaded by fanciful and remote possibilities. The circumstances proved in the case formed an entire chain to indicate that the accused persons had conspired to murder Tomy, Merli, and their children. In accordance with the plan, Ammini, Johny, and Thomas murdered Merli and her children between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m. on 23.06.1980. The Kerala High Court ultimately sentenced the four accused persons to imprisonment for life for the offence committed under Sections 120-B (1) and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Issues raised before the Supreme Court
The issues before the Supreme Court in this case were as follows:
- Whether the High Court was wrong in setting aside the order of acquittal and convicting the appellants under Sections 120-B and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC?
- Whether the evidence submitted by the prosecution was admissible, and was that enough to determine the culpability of the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt?
Arguments of the parties in Ammini v. State of Kerala (1997)
Contentions of the State
Since there were no eye-witnesses in this case, the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the conspiracy to commit murder by the accused persons. It is the prosecution’s case that Ammini had an adequate motive to kill Tomy and his family. She, along with Kartikeyan, with whom she had a secret relationship, sought to destroy the family of Tomy with the help of persons practising black magic and witchcraft. An attempt was made on 29th May, 1980 by Ammini, Kartikeyan, and Johny to give insecticide to Merli and her children. A second attempt was made again on 10th June, 1980 by them to give a more potent insecticide to Merli and her children. Thomas also became a part of the conspiracy and obtained cyanide from a goldsmith. After that, Ammini and Johny tested the cyanide on a cat; its decomposed body was later found buried inside the compound of Ammini’s house. She was also seen going to the house of Tomy on 23rd June, 1980 and when asked about it, she falsely told people that she was going to Thackaran’s hospital. At that time, Johny and Thomas were also seen going after Ammini and proceeding in the direction of Tomy’s residence. Ammini was also seen coming out of Tomy’s house at 7:30 p.m.
The whereabouts of the accused and the conduct of the accused after the murder of Merli and her children were also presented by the prosecution as evidence before the court. Johny and Thomas were seen with each other close to the scene of the crime at around 9pm Johny and Thomas also revealed to the doctors how they received the injuries on their hands. The prosecution also placed before the court various objects relevant to the murder, such as the gold chain of the deceased that was recovered from Kartikeyan, a bottle containing cyanide that was recovered from Thomas, and other incriminating material evidence.
Other than the circumstances listed above, the prosecution also depended on the confession made by Thomas (A-4) to the Judicial Magistrate. The medical report, which proved that the deaths were due to cyanide, was also relied upon by the prosecution.
Contentions of the appellants
The advocate appearing for the appellants argued that the reason recorded by the trial court for dismissing the evidence of these witnesses was totally appropriate. Thus, the High Court must not have reversed the findings. The testimony of Josephine (PW-26) was also challenged by the appellants’ side.
Legal aspects involved in Ammini v. State of Kerala (1997)
Motive: Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
One of the crucial aspects of a criminal trial is establishing the motive of the accused. According to Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, any fact is relevant if it indicates or represents a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact. Motive means the factor that induces a person to act in a certain way. A crime generally has a motive behind it. If the motive is proved, the accused can be much more easily connected with the incident. In this context, preparation or previous or subsequent conduct in relation to the crime are relevant. Preparation connotes not only action but also mental preparation.
Ammini had a strained relation with Tomy and Merli. She, along with the other accused, made two previous attempts to kill Tomy and his family. The accused persons also prepared for the murder by procuring cyanide. These facts were enough to prove that the accused had a motive for committing the murder of Merli and her children.
Criminal Conspiracy: Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code
According to Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code, criminal conspiracy means an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which may not be illegal by itself but is done through illegal means. The essential pre-requisite for this section is a plan or plot to commit an illegal act or a legal act through illegal means. When the parties to the conspiracy agree to carry out the plot hatched by them into effect, that very plot becomes punishable under law. In Ram Narain Poply v. C.B.I. (2003), the Supreme Court held that to convict the parties for conspiracy under Section 120-B, only proof of agreement between two or more parties to do an unlawful act or an act by unlawful means is enough. When two parties agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act by itself and a punishable offence.
At first, Ammini, Kartikeyan, and Johny were part of the conspiracy to kill Tomy and Merli; eventually, Thomas also joined in. The procurement of cyanide from the goldsmith, going to Tomy’s house, and eventually administering cyanide forcibly to Merli and her children to kill them were all part of the conspiracy between the accused to murder the victims in this case.
Section 293(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Trial Court said that the prosecution was unsuccessful in proving that the bottle recovered from the scene of the crime contained a mixture of Parataph and Eccalex since the certificate was verified by the Joint Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory, not by the Director. Thus, the Trial Court considered it inadmissible under Section 293(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”). The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court was incorrect in holding that the evidence in respect of the contents of the said bottle was inadmissible because it was signed by the Joint Director and not the Director. The Trial Court also misinterpreted the expression ‘Director’ used in Section 293(4)(e) of CrPC. A report signed by the Joint Director was considered inadmissible by the Trial Court. The term ‘Director’ under the above-mentioned provision means Director, Deputy Director, or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory. The Supreme Court held that the term ‘Director’ used in Section 293(4)(e) includes Joint Director.
Admission: Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines admission as a statement, which may be oral, documentary, or in electronic form, that suggests an assumption as to any fact in issue or relevant fact. During the medical exam, Johny (A-3) and Thomas (A-4) narrated to the doctors examining them that they got injuries on their hands while forcefully administering cyanide to Merli. The High Court ruled that what the accused said to the doctors amounted to admission.
Sections 164 and 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Another point of contention in this case was the confession of Thomas (A-4) before the Judicial Magistrate. The Judicial Magistrate has been empowered under Section 164 of the CrPC to record confessions of the accused. Soon after being released on bail, he retracted his confession. Thomas (A-4) contended that he was made to take an oath during the confession as well as during examination under Section 313. He also alleged that he was provided with an inducement of protection by the police. The Sessions Court viewed the confession as false since there were inconsistencies between the confession recorded by the Judicial Magistrate and the record of the confession made by the investigating officer in the case diary. The High Court said that comparing the confession with what was recorded in the case diary was illegal. The Supreme Court and the High Court both found the confession of A-4 to be credible. The confession of A-4 was also used against the other accused, since they were co-conspirators.
Provisions under which the accused were sentenced
The High Court sentenced Ammini, Karthikeyan, Johny, and Thomas to imprisonment for life for committing offences under Section 120-B (punishment for criminal conspiracy) and 302 (punishment for murder), read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC.
The Supreme Court held that the evidence regarding the movements of Ammini (A-1), Johny (A-3), and Thomas (A-4) between 6pm and 7pm near Tomy’s residence on 29.06.1980, the fingerprints of Johny (A-3) on one of the glasses, and the confession (A-4) along with the other circumstances, proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. Thus, the Apex Court affirmed the High Court’s view and dismissed the appeal.
Judgement in Ammini v. State of Kerala (1997)
The trial court rejected the prosecution evidence relating to the connivance of the accused and did not believe the confession given by Thomas (A-4). P.W.15 (Paul) was disbelieved as he did not issue a bill and the justification given by him that he permitted Johny (A-3) to go without taking a bill just because he knew the person was too rejected by the Trial Court. The Trial Court also rejected the evidence given by P.W. 16 since the bill was prepared by him subsequently.
The Supreme Court opined that the reason for which the Trial Court had rejected the statements of prosecution witnesses was improper. The evidence of Paul (P.W. 15) should not have been dismissed just because the name of Johny (A-3) was not in the bill and that P.W. 95, the investigating officer, had not made additional enquiries as far as the bill was concerned. The Trial Court failed to understand that it was not necessary to state the name of the purchaser of the insecticide ‘Dalf’ and there was no reason for additional questioning in relation to the bill.
As far as P.W. 16 was concerned, the trial court was unable to comprehend that this witness was questioned by the police only on 4th July, 1980 for a statement. The bill was in existence by then.
The Trial Court hesitantly accepted the evidence of P.W. 20 and P.W. 21, because they were independent witnesses and the defence also did not have anything against them. The Trial Court, therefore, held that their evidence had proved that Thomas (A-4) bought one bottle of Parataph and Eccalex from the shop of P.W. 20. But, the trial court said that it was not an incriminating circumstance. The other cause given by the trial court was that there was no evidence that the parataph and eccalex bought by him were used by him or any other accused while committing the crime. The High Court was against this view and held that the Trial Court failed to recognise that this was a line in the chain of circumstances and proof of preparations made by the accused. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court rightly viewed the importance of this evidence and its effect should be evaluated together with the other circumstances in this case including the false denial by A- 4.
The Trial Court made a mistake while interpreting the expression ‘Director’ under Section 293(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It rejected the report of the joint director on the ground that it was not signed by the director. The Supreme Court explained that the correct interpretation of Section 293(4) of the CrPC in this context is that ‘Director’ also includes ‘Joint Director’. The Amendment made to clause (e) of Section 293(4) now mentions it clearly. If the Joint Director was in fact not included within the term Director, then the legislature would have expressly stated that when revising the provision and would have stated that Section 293 applied to just the Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory. A Joint Director is higher in post than a Deputy Director or an Assistant Director; thus, it was irrational to state that a report signed by a Joint Director is inadmissible in evidence, whereas a report signed by a Deputy Director or Assistant Director is admissible. It was ruled that the High Court was right in holding that the report by the Joint Director was admissible in evidence and that it was credible.
A reason stated by the Trial Court for refusing to believe the statement of P.W. 27 (Chinnappan) was that he had not revealed that he gave potassium cyanide to Thomas (A-4). The High Court observed that this was a bad reason for dismissing his evidence. The Supreme Court opined that the High Court was correct in observing that this crucial piece of evidence was very carelessly disregarded by the Trial Court on trivial grounds. The circumstances under which P.W. 27 obtained potassium cyanide and gave it to (A-4) were such that he would not have revealed that to anyone. Being a goldsmith, it was quite possible for him to obtain potassium cyanide, since cyanide is generally used by goldsmiths while working with gold ornaments.
The prosecution also produced evidence to prove the movements of Ammini, John, and Thomas between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on the day of the murder. P.W. 3 stated that she saw Ammini coming out of her house and going towards the house of Tomy at around 6:30 p.m.. The trial court, however, ignored her evidence. P.W. 4 had met Ammini on the road and asked her where she was going to which she replied that she was going to Tharakan’s Hospital to see Raju. When she was asked about the same, Rosy (P.W.11), mother of Raju, outright stated that Ammini did not come to see Raju. The trial court said that it did not falsify Ammini’s explanation. The High Court held that it was not a reasonable view and that this was an incriminatory circumstance. The Supreme Court also agreed with the High Court and stated that the Trial Court completely misunderstood the significance of the evidence given by P.W. 11 (Rosy) and P.W. 47. It was further stated that the High Court was right in putting credence to the statements of these two witnesses and coming to the conclusion that the clarification given by Ammini was fabricated.
The activities and whereabouts of Ammini, Johny, and Thomas at around 7- 7:30 p.m. were noticed by some other witnesses too. The statements given by some of the witnesses were not disbelieved by the trial court. While the statements given by some others were rejected on insufficient grounds. The Supreme Court stated that these statements were rightly believed by the High Court.
The prosecution also relied upon the injuries received by Johny and Thomas while forcefully administering cyanide to kill Merli as proof. Johny was arrested on 2nd July, 1980. After that, he was taken for a medical examination by Dr. Abraham (P.W. 60). The doctor discovered three wounds on the fingers of his right hand. When the doctor asked how he sustained the wounds, he said the wounds were made by Merli’s teeth when he closed Merli’s mouth at the time of the murder. The Trial Court again discredited this evidence because the certificate issued by the doctor was on a plain piece of paper and not on the printed form. Other reasons cited by the Court for rejection of this evidence were that there were no serial numbers mentioned in that certificate and that when fingerprints were taken by the police the next day, the investigating officer mentioned that there were only scars, which meant the wounds had healed up earlier. Thomas was caught on 5th July, 1980, and was taken to Dr. Vasant Kumari (P.W. 64) for a medical examination. She saw that his two wounds were healing. When asked about the injuries, he explained that his elbow and the outer part of his right hand were wounded while taking Merli to the kitchen at the time of the murder. The trial court rejected this evidence too, on the ground that the certificate was issued on a plain piece of paper and the endorsement was made with a different ink. The High Court considered both the reasons unacceptable and inadequate. It said that there was a shortage of printed forms in government hospitals in the district. The certificates were issued by doctors appointed to government hospitals at Alwaye and Perumbavoor. The High Court said that there was nothing to indicate that these were fake certificates. The High Court further held that what the accused said to the doctors amounted to admission.
Another finding discredited by the trial court was the fingerprints of Johny (A-3) on a glass confiscated from Tomy’s residence on 24th June, 1980. Fingerprints found on those two glasses were compared with the fingerprints of Johny (A-3), and the fingerprint on one of the glasses matched the fingerprints of Johny (A-3). The Trial Court discarded this significant piece of evidence because the earlier photographs of those impressions did not have adequate clarity to allow the expert to arrive at any definite conclusion; thus, it was doubtful whether the later photographs were of the original fingerprints. The Supreme Court said that the finding of the Trial Court was conjectural in character. It was opined by the Apex Court that the High Court was right in believing this evidence. This evidence proved A-3’s presence in Tomy’s house.
Thomas (A-4) confessed in front of the judicial magistrate, but the trial court discarded it because it found it to be involuntary. The trial court gave several reasons for it. While Thomas (A-4) was taken into judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate on 7th July,1980, the Magistrate thought it would be appropriate to order that he should not be kept in sub-jail with the other accused, and this meant if he was kept with the other accused, he would not have made the confession. Thomas (A-4) withdrew his confession as soon as he was let out of jail and when retracting the confession as well as during the examination under Section 313 Cr.PC, Thomas (A- 4) said that he was compelled to take an oath to make the confession. The accused also said that he was told by the police that he would be offered protection if he confessed. The Judicial Magistrate failed to ask him whether he was coerced into making the confession by the police. The Trial Court ruled the confession to be false as it found that there were a few inconsistencies in the confession recorded by the Judicial Magistrate and what was recorded about it by the Investigating Officer in the case diary. The High Court observed that the Trial Court viewed the confession with scepticism. It was further observed that in comparing the confession with the record of it in the case diary, the Trial Court made an error, and the finding made by the trial court, thus stood vitiated. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in placing credence on the confession of Thomas (A-4).
The High Court held that there was substantial reason to surmise that Ammini and other accused had conspired together. Thus, the confession made by Thomas (A-4) could be used against other accused persons as well.
After evaluating the evidence again, the High Court held that most of the circumstances were proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. They formed an entire chain, and in the absence of any other explanation, they were adequate to conclude that the four accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder Merli and her children and did in fact murder them. The High Court, hence, allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and sentenced the accused persons to imprisonment for life.
The arguments that were made on the part of the accused before the High Court were also made in front of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the reasons recorded by the High Court for setting aside their acquittal. It was also observed that other reasons were also given by it earlier while making clear that the position taken by the trial court regarding the circumstances was improper. It was held that the evidence relating to the movements of Ammini, Johny, and Thomas between 6 and 7 in the evening near Tomy’s house on the day of the murder, the fingerprints of Johny (A-3) on one of the glasses and the confession of A-4, along with the other circumstances as mentioned, proved the guilt of the accused without any reasonable doubt.
Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the position taken by the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
Critical analysis of Ammini v. State of Kerala (1997)
The manner in which the Trial Court, i.e., the Sessions Court, rejected the evidence presented by the prosecution was unreasonable and irrational. It rejected the statements of several credible witnesses on trivial and flimsy grounds.
The statements given by P.W. 15 (Paul) and P.W. 16 were very important. Their evidence proved that there were previous attempts to commit this crime. They were important to establish motive and circumstance. In the case of P.W. 16, the fact that he prepared the bill subsequently was not at all relevant, and besides that, the Sessions Court was also unable to understand the fact that the witness was questioned by the police on 4th July, 1980, for a statement, the bill had already been made by then. The evidence of these two witnesses was rejected on improper grounds.
The evidence given by P.W. 20 and 21 established clearly that there was prior preparation and conspiracy. The fact that Thomas (A-4) bought Parataph and Eccalex from P.W. 20 was clearly an incriminating circumstance. But the Trial Court denied the same. It also stated that there was no evidence that the Parataph or Eccalex bought by (A-4) was used by him or any other accused in this crime. The Supreme Court and the High Court agreed that the importance and effect of this evidence should have been considered along with other circumstances.
The Sessions Court also misinterpreted Section 293(4) of the Cr.PC. It failed to understand the meaning and scope of the expression ‘Director’ used within the section. The report signed by the Joint Director was rendered inadmissible by the Sessions Court, which was totally illogical. Thus, the High Court rightly held that the report made by the Joint Director was admissible as evidence. This view was restated by the Supreme Court as well.
Potassium cyanide, a very potent poison that leads to breathing difficulties, seizures, loss of consciousness, cardiac arrest, and ultimately death, was used by the accused to kill Merli and her children. Thus, how this chemical agent was obtained and used was a focal point in this case. It was obtained by Thomas (A-4) from P.W. 27 (Chinnappan), who was a goldsmith by profession. However, the Trial Court disregarded this crucial piece of evidence too.
Many statements of witnesses who saw the movements of the accused around the time of the murder were rejected as well by the Trial Court. Even important forensic evidence, that is, the fingerprints of Johny (A-3) on the glass recovered from Tomy’s house, was discarded by the Sessions Court without reasonable grounds.
The confession made by Thomas (A-4) was very important since it gave substantial reasons to believe that all the accused conspired together, and it could be used against other accused persons as well. The Trial Court held the confession to be false as it focused on minor discrepancies. However, the Supreme Court and the High Court rightly believed the confession of Thomas (A-4).
The High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the chain of circumstances leading to the murder of the victims. The order of acquittal was justly set aside by the High Court. The movements of the accused around the time of the murder, the fingerprints of (A-3) on the glass, and the confession of Thomas (A-4), all pointed towards the criminal conspiracy that was hatched by the accused and the subsequent murders of the victims. The High Court appropriately sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court also agreed with the High Court’s view and dismissed the appeal.
Conclusion
The case started with the animosity between Ammini and Tomy’s family. Kartikeyan was in a relationship with Ammini; thus, he also got involved in this fight. Soon after, Johny and Thomas also joined. Ammini, Karikeyan, Johny, and Thomas entered into a conspiracy to kill Tomy and his family. After two failed attempts, the accused finally succeeded in killing Merli and her children.
The High Court opined that the situations stated by the prosecution formed an entire chain to show that the four accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder Tomy, Merli, and their children, and in furtherance of this plan, they killed Merli and her children. The High Court revoked their acquittal and sentenced them to imprisonment for life for offences committed under Section 120-B(1) and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Supreme Court agreed with the judgement of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
The importance of motive and circumstantial evidence has been similarly highlighted in some other cases. In Umedbhai Jadavbhai v. State of Gujarat (1977), the Supreme Court observed that it is well established that in a case depending on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances brought out by the prosecution must inevitably and exclusively point to the guilt of the accused. The court will also have to bear in mind the cumulative effect of all the circumstances in the case and judge them as an integrated whole. Similarly, in Kiriti Pal v. State of West Bengal (2015), the Supreme Court held that while it is true that motive is an important factor in cases where the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence but that does not mean that in all cases of circumstantial evidence, if the prosecution is unable to prove the motive satisfactorily, the prosecution fails. It was further observed that in a case established on circumstantial evidence, the court must adopt a cautious approach and should record conviction only when all the links in the chain are complete, pointing to the guilt of the accused.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is a criminal conspiracy?
According to Section 120-A of the IPC, criminal conspiracy means an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act that may not be illegal by itself but is done through illegal means.
What is a retracted confession?
If the person who made the confession later recants, withdraws the statement, or denies making it, it is called a retracted confession. A confession can be retracted when it is involuntary and made under coercion or inducement. A retracted confession can form the basis of a confession if it is corroborated by other credible evidence.
What is circumstantial evidence?
Circumstantial evidence can be defined as evidence that depends on inference to establish a fact. Circumstantial evidence consists of a series of facts and circumstances from which inferences about the existence or non-existence of a fact can be drawn.
References
- https://www.ejusticeindia.com/ammini-and-ors-v-state-of-kerala/
- https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/13683.pdf
- K.D Gaur; Textbook on Indian Penal Code; Universal Law Publishing
- R.V Kelkar; Criminal Procedure; Eastern Book Company
- Ammini And Others v. State Of Kerala . | Supreme Court Of India | Judgment | Law | CaseMine
- Cyanide Poisoning: Symptoms, Treatment, Complications, and More (healthline.com)
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
