Case Summary: Chacko vs. State Of Kerala

Author: Mayank Raj

Case name: Chacko vs. State Of Kerala


AIR 2003 SC 265


N.Santosh Hegde and B.P.Singh.


The denounced is not referenced itself discourages the previous passing on presentation which has named the charged on 28.7.1996 itself. Learned advice likewise brought up that however the primary data report was recorded on 28.7.1996 at around 5 p.m. what’s more, the injury declaration was given by at 5.20 p.m. on 28.7.1996 itself and the perishing affirmation according to had appeared by about 5.30 p.m. on 28.7.1996, it is astounding that the FIR arrived at the Court of the Magistrate at Kottarakkara just at around 4 p.m. on 29.7.1996 which is arranged in exactly the same town as the Police Station is arranged. In the above conditions, the educated direction brought up that it is perilous to depend upon the withering presentation as the sole proof to base a conviction. Mr. Ramesh Babu, learned direction showing up for the State battled that there is definitely no motivation behind why ought to be disposed of only on the grounds that the writing in the said record is written in a specific way. Learned guidance brought up, the reality of the perished having endured the injury on account of the demonstration of the litigant is likewise noted in the injury authentication gave by PW-3 who in his oral proof additionally has addressed the equivalent and furthermore the researching official who recorded the withering assertion in proof has affirmed the announcement made by expired according to which has not been adequately tested by the appealing party, thusly, there is no motivation to dispose of the said proof. The prosecution also told the deceased who was of about 70 years, and had suffered 80% burns could make a detailed dying declaration after 8 to 9 hours of the burning giving minute particulars as to the motive, the manner in which she suffered the injuries. This, in our opinion, itself creates a doubt in our mind apart as to the genuineness of the declaration.

Facts of the case

The fact of the case is that it is the arraignment case that speculating his mom would part with her whole profit to her 3 girls to his rejection, the litigant perpetrated this wrongdoing. It is the indictment case that despite the fact that the expired was set ablaze while she was sitting in a seat at around 10 a.m., no one saw the occurrence being referred to and it is just about 4.30 p.m. at the point when the terrific little girl of the perished, went to the house, she came to know about the occurrence. The indictment likewise asserts that at that point the concerned Police had gotten a mysterious call hinting of the episode being referred to as having been brought about by the expired child. Enrolling a case dependent on the said data in the overall journal, the Police likewise went to the place of the perished and discovered her truly copied, henceforth, took her to Kottarakkara emergency clinic where, the specialist, gave her primer treatment and recorded the injury endorsement wherein he noted as he is told by the expired that the injury endured by her was brought about by her child. It is likewise the situation of the indictment that the perished made a withering presentation who recorded the equivalent and got the thumb impression of the expired in which she explicitly expressed that it was her child who made the consume wounds her in view of the way that he presumed that the expired would not given him an offer in her profit. In spite of the fact that is supposed to be available at the hour of creation of the perishing revelation, he has not either confirmed that the expired was in a fit perspective to make the said announcement nor has he verified the said statement. From there on, it is expressed that exhorted the Police to take the expired to the Medical College Hospital at Trivandrum and when she was in effect so moved, she kicked the bucket in transit at around 7 p.m. on 28.7.1996. The court’s order depending on the said passing on announcement acknowledged the arraignment case and sentenced the litigant, as expressed previously.

Issue of the Case

The appellant in this case has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Kollam, for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for having committed the murder of his mother Saramma on 28.7.1996 at about 10 a.m. at their house in Kottarakkara village by pouring kerosene on her and setting her ablaze.


The Court states that there is no evidence is in support of the prosecution case. Moreover, it is an unsafe to place a judgment on the belief on the evidence that adduced by the prosecution to base a conviction.

In addition, court states that the appeal succeeds the judgments and conviction of the courts below are set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellant, if in custody and not required in any other case, shall be released forthwith.