IMPORTANT POINT
In a case dependent upon circumstantial evidence, conviction cannot be sustained unless the chain of circumstances is complete.

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Amorous relation between accused no. 1, wife of deceased, and accused no. 2 – Even if proved, cannot be accepted as a decisive incriminating factor to deduce their culpability. (Para 8)
       (b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Presumption – Place of occurrence, the well, away from residence of accused no. 1, a woman – No definitive presumption can be drawn against accused no. 1 as a conspirator. (Para 9)
       (c) Circumstantial evidence – PW3 stating to have heard shrieks of deceased followed by a thud – Appellants not seen near place of occurrence immediately thereafter – Medical evidence not confirming ante mortem injury – Not ruling out possibility of a fall in the well causing the injuries and eventual death – Reason for not producing extra confessional statements of appellants not explained by prosecution – Possibility of false implication of appellants by PW1 with an eye on property of deceased not ruled out – Held, chain of circumstances not complete. (Para 9, 10, 11)
       (1984) 4 SCC 116; (2013) 12 SCC 406; (2015) 11 SCC 43 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       Appellants were convicted u/s 302/34 IPC for murder of one Gurunathan husband of Appellant 1 due to her illicit relations with appellant 2.
       The conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       Conviction cannot be sustained as chain of circumstances is not complete.
       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

AMITAVA ROY, J.

The appellants being aggrieved by the affirmation of their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10000/-, in default R.I. for further six months, by the High Court by its verdict dated 27.11.2008, seek this Court's panacean intervention for redress.

2. We have heard Mr. Jayant Muthur Raja, learned counsel for the appellant Nathiya, in Criminal Appeal No. 1015 of 2010, Mr. P.R. Kovilan, learned counsel for the appellant Suresh, in Criminal Appeal No. 1011 of 2010 and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel for the State.

3. The prosecution was set in motion by the First Information Report lodged on 27.3.2006 at 2.30 a.m. by one Gunasekaran, the cousin brother of the deceased Gurunathan, the husband of the appellant Nathiya (accused No. 1). The appellant Suresh (accused No. 2 ) is allegedly the paramour of accused No. 1. It was averred in the FIR that the deceased was a book binder by occupation and owned some properties located in his village, worth several lakhs. He also had his own house. The house of the appellant Suresh was also situated nearby. It had been alleged that the appellant Nathiya, the wife of the deceased had developed illicit relationship with Suresh which was not only to the knowledge of the deceased but also of the informant. The FIR discloses that this depraved liaison between the accused persons had also been brought to the notice of the local panchayat and that though, it had advised the appellants against the continuation of such alliance, they did not desist therefrom. Being appalled, though the deceased at some point of time, had shifted to a rented house elsewhere but had to return under financial compulsions to his original place of abode. This, according to the FIR, facilitated the continuance of the extra-marital relationship of Nathiya with Suresh. It was alleged in the FIR that in retaliation to the persistent endeavours made by the deceased to make Nathiya mend her ways, she used to torture him and threaten that she would eliminate him and would sell his properties and elope with her paramour. The informant claimed that not only a few days prior to the incident, the deceased had confided him that his wife had tried to suffocate him to death by pressing a pillow on his face, on 26.3.2006, i.e. on the eve of the incident as well, he had disclosed to him about a conspiracy between the two accused persons to murder him and grab his properties.

4. The informant further mentioned that in the intervening night of 26.3.2006/27.3.2006, while he was asleep, Pushpa, wife of Dinakaran, his neighbour informed him that the dead body of the deceased had been seen floating in a nearby well. On getting this information, the informant rushed to the place of occurrence and with the help of Pandurangam and Dinakaran, retrieved the body from the well. On further enquries, he could come to learn that one Packiammal, at about 11 p.m., heard the shrieks of the deceased followed by a loud thud from the well. The informant referred to the accused persons as the suspects. It was incidentally mentioned as well that they were not available in their house at that point of time. This FIR was registered as Bagayam P.S. Crime No. 278 of 2006 and investigation followed.

5. Eventually the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. The case was committed for sessions trial. The appellants having denied the charge, were made to stand trial and finally by the judgment and order dated 13.11.2007 passed in S.C. No. 94 of 2007, the appellants were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced as above. To reiterate, their conviction and sentence has been upheld by the High Court by the judgment and order impugned herein.

6. Before adverting to the rival submissions advanced, apt it would be to undertake an analysis of the evidence on record to the extent indispensable.

PW1 Gunasekaran, the informant while substan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2016 Supreme(SC) 875

IMPORTANT POINTIn a case dependent upon circumstantial evidence, conviction cannot be sustained unless the chain of circumstances is complete.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
In a case dependent upon circumstantial evidence, conviction cannot be sustained unless the chain of circumstances is complete.