IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final judgment and order dated 22.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 171/2015, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein – original accused No. 1 and has confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the IPC, the original accused No. 1 has preferred the present appeal.

2. The prosecution case is elaborately stated by the High Court in the impugned judgment in paragraph 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was employed as a driver by PW-1 to drive a taxi owned by him. On 26.06.2006 at about 06.30 a.m., the deceased left his house after informing his wife. That thereafter, he did not return.

2.1 That A-1 was also driving a taxi for some time and in such a way he knew the deceased. It was alleged that all the accused persons on 23.05.2006 hatched a conspiracy to engage the car driven by the deceased and after taking him to a far-off isolated place, kill him and then to steal the car and other personal belongings owned by the deceased. As per the prosecution case, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, on 26.05.2006, A-2 to A-5 met A-1 at Pollachi Thermutti Bus Stop. Then, A-1 spoke to the deceased and fixed him for going to Udumalpet in the taxi driven by the deceased. Accordingly, the deceased came in the taxi to Thermutti Bus Stop. Then, all the five accused got into the taxi. The taxi proceeded towards Udumalpet. When it was nearing the village known as Ammapatti at an isolated place, the accused wanted the deceased to stop the car for a while. The deceased stopped the car, as soon as the car came to a halt suddenly A-2 came to strangulate the deceased by neck. A-3 and A-4 tied the hands of the deceased and A-5 tied the legs of the deceased with ropes. Then, they put the deceased in between the front and back seats of the car. A-3 to A-5 sat on the back seat of the car and ensured that the deceased was not crying. The car was driven by A-1. The deceased died. All the five accused put the dead body of the deceased into the pit and buried the same. Thereafter, all the five accused ran away from the scene of occurrence with the car.

2.2 PW-1 tried to contact the deceased on 26.06.2006 over phone, but his phone was found to be switched off mode and PW-1 went to the house of deceased and met PW-3 and PW-3 informed him that after 26.06.2006 at about 6.30 am deceased was not seen. After the search the deceased was not found and therefore, PW-1 made a complaint to the Police on 30.06.2006. PW-11, the then Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case as Crime No. 363/2006 under Section 406 of IPC. That thereafter, an FIR was assigned to the jurisdictional court. That thereafter, PW-11 started investigation. He recorded the statement of the relevant witnesses. However, thereafter, PW-11 closed the case on 04.02.2007 as undetected. The learned Magistrate accepted the closure report. However, thereafter on the basis of a letter alleged to have been written by A-1 addressed to PW-22 which was received by him on 29.12.2007, by which A-1 had alleged to have confessed that he along with other accused engaged the taxi in question, took the driver (deceased), killed him and buried the dead body and took away the taxi. According to the confessional statement recorded in the said letter some parts of the car were taken by A-2 to A-5. PW-22 went to the Police Station along with the said letter on 30.12.2007 and handed over the letter to PW-30. On the basis of the same, the investigation begun. On the basis of the statement of A-1, the place where the car was hidden and the dead body was buried came to be recovered. Thus, the dead body was recovered at the instance of A-1. PW-30 altered the case into one under Sections 302 and 396 of IPC. PW-30 arrested A-1. During the investig