Back
1989 Supreme(Mad) 54
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JANARTHANAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S T RAMALINGAM
Paramasivam - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 554 of 1984
Decided On : 23 January 1989
Circumstantial evidence alone is insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt unless it is strong, cogent, and leads to an irresistible conclusion.
Headnote:
{'KEYWORD': 'Murder', 'SUBJECT': 'Circumstantial Evidence', 'ACT SECTION LIST': ['S. 302 of the Penal Code', 'S. 27 of the Evidence Act', 'S. 173 of the Criminal P.C.', 'S. 313 of the Criminal P.C.']}
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted of murdering his wife by the trial court based on circumstantial evidence, including his appearance at the police station with bloodstained clothes, the discovery of the murder weapon near his field, and the presence of human blood on his clothes and the weapon.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the murder. The court noted that the weapon was not recovered pursuant to the accused's confession and that the blood on the accused's clothes was not linked to the deceased.
Issues: 1. Whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the murder. The court noted that the weapon was not recovered pursuant to the accused's confession and that the blood on the accused's clothes was not linked to the deceased.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, and acquitted the accused.
JANARTHANAM, J.
The accused aggrieved by the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the trial Court, has come forward with this appeal.
2. The brief facts are : The accused and Kuppammal (since deceased) are husband and wife. They are residents of Pavalangudi village, ten k.m. away from Mangalampettai Police Station. The spouses were in good terms for about two years prior to the occurrence, which happened on 17-8-1983. The accused actually suspected the fidelity of his wife thereafter and this led to frequent quarrels between them. The accused even went to the extent of complaining about the fidelity of his wife, the deceased to P.W. 3, who in turn reprimanded the conduct of the deceased number of times, without any effect.
3. The deceased, on the morning of the occurrence, went to her fields for work. P.W. 4 is an adjoining landowner. He was also attending to certain agricultural operations in his field. The deceased was carrying on the weeding operations with an instrument 'Kalaikottu' weeding implement (M.O. 4). The agricultural operations in the field on P.W. 4 was over by about 1 p.m. P.W. 5 had the opportunity to see the accused and the deceased in their fields at 2 p.m. Thereafter, he saw the deceased lying on the ground with her face downwards and the accused leaving from the place. P.W. 2, the mother of the deceased finding that her daughter had not returned from the field actually went in search of her and found her daughter lying dead with cut injuries on her person.
4. In the meanwhile, the accused appeared before P.W. 9, the Sub Inspector of Police Mangalampettai at 7 p.m. and gave a statement the admissible portion of which is Ex. P. 1, which was attested by P.W. 1, P.W. 9 registered a case in Crime No. 148/33 under S. 302 of the Penal Code. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned official. Ex. P. 7 is the printed first information report sent to the court. He seized from the accused M.O. 1 lungi and M.O. 2 towel under Ex. P. 2 attested by P.W. 1.
5. Thereafter, P.W. 10 the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the phone-message at 7.30 p.m. proceeded to Mangalampettai police station, perused Ex. P. 7 and took up further investigation. He went to the place where the material object M.O. 3 "Koduval" was stated to have been dropped by the accused along with P.W. 9 and P.W. 1. He seized it under Ex. P. 3 mahazar attested by P.W. 1. At 9.30 p.m. he prepared an observation mahazar Ex. P. 5 attested by P.W. 1. He drew a rough sketch marked at Ex. P. 15. He caused photographs to be taken of the scene through the photographer P.W. 8. He held inquest over the body of the deceased between 10 and 12 midnight. He examined P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 and others during the inquest. Ex. P. 16 is the inquest report. He sent the body of the deceased through a constable for purpose of autopsy to the Government Hospital, Ulundurpet.
6. P.W. 6 the doctor attached to the Government hospital Ulundurpet conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased on 18-8-1983 at 11.30 a.m. Ext. P. 9 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. The injuries found on the body of the deceased have been more fully described in Ext. P. 9 certificate. The doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by her 20 to 22 hours prior to post-mortem examination. He further opined that all the injuries could have been caused with a weapon like M.O. 3 and the severance of the head is necessarily fatal.
7. On 23-8-1983, the Inspector of Police P.W. 10 sent Ex. P. 10 requisition to the court for sending the material objects for chemical examination. P.W. 7 the Head Clerk attached to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court Ulundurpet sent the material objects to the Chemical Examiner as per the directions of the Magistrate for the purpose of analysis under the original of Ex. P. 11 office copy of the letter. Exs. P. 12 and P. 13 are the reports of the Chemical Ex
