Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5253
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
Raji @ Mohanasundaram
Versus
State by: Inspector of Police, SRMC Police Station, Porur, Chennai
Crl.A.No.482 of 2010
Decided On : 06-12-2010
For the Petitioner:A. Natarajan, Senior Counsel, for Ms. A. Madhumathi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish a clear chain of circumstances and the hypothesis that only the accused could have committed the offense in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Sec.302 IPC - Murder - [Sec.302 of IPC] - The court discussed the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence, the discrepancies in the investigation, and the lack of conclusive medical opinion on the cause of death. The court highlighted the failure to establish a clear chain of circumstances and the absence of evidence connecting the accused with the crime, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged with the murder of his wife and two children by causing asphyxia due to throttling. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the postmortem reports and a confessional statement allegedly given by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted discrepancies in the investigation, alteration of the case from suspicious death to murder, and lack of conclusive evidence connecting the accused with the crime.
Issues: The key issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the reliability of the confessional statement, discrepancies in the investigation, and the failure to establish a clear chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle that in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, all necessary circumstances must be proved without a snap, and the hypothesis that only the accused could have committed the offense must be established. The failure to meet this standard led to the acquittal of the appellant.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the trial court. The appellant was acquitted of the charges and directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Thiruvallur, made in S.C.No.107 of 2008 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC (3 counts), tried, found guilty of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence which were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) The appellant along with his wife Geetha @ Keertha, the first deceased (D1), and two children namely Raghav, the second deceased (D2), and Rajarajeswari @ Renu, the third deceased (D3), was residing in the house of P.W.1 situated at Sakthi Nagar, Porur, as a tenant. On 20.8.2007 at about 5.15 A.M., on hearing a burst sound, P.W.1 rushed to the spot and found the fire and fumes and also noticed the air-cooler, bed and gas cylinder were all burning. At that time, his wife and both the children were lying on the floor. Immediately, he took all the four to SRMC Hospital, and after admitting them, he gave Ex.P1, complaint, to P.W.15, the Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.1377/2007 under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. The printed FIR, Ex.P12, was sent to the Court.
(b) P.W.15, who registered the case, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P13. Then he collected two cell phones, M.O.1 series, from the place of occurrence. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. Then he proceeded to SRMC Hospital and conducted inquest on the three dead bodies in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared inquest reports, Exs.P14, P15 and P16 respectively. Thereafter, P.W.11, the Photographer, was summoned. On request, he also took the photographs, and the photos are marked as M.O.5 series. Following the same, the dead bodies were sent to the Government Hospital along with requisitions for the purpose of postmortem.
(c) P.W.13, the Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Royapettah Hospital, Chennai, on receipt of the said requisitions, conducted autopsy on the three dead bodies and gave the postmortem certificates, which are marked as Exs.P7 to P9 respectively, wherein he opined that D1 and D2 would appear to have died of asphyxia due to throttling. He also opined that the cause of death of D3 could be consistent with blunt force obstruction to upper respiratory passage.
(d) P.W.15 enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. While the matter stood thus, on the next day i.e., 21.8.2007, when he enquired P.W.6, he came forward to state that the accused has confessed to him about the incident of murder. When he was enquired by P.W.15, the case was converted from Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. to Sec.302 of IPC. The altered FIR, Ex.P17, was despatched to the Court.
(e) On 22.8.2007 at 8.15 A.M., the accused was arrested in the presence of two witnesses, and he gave a confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded. The admissible part is marked as Ex.P4. Following the same, the witnesses were enquired, and their statements were recorded. On 28.8.2007, P.W.15 examined the Joint Engineer and others from the Electricity Board, and he also got a certificate marked as Ex.P18. He also obtained a certificate from the Manager of the Indian Oil Corporation, which is marked as Ex.P19 as to the cause of fire. Then, P.W.15 gave a requisition to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvallur, for recording the statement of P.W.6 under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. The same was recorded on 4.10.2007, which is marked as Ex.P11. Thereafter, P.W.15 recovered the gas cylinder and also other material objects in the presence of witnesses under Form 95, and they were sent to the Court. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.
3. The case was committed to Court of Session, and
