Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4437
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Anand
Versus
State represented by Inspector of Police Malaiyampalayam Police Station, Erode District
CRL. A. No. 415 of 2010
Decided On : 06-10-2010
For the Petitioner:T.M. Ramalingam, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of circumstantial evidence, scientific analysis, and witness testimonies in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Headnote:
Circumstantial Evidence - Criminal Appeal - Sec.302, Sec.381 of IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sec.302, Sec.381 of IPC - The court discussed the application of circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence, the importance of scientific evidence, and the interpretation of confessional statements. The court emphasized the need for a chain of circumstances without a snap to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment confirmed the importance of circumstantial evidence and scientific analysis in proving the guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, a rice mill owner, was found dead with bleeding injuries. The accused, an employee, demanded money from the deceased and later informed others that the deceased defamed him. The accused was found near the place of occurrence and produced the weapon of crime and a bloodstained shirt upon arrest. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and scientific analysis to establish guilt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence, confessional statement, witness testimonies, and scientific analysis. The court rejected the defense's contention that the accused was away from the place of occurrence and acquitted him. The judgment confirmed the importance of circumstantial evidence and scientific analysis in proving the guilt of the accused.
Issues: The issues involved the reliance on circumstantial evidence, the interpretation of confessional statements, the significance of witness testimonies, and the importance of scientific analysis in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of a chain of circumstances without a snap in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence. The court confirmed the significance of scientific analysis and witness testimonies in proving the guilt of the accused.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal failed, and the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal and the conviction of the accused.
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Tract Court No.I, Erode, made in S.C.No.150 of 2009 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged Sections 302 and 381 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment for the first charge and three years Rigorous Imprisonment for the second charge.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:
(a) P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased Sundaram, and P.W.1 is his brothers son. P.W.5 is the son of the deceased. The deceased was carrying on rice mills in Karumandampalayam within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. His residential house was situated nearby the said rice mills. P.W.1 was supervising the rice mills. P.Ws.3, 4, 6, 7 and 10 were all employees during the relevant time. The accused was also employed in the rice mills. On the first floor of one of the rice mills, the deceased was having his rest room where he was having a steel bureau. All the employees were given residential quarters nearby the rice mills.
(b) On 15.7.2007 at about 5.00 P.M., the accused demanded some money to go to Salem in connection with a criminal case which he was facing. At first, the deceased refused to give money. Thereafter, he abused him, but gave Rs.200/- through the clerk, P.W.6. This was known to P.Ws.3, 6, 7 and 10. After getting the money, immediately the accused informed P.Ws.7 and 10 that the deceased has defamed him in their presence, and he would show to him who he was.
(c) On 18.7.2007 at about 7.00 A.M., the deceased did not come out of the rest room. Suspecting the same, P.Ws.4, 7 and 10 went over there and found it kept opened, and the bureau was also kept opened. Thereafter, they went to the godown, and it was also found locked inside. When they opened, they found the said Sundaram with bleeding injuries. The same was informed to all. Then, P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed and took him to the nearest hospital at Ganapathipalayam in order to give him first aid. Thereafter, they took him to the Government Hospital, Erode, where he was declared dead.
(d) Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the report. P.W.24, the Sub Inspector of Police, on the strength of Ex.P1, registered a case in Crime No.153/2007 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P24, was despatched to the Court.
(e) P.W.25, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P3, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P25. Then he caused the place of occurrence and the dead body to be photographed through P.W.22, the Photographer. The photos and negatives were marked as M.Os.12 and 13 series respectively. The Finger Print Expert, P.W.18, was summoned, and he took the finger prints available from the place of occurrence. After comparison of the finger prints of the accused, he gave the finger print reports, Exs.P13 and 14. Then the Investigator conducted inquest on the dead body of Sundaram in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P26. A requisition was forwarded to the hospital authorities for the purpose of postmortem.
(f) P.W.16, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Erode, on receipt of the said requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sundaram and gave his opinion in Ex.P9, the postmortem certificate, that the deceased would appear to have died 16 to 18 hours prior to autopsy due to head injury, haemorrhage and shock.
(g) Pending the investigation, the accused was arrested on 20.7.2007, when he came forward to give a confessional statement. The same was recorded in the presence of two witnesses. The admissible part is marked as Ex.P5. Following the same, he produced M.O.6, iron pipe, and M.O.7, bloodstained shirt, which were recovered under a cov
