Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4391
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
V. Vairavan
Versus
State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Senthurai Police Station, Ariyalur District
Crl. A. No.403 of 2010
Decided On : 04-10-2010
For the Petitioner:P. Tamilavel, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 302 - The court relied on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution proved that the accused committed the murder of the child, put the body in a gunny bag, and left the house. The court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence and the need for it to point to the guilt of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged and found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of a child. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of murder based on circumstantial evidence, including the custody of the child being handed over to the accused, the discovery of the child's body in a gunny bag in the accused's house, and the accused's conduct of absconding for nearly seven years.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the interpretation of circumstantial evidence in proving the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence in cases where direct evidence is lacking. It held that the circumstances must point to the guilt of the accused and that the accused's failure to explain incriminating circumstances can lead to an inference of guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Trial Court, finding the accused guilty of murder and awarding life imprisonment, was sustained.
(Judgment was delivered by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 18.3.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur in S.C. No.36 of 2008, whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded life imprisonment.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be status thus:-
(i) P.W.7 is the mother of the deceased child Girija. P.W.5 is the mother of P.W.7. P.W.7 was given in marriage to one Anbumani, who was carrying on business in grocery. They got a child by name Girija. Since he suffered loss in the business, he deserted both the wife and the child. When grocery shop was being conducted, P.W.7 Devagi developed illicit intimacy with the appellant/accused. After her husband Anbumani left the matrimonial home, the appellant and P.W.7 were living together along with the child Girija. When they started living together, their relationship became strained. When P.W.5 came to know about the association of P.W.7 with the appellant, she went to see them.
(ii) Three days prior to the date of occurrence on 9.3.2001, she took her daughter P.W.7 to her elder daughters house. At that time, P.Ws.5 and 7 left the child Girija in the custody of the accused/appellant. On 9.3.2001 in the morning, when P.W.1 Village Administrative Officer of the place Sendurai was in his office, he was informed by his Assistant P.W.6 that some bad water was emanated from the house of the appellant. Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to the place, found the house locked, made an enquiry and he was informed that the child was left with the custody of the accused/ appellant by the mother earlier.
(iii) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent-police and gave report Ex.P1, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.33 of 2001 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Express First Information Report Ex.P8 was despatched to the Court. On receipt of the copy of the First Information Report, P.W.8 Inspector of Police proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P6 and Rough sketch Ex.P6. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of panchayatars and the witnesses and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P7. Photographs were also taken and the same are marked as Ex.P3 series and the negatives are marked as Ex.P4 series.
(iv) Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to autopsy by P.W.4 Doctor, who gave opinion that the cause of death could not be fixed and the carbon copy of post-mortem Certificate is marked as Ex.P2. All the witnesses have been examined and their statements have been recorded. The material objects were subjected to chemical analysis and the report is marked as Ex.P3. Pending investigation, accused could not be secured. Under the circumstances, P.W.10 Inspector of Police laid the charge sheet on 27.9.2001 indicating that the accused/appellant was absconding. On completion of investigation, final report is filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed against the accused.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and relied on 8 documents and also relied on M.Os.1 to 4. On completion of examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he denied them as false. No witness was examined on the side of the accused.
4. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by either side and scrutinizing the materials available on record, found the accused guilty of murder and awarded the life imprisonment. Hence this appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant.
5. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The occurrence
