SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Mad) 1124

Madras High Court
N. PAULVASANTHAKUMAR, P. DEVADASS, JJ.
C. Venkatesh
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Munneerpallam Police Station, Munneerpallam, Tirunelveli District
Crl.A.(MD)No.1063 of 2003 & M.P.(MD)No.5449 of 2005
Decided on : 01-03-2012

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K.S. Durai Pandian, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:

Circumstantial Evidence - Murder - 120-B, 376, 302 r/w. 34, 379, 506 (i), 201 IPC - The judgment discussed the legal provisions and interpretations of the Evidence Act, the last seen theory, medical evidence, and Section 27 Evidence Act recovery. The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence and found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The charges under Section 302 r/w. 34, 379, and 201 IPC were not proved beyond all reasonable doubts, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the prosecution of A.1 and A.2 for conspiracy, rape, murder, theft, criminal intimidation, and causing disappearance of evidence. The deceased, Lakshmi, was found dead in a well, and the prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to implicate the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The charges under Section 302 r/w. 34, 379, and 201 IPC were not proved beyond all reasonable doubts, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Issues: The main issue was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principles of circumstantial evidence and emphasized the need for a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It analyzed the last seen theory, medical evidence, and Section 27 Evidence Act recovery to determine the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution.

Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused, A.1 and A.2, as the charges under Section 302 r/w. 34, 379, and 201 IPC were not proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

Judgment :-

1. A.1 Venkatesan and A.2 Kumar @ Sivakumar were prosecuted in S.C.No.314 of 2002, before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Tirunelveli, for conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, for raping one Lakshmi under Section 376 IPC, for killing her under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC, for stealing her properties under Section 379 IPC, for criminally intimidated her under Section 506 (i) IPC and for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC.

2. They were acquitted from the charges under Sections 120 B, 376 and 506 (i) IPC.

3. They were found guilty and sentenced as under:-

4. After judgment, A.2 had passed away. Now, A.1 appealed against the said judgment.

5. The case of the prosecution as set out in the prosecution evidence in the trial Court may briefly be stated as under:-

(i). Lakshmi @ Nalini is daughter of P.Ws.1 and 8 Chinnaiya and Chellam. P.W.1's brother is Narayanasamy and Lakshmi's brother is P.W.7 Shanmugababu. They are residing in Malligai Nagar in Seranmahadevi in Tirunelveli District. Lakshmi is an LIC agent. She is unmarried. She used to leave the house around 9 a.m., and return by 6 p.m.

(ii). On 1.8.2001, at about 8.30 a.m., in their house, P.W.7 received a telephone call from A.1, A.1 told him that he has to pay LIC money to Lakshmi, so, he wanted to talk to her. P.W.7 gave the telephone to her.

(iii). Around 9.30 a.m., Lakshmi told her father that she is going to Melaseval. P.W.7 boarded her in P.W.10 Arumuganainar's van to Palayamkottai. At about 12.30 noon, near a tree, in Achankulam, P.W.17 Vasan, a fish vendor, seen A.1 and A.2 talking to a lady aged about 22 years, wearing a sandal colour churidhar.

(iv). Around 7.30 p.m., P.W.20 Krishnasamy, a resident of Malligai Nagar, boarded a Papanasam bound bus. A.1 and A.2 also boarded the same bus. P.W.20 alighted at Cheranmahadevi. A.1 and A.2 continued their journey.

(v). Till night, Lakshmi did not return home. P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and the relatives searched for her in vain.

(vi). On 15.8.2011, around 2 p.m., P.W.3 Chandran phoned P.W.1 that in P.W.22 Sethuamalinga Asari's pump set well, a woman's dead body is floating. Around 2.30 p.m., P.W.5 Murugan, Head Constable, Special Branch received phone call that in a well in Melaseval, a dead body was floating. He informed P.W.6 Chandrapal, Fire Officer, Cheranmahadevi. With the assistance of P.W.21 Ramaiya, the dead body was took out. P.Ws.1 to 3, 7 and 8 identified it as of Lakshmi. A big stone and her duppatta were tied around her.

(vii). At about 4 p.m., at Muneerpallam Police Station, P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1 complaint to P.W.30 Dharmaraj, Sub-Inspector. He registered a case of suspicious death in Crime No.203 of 2001 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. He Sent Ex.P.20 Express FIR through P.W.32 Arumuga Nainar, Head Constable to Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Tirunelveli.

(viii). P.W.34 Muthukrishnan, Inspector, Muneerpallam, took up his investigation. Visited the spot. In the presence of P.W.26 Murugan and Chandrasekar, prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar. Drew Ex.P.24 rough sketch. From the Motor Engine Room, bangle pieces (M.O.10) were recovered. In the presence of Panchayatdars, P.W.34 conducted inquest over the dead body (Ex.P.25 inquest report). He sent the dead body with his requisition to Government Hospital, Tirunelveli through P.W.33 Head Constable Robinson for conducting autopsy. P.W.34 examined the material witnesses and recorded their statement.

(ix). On 16.8.2001, at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.28 Dr.Selvaraj conducted post mortem on the dead body of Lakshmi and found the following.

Body was decomposed. It is a female body. Both the hands are placed over the abdomen and tied with a thupatta. A coir is tied to hands. One end of the coir encircles the chest, abdomen, back and passes downwards. 6 cm wide transverse pale zone seen underlying soft tissues were hard and compressed and pale. The lower border of the ligature mark is 8 cm above the suprasternal notch, close to the right and





















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top