Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 3401
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.N. BASHA & P. DEVADASS, JJ.
Chinna Pillai & Another
Versus
The State by, The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri
Crl.A. No. 810 of 2010
Decided on : 03-08-2012
For the Appellants:M.G.L. Sankaran for Mrs. S. Santhakumari, Advocates.
For the Respondent: V.M.R. Rajendran, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish a complete chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the need for corroboration and reliability of extra-judicial confessions and recovery evidence.
Headnote:
Circumstantial Evidence - Murder - Section 302 IPC - [M.O.6, M.O.7, Ex.P.1] - The court discussed the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including motive, extra-judicial confession, and recovery evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of the deceased, based on circumstantial evidence including motive, extra-judicial confession, and recovery evidence. The trial court acquitted them from the charges under Section 201 IPC due to paucity of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts based on the circumstantial evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing a complete chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It highlighted the need for corroboration and reliability of extra-judicial confessions and recovery evidence.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the appellants were acquitted. The conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court were set aside.
P. DEVADASS, J.,
APPELLANTS
A1 and A2, in the Sessions Case, in S.C.No.8 of 2009, in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri are the appellants.
CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
2. On 11.11.2010, A1 and A2 were found guilty under Section 302 IPC and were sentenced to life and fined Rs.5000/-, in default, directed to undergo 10 months rigorous imprisonment.
PROSECUTION CASE
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
(i) A1, Chinnapillai is wife of deceased Rajendran. They were residing in Mettuparai village in Krishnagiri District. A2 Annamalai is known to them. All the three used to have liquor together.
(ii) Illegal intimacy developed between A1 and A2. On 06.9.2008, at about 9 p.m., in his house, the deceased seen A1 and A2 in a compromising position. The deceased tried to beat them. In this circumstances, A2 had indiscriminately assaulted the deceased with M.O.6, axe on his head and A2 assaulted her husband with M.O.7, stick. The deceased died on the spot.
(iii) On 07.09.2008, at about 8 a.m., A1 appeared before P.W.1, Madhu, V.A.O. Ettikal Agaram Village. She confessed to him her illegal intimacy with A2 and their killing of her husband on the previous day. P.W.1 reduced it into writing. It is Ex.P.1 extra-judicial confession.
(iv) At about 10 a.m., at the Krishnagiri Taluk Police Station, P.W.1 produced A1 with Ex.P1 to P.W.9, Kathirvel, Inspector. P.W.1 also gave him Ex.P.2, complaint. He registered this case in Cr.No.725 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC. He sent Ex.P.19, Express FIR to Court and to his Superior Officers. He arrested A1 in the presence of P.W.1 and his Assistant, he recorded Ex.P4 confessional statement from her.
(v) P.W.9 visited the scene place. On his instruction, P.W.5 Stalin photographed the dead body. In the presence of P.W.1 and his Assistant, P.W.9 prepared Ex.P.3, Observation Mahazar. Drew Ex.P.20, rough sketch. In the presence of Panchayathdars, he held inquest over the dead body. Ex.P.21 is his inquest report. He had examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. In the presence of witnesses, he recovered M.O.1,bangle pieces, M.O.2, blood stained plaster pieces, M.O.3, plain plaster pieces, M.O.4, blood stained earth and M.O.5, sample earth under Ex.P5 Mahazar. He sent the dead body with his requisition Ex.P.19 to the Govt. Hospital, Krishnagiri through P.W.7 Ravi, Head Constable for conducting post-mortem. In the presence of P.W.1 and his Assistant in pursuance of her Ex.P4 confessional statement, A1 produced M.O.6 and 7 axe and the stick. P.W.9 seized them under Ex.P6 Mahazar. P.W.9 produced her to Court for judicial custody. He produced the seized case properties to the Court to send them to Lab for forensic examination.
(vi) On 07.09.2008, at about 5 p.m., at the Govt. Head Quarters Hospital, Krishnagiri, P.W.8, Dr.Raja conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Rajendran and noticed the following injuries:
1. Lacerated injury right fronto-temporal region 6 x 2 x 3 cm exposing fractured bone and brown membrane.
2. Lacerated wound right parito-temporal region 7 x 3 x 3 cm exposing fracture bone.
3. Right Black eye.
4. Abrasion – contusion left molar region 4 x 3 x 3 cm
5. Abrasion left knee – contusion 6 x 3 cm
(vii) P.W.8 opined that the deceased would have died of shock and hemorrhage due to injuries 20-22 hours prior to autopsy. He issued Ex.P.18, post-mortem certificate.
(viii) On 08.09.2008, at about 2.30 p.m, near the Oldpet in Krishnagiri, in the presence of P.W.4, Nandhagopal V.A.O. and his Assistant, P.W.9 arrested A2 and produced him to the Court for judicial custody. Received Exs.P11 and P12 scientific reports. Concluding his investigation, P.W.9 filed the Final Report for offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC as against A1 and A2.
CHARGES
4. Prosecution framed charges under Section 302 and 201 IPC as against A1 and A2.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9, marked Ex.P.1 to P.22 and exhibited
