Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 1238
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. Paul Vasanthakumar and P. Devadass, JJ.
Ranjithkumar and Another
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Mayanur Police Station, Karur District
Crl. A. (MD) No. 52 of 2011
Decided on : 8 March 2012
P.K. Natarajan, for Appellants
K.S. Duraipandian, Additional Public Prosecutor, for Respondent
Headnote:
CRIMINAL - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CONVICTION - JUSTIFIED - SECTION 302 IPC - FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES - APPRECIATED - LAST SEEN THEORY - FINGERPRINT EVIDENCE - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - FALSE EXPLANATION - FALSE HUE AND CRY - SECTION 27 EVIDENCE ACT RECOVERY - SIMILAR BLOOD GROUPING - SEXUAL INTERCOURSE ON THE OCCURRENCE DAY - HELD, THE ACCUSED ARE THE KILLERS OF THE DECEASED.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was found dead in a gunny bag near his TVS Suzuki bike. The prosecution alleged that the deceased's wife (A.2) had an illegal relationship with A.1 and that they had killed the deceased due to strained relationship. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence such as motive, last seen theory, transporting the dead body in the deceased's bike, fingerprint evidence, deserting the dead body and the bike, medical evidence, false explanation of A.2, false hue and cry, Section 27 Evidence Act recovery, similar blood grouping, and sexual intercourse between A.1 and A.2 on the occurrence day.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The court relied on the following circumstances to arrive at its conclusion: (i) A.2 had an illegal relationship with A.1 and there was strained relationship between the spouses; (ii) the deceased was lastly seen alive with A.2; (iii) A.1 and A.2 transported the dead body in the deceased's bike; (iv) a chance fingerprint lifted from the bike tallied with the specimen fingerprint of A.1; (v) there was incriminating medical evidence; (vi) recovery of weapons used in the commission of the offence; (vii) the blood stains found in the deceased's house, the place where his dead body was found, and on the dresses of the deceased, A.1, and A.2 were all one and the same; (viii) A.2 made false hue and cry and false explanation. The court held that these circumstances, taken cumulatively, formed a complete chain, unerringly proceeding towards the only conclusion that the accused are the killers of the deceased.
Issues: Whether the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
Ratio Decidendi: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur.
P. DEVADASS, J.
1. Appellants 1 and 2, who are A.1 and A.2, in Sessions Case No. 58 of 2010 were found guilty under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur, who has convicted them to life and fined Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.
2. For convenience sake, throughout the judgment, appellants 1 and 2 shall be called as A.1 and A.2.
3. The prosecution case may briefly be stated as under:
(i) P.W.1 Perumayee‘s son is Mayavan. He married his uncle Rengan‘s daughter Ratha @ Anuratha (A.2). They were residing in door No. 8/208, near Bagavathiamman kovil, Kattur, Thirukampuliyur, in Krishnaraya- puram Taluk, in Karur District. In one part of his house, he is running his tea shop. They have three daughters and one son. P.W.1 is also residing with them.
(ii) A.1 Ranjithkumar belongs to Thanneerpalam, near Mayanur. He used to visit Mayavan‘s tea-shop. Illegal intimacy developed between A.1 and A.2. So, quarrel arose between the spouses. Mayavan reported the matter to the panchayat. Senthilkumar, Panchayat President, P.Ws.2 and 3 Pari and Sadha @ Sadasivam mediated the matter. At Ayyarmalai, they informed A2‘s relatives also. All warned her to be faithful to her husband. However, there was no change in her conduct. Again, after one month, Mayavan informed P.W.3 about her illegal affair with A.1.
(iii) On 12.4.2009 night, A.2 cooked chicken curry. P.W.1 and the children ate. With regard to A.2‘s conduct, wordy altercation arose between A.2 and her husband. A.2 shouted at him. P.W.1 and the children went to sleep in the room in the shop. A.2 served chicken curry meals to her husband. Both slept in the house. After about an hour, Mayavan vomitted.
(iv) Around 1 a.m., P.W.6 Krishnan, residing opposite to Mayavan‘s house, came out to urinate. Then street lights were also burning. At that time, from the lane in Mayavan‘s house, A.1 came pulling Mayavan‘s T.V.S. Suzuki bike, keeping a gunny bag, near its petrol tank and A.2 pushed the bike from behind and they took the bike towards Mettu Thirukampuliyur. Since A.1 is in coconut business, P.W.6 thought that he was carrying coconut in the gunny bag. P.W.5 Thangavel, a mechanic, residing in Kattur, at about 1.30 a.m., seen them pushing the bike with a gunny bag.
(v) Around 2 a.m., near P.W.2 Pari‘s house, on the road, near a speed breaker, the bike stopped, A.1 left it and ran away. P.Ws.3 and 4 Sada @ Sadasivam and Anand went near it. It is a blue colour bike bearing the Registration No. TN-45-B-9151 (M.O.6). From the gunny bag, blood was dripping and a toe was protruding. P.Ws.3 and 4 informed P.W.2. He also seen the gunny bag.
(vi) On intimation, P.W.7 Ellangovan, V.A.O., Thirukampuliyur and his Assistant Ramanikumar came. They untied the coir rope (M.O.2) of the gunny bag (M.O.3), inside the gunny bag, dead body of Mayavan with banian (M.O.4) and lungi (M.O.5) was found. A red colour nylon rope (M.O.1) was also tied around the neck.
(vii) Around 3 a.m., P.W.1 was brought. She identified her son‘s dead body. She gave Exhibit P-1 statement to P.W.7.
(viii) At about 5.30 a.m., at the Mayanur Police Station, P.W.7 presented Exhibit P-1 statement with his endorsement (Exhibit P-2) to P.W.15 Chinnathambi, Inspector. He registered a case in Crime No. 146 of 2009 under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C. He sent the Express F.I.R. (Exhibit P-20) to Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kulithalai through P.W.14 Krishnan, Head Constable.
(ix) P.W.15 took up his investigation. At about 6.45 a.m., in the presence of P.W.7 and Ramanikumar, near the speed breaker, he prepared Exhibit P-3 Observation Mahazaar. Drew Exhibit P-21 rough sketch. Recovered M.Os.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 under Exhibit P-4 mahazar. In the presence of panchayathars, held inquest over the dead body (Exhibit P-22 Inquest Report).
(x) At the said place, P.W.11 Manickam, Finger Print Expert, lifted a chance finger print from M.O.6 bike. P.W.12 Mani, Forensic Officer, collected blood stains from the tar ro
