The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the circumstances beyond all reasonable doubts in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the inadmissibility of confession statements as substantive evidence.

S. NAGAMUTHU, J.

1. Who was the deceased? The charred dead body was beyond recognition. The body was found in a house locked from inside. The inmates of the house broke open the doors and identified the charred dead body as that of their daughter Vasanthi (A1). The police believed the said version. After postmortem, the dead body was cremated and all religious rituals were performed by the parents. Surprisingly, Vasanthi (A1), who was believed to be dead, appeared before the police after some time with her newly married husband (A2) and sought for police protection. The police were shocked, as they were all along under the impression that Vasanthi was no more. On further investigation, the investigating officer found that Vasanthi’s college-mate by name Nithya was found missing. The investigating officer concluded that the above stated dead body was that of Nithya. He further concluded that the death of Nithya was homicide and Vasanthi and her husband (A1 and A2), were the perpetrators of the crime. The trial Court accepted the case of the prosecution as proved and convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and 201 read with 302 IPC. Contending, inter alia, that the death of Nithya itself has not been proved, the appellants are before this Court with this criminal appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

One Nithya, (the alleged deceased), the daughter of P.Ws.14 and 15, was studying in Chettinadu Arts and Science College, at Karumandapam, Trichy. The first accused (Vasanthi) was also studying in the same college. Nithya and Vasanthi were friends. According to the case of the prosecution, the second accused had fallen in love with the first accused and they got married secretly. Miss. Nithya came to know about the same and she threatened the first accused that she would disclose the marriage between A1 and A2 to the parents of A1. The accused felt that they were blackmailed. Therefore, they decided to do away with Nithya. Accordingly, it is alleged that on 26.12.2008, at about 6.15 p.m. when Nithya had come to the house of A1, both the accused gave her milk mixed with sleeping tablets. After she had fallen asleep, both the accused killed her by throttling. Then, with a view to screen the evidence, they dragged the body to the bathroom, poured kerosene and set fire to the body. With these allegations, they were prosecuted for the offence under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and 201 read with 302 IPC for having allegedly committed murder of ‘Nithya’ and for causing disappearance of evidence. Since the accused denied the charges, they were put on trial. During the trial, as many as 24 witnesses were examined and 37 documents were exhibited, besides 15 material objects.

3. P.W.1 is the father of A1/Vasanthi. According to him, on 26.12.2008, when he returned to his house, he found the main door of his house locked from inside. Therefore, he gave a phone call to his son (P.W.2) to rush to the house. Accordingly he rushed. At about 9.00 p.m. they opened the door with the help of P.W.10, by using a crowbar. When they entered into the house, they found a charred dead body. P.W.1 and other family members were under the impression that it was Vasanthi. They believed that she had committed suicide. Thus, they identified the dead body as that of Vasanthi. Then, P.W.1 went to the Cantonment Police Station, Trichy, and made a complaint. On receipt of the said complaint (Exhibit P-1), P.W.21, the then Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case at 11.30 p.m. on 26.12.2008. Exhibit P-18 is the First Information Report. In the complaint, P.W.1 has stated that Vasanthi (A1) was alone at home and she had committed suicide by setting fire to herself.

4. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.21 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar in respect of place of occurrence under Exhibit P-2 in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness. Then, he prepared Exhibit P-