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

2015 Supreme(Mad) 2770

IN THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.NAGAMUTHU and V.S.RAVI, JJ.
Krishnakumari and Ors. - Appellant
Vs.
State represented by The Inspector of Police – Respondents
Crl.A(MD)No.430 and 434 of 2010
Decided On : 01.09.2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant in : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Prabhu, Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Velan for M/s.Ajmal Associates.
For Respondent in: Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, Addl. Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Muthu Saravanan

In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime and prove circumstances beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

Criminal Conspiracy - Murder - Section 120-B, 302 I.P.C. - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 120-B and 302 I.P.C. and their interpretations in the context of the circumstantial evidence presented. The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and establish a complete chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime. The court highlighted the admissibility of disclosure statements and the relevance of material object recovery in establishing guilt.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the murder of Mr. Rajarajan, allegedly conspired by the accused 1 and 2 due to an illicit relationship. The deceased was found dead with injuries, and the prosecution presented circumstantial evidence to link the accused to the crime.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the prosecution's evidence based on witness testimonies and material object recovery to be unreliable and insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the lack of a complete chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime and the failure to prove the circumstances incriminating the accused.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of witness testimonies, admissibility of disclosure statements, and the relevance of material object recovery in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and establish a complete chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The court also highlighted the admissibility of disclosure statements and the relevance of material object recovery in establishing guilt.

Final Decision: The Criminal Appeals were allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants were set aside. The appellants/accused were acquitted of all charges, and any fine amount paid by them was ordered to be refunded.

JUDGMENT :

S.NAGAMUTHU, J.

The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.150 of 2010, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Thoothukudi. The accused 1 and 2 stood charged for the offence under Section 120-B read with 302 I.P.C. and the first accused stood charged for yet another offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By Judgment, dated 02.11.2010, the Trial Court convicted them. For the offence under Section 120-B read with 302 I.P.C., the Trial Court sentenced both the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., the Trial Court sentenced the first accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court, with these Criminal Appeals.

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

The deceased in this case was one Mr.Rajarajan. The second accused is his wife. It is alleged that the second accused had developed illicit intimacy with the first accused. The deceased reprimanded the second accused for the same. Therefore, it is alleged that on 19.09.2009, the accused 1 and 2 had conspired to commit the murder of the deceased. It is further alleged that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, on 21.09.2009, at about 09.15 p.m., the first accused had taken the deceased to the waste land of one Kamal at Ariyanayakipuram, made him to drink brandy mixed with Fanta colour and when the deceased was lying down under the influence of alcohol, the first accused attacked him on his neck with wooden log and caused his death. The occurrence was not witnessed by any one.

3. It is alleged that the dead body of the deceased was found at 07.00 a.m. on 22.09.2009 at the place of occurrence. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. He heard about the same from the villagers, rushed to the spot, verified that the deceased was lying dead and proceeded to Vilathikulam Police Station and made a complaint under Ex.P.1. P.W.14 received Ex.P.1 at 09.00 a.m. on 22.09.2009 and registered a case in Crime No.257 of 2009 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.18 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.

4. P.W.15, the then Inspector of Police, Vilathikulam Police Station, took up the case for investigation at 09.30 a.m. on 22.09.2009. Immediately, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and at 10.00 a.m. in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch. He recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under a mahazer. Then, in the presence of panchayatdars at 11.00 a.m. to 02.00 p.m. on the same day, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. Ex.P.20 is the Inquest Report. In Ex.P.20, he concluded that some unidentified persons had committed the murder of the deceased. Thus, until 02.00 p.m., there was no clue available in respect of the assailants. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. P.W.6 Dr.Mangaladevi, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 22.09.2009 at 03.00 p.m. She found the following injuries:

“External injuries (Antemortem): Horizontal split laceration measuring 16 x 4 x 6 cm over the front of neck running along the undersurface of mandible; underlying soft tissues, blood vessels damaged. Larynx contused surrounded by dark red coloured hematome and intact. Extravasation of blood over the hyoid bone too. Hyoid bone intact. Extravasation of blood on the whole anterior surface neck. No bony injuries. Scalp appears intact. There is extravasation of blood on the right temporal region beneath the scalp. Fact is symmetrical. Eyes closed. Nose normal and intact. Ears normal and intact. No discharge from nostrils, ears, mouth. Tongue













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top