Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 468
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. JAICHANDREN & S. NAGAMUTHU, JJ.
Prasanth – Appellant
Vs.
Inspector of Police, Mathigiri Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 459 of 2012
Decided On : 04-02-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Margabandhu.
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Maharaja, A.P.P.
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the need for the prosecution to prove the circumstances beyond all reasonable doubts to establish the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Circumstantial Evidence - IPC Section 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 302 - Summary: The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence and emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove the circumstances beyond all reasonable doubts, forming a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused. The court highlighted the lack of evidence directly linking the accused to the injuries causing death, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for the death of a load-man. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, with the deceased last seen with the accused. Medical evidence showed injuries on the deceased's body.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts, as there was no evidence directly linking the accused to the injuries causing death. The appellant was acquitted due to the lack of unerring evidence pointing to his guilt.
Issues: The key issue was the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused under Section 302 of IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the circumstances beyond all reasonable doubts, forming a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused. The lack of evidence directly linking the accused to the injuries causing death led to the acquittal.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted from the charge.
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 132 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 19.07.2012, the trial court convicted him under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. No fine was imposed. Challenging the above sentence, the sole accused is now before this court this criminal appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
The deceased in this case was one Mr. Ganesan. He was working as a load-man in a private company. The accused was a friend of the deceased and a co-worker. The deceased was already married and having a child. But, the accused and the deceased had used to visit a lady who was a sex worker. They used to mostly go together. On 04.04.2010 at 09.00 p.m., it is alleged that the accused and the deceased had gone in the motorcycle of the accused somewhere. Thereafter, the deceased did not return home at all. On the next day morning, P.W.1, the father of the deceased came to know that the deceased had not gone for his work. He also came to know that the accused also did not turn up for his work. Later, P.W.1 came to know that the dead body of a male was found on the Mathigiri junction near check post. He also came to know that the dead body was brought by some body in an Ambulance and kept in the mortuary at Government Hospital, Hosur. P.W.1 went to the hospital and found to his shock that the dead body was that of his son-Mr.Ganesan. Thereafter, he went to Mathirigi police station and made a complaint at 11.00 a.m. on 05.04.2010. P.W.8, the then Sub Inspector of Police, received the said complaint and registered a case in Crime No. 63 of 2010 under section 302 of IPC. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.9 is the FIR. He forwarded both the complaint and the FIR to the court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.
3. P.W.10, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P7) and rough sketch (Ex.P11) at the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness. He also recovered some blood samples, which were spread on the road where the occurrence had taken place, by using cotton under a mahazar (Ex.P8) from the place of occurrence in the presence of the same witnesses. Then, he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at Government Hospital, Hosur, and forwarded the dead body for postmortem. During inquest, he examined a number of witnesses including P.W.1.
4. P.W.5 Dr. Thamayandhi, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 05.04.2010 at 4.35 p.m. She found the following injuries:-
"External Injuries:
(1) Laceration 5 x 3 x bone deep near right eye.
(2) Laceration over left side elbow
(3) laceration 3 x 2 cm left side elbow.
(4) Abrasion 14 x 6 cm left side elbow.
(5) Abrasion 8 x 6 cm right cheek.
(6) Fracture of zygomatic bone.
Internal examination:
(1) Hyoid bone intact.
(2) Ribs intact.
(3) Heart 220 grams. Chambers empty
(4) Lungs weight right 400 grams, left 350 grams. Cut section pale.
(5) Liver weight 1400 grams cut section pale.
(6) Stomach empty
(7) Kidneys 150 grams each cut section congested
(8) Spleen weight 130 grams cut section congested.
(9) Bladder empty.
(10) Skull fracture frontal bone right side.
(11) Membranes intact.
(12) Bran weight 1300 grams. Sub dural hemorrhage both lobes.
(13) Base of skull fracture."
Ex.P.6 is the postmortem certificate. She opined that the injuries would have been caused by a hook used for loading and unloading gunny bags like M.O.1. She further opined the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries.
5. P.W.10, in the course of investigation, arrested the accused at 07.00 a.m. at Uzhavar Sandhi Road at Hosur, on 06.04.2010 in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary confession in the pre
