Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 136
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.NAGAMUTHU, N. AUTHINATHAN, JJ.
P. Sasikumar - Appellant
Vs
The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Alagapuram - Respondent
CRL.A.No.574 of 2016
Decided on : 12-01-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.N. Manokaran
For the Respondent: Mr.R. Rajarathinam Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.P. Govindarajan, Addl. Public Prosecutor
The judgment emphasizes the importance of circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt in criminal cases, highlighting the need for a complete chain of evidence and the absence of alternative hypotheses.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Murder - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, 449, 404, 201 - The judgment discusses the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. The court evaluates the identification of the accused, the circumstances of the crime, and the evidence of witnesses to confirm the appellant's involvement in the murder.
Fact of the Case:
A 14-year-old girl was killed at home, allegedly by the appellant and another person. The prosecution presented evidence of the appellant's presence at the scene, his association with the co-accused, and the threats made to the victim's family.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies and the appellant's presence at the crime scene. The court confirmed the trial court's conviction and sentence.
Issues: The main issue was the appellant's involvement in the murder, based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the identification of the appellant by a witness, the circumstances of the crime, and the evidence of the appellant's association with the co-accused to establish his guilt.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were confirmed.
A school going girl, aged hardly 14 years, while she was alone at home, was mercilessly killed by slitting her neck by knife and was robbed of her cell phone. The prosecution alleges that the appellant herein (A.2) and one Yugadityan (A.1) are the perpetrators of the crime. The trial Court convicted both the accused (vide Judgment dated 21.07.2016). The first accused has not made any appeal so far. The appellant/A.2 challenges the said conviction and sentence in this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is the father of the victim girl - Ms.Thejashree. P.W.1 is residing at Vanniya nagar, Azhagapuram, Salem. P.W.2 Harini is the elder sister of the deceased. P.W.2 was formerly studying B.E (Civil Engineering) Course in a private Engineering College known as “Mahindra Engineering College”. The deceased was studying in a local school. A.1 was a co-student in the same college with P.W.2 and was doing B.E. Aeronautic Engineering Course. A.1 was a Senior Student. Since P.W.2 and A.1 were studying in the same college, they were known to each other. In due course, A.1 proposed his love for P.W.2., but P.W.2 rejected the same. Not stopping with that, A.1 started stalking her. Unable to bear his torture, P.W.2 informed the same to her father P.W.1. P.W.1 made a complaint to the Principal of the College against A.1. The Principal of the College called P.W.2 as well as A.1 and their family members to sort out this issue. In the end of the talks held by the Principal of the College, A.1 agreed not to interfere with the affairs of P.W.2 anymore. After completing her course, P.W.2 joined L&T Company as an Engineer. On account of the job, she was staying in Chennai.
(b) While so, two days prior to Deepavali in the year 2014, A.1 came all the way to Chennai and intercepted P.W.2. He told her that if P.W.2 did not reciprocate the love, he would kill all her family members and also P.W.2. A.1 further wanted P.W.2 to give her cell phone number and also her address. P.W.2 informed the Security Officer about the same. The Security Officer intervened and sent A.1 away. P.W.2 immediately informed the same to her father-P.W.1. P.W.1, in turn, made a complaint to the police. The police also summoned A.1 and warned him.
It is further alleged that that on 13.11.2014, when the deceased was alone in the house, around 7.15 p.m, A.1 along with his friend A.2 came to the house of P.W.1. The house of P.W.1 is in the first floor of the building. Both of them, according to the prosecution, trespassed into the house, slit the throat of the deceased twice with knife. The appellant (A.2) immediately rushed out, went to the road side and kept the motorcycle ready with the engine running. The appellant (A.2) was wearing a monkey cap.
(d) P.W.1 incidentally came to the house and when he was climbing up the stairs, A.1 was climbing down the steps. At that time A.1 was having a helmet in his hand. But on seeing P.W.1 he wore the helmet, proceeded further and rushed towards the motorcycle, mounted the same and both A.1 and A.2 rode away from the scene of occurrence.
(e) P.W.1 rushed into his house, where the scene was so horrible that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood, but still she was alive. He cried for help and immediately the neighbours rushed in. Then all of them took her to the Government Hospital in an 108 Ambulance. On examining the deceased, the doctor declared her dead. The dead body was sent to the mortuary. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Azhagapuram Police Station and made a complaint at 10.30 p.m on 13.11.2014. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.23 is the First Information Report. Since the assailants were unknown to P.W.1, he mentioned in the complaint that the assailants were not known but he could identify them.
(f) P.W.24-the Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation. He went to the place of oc
