Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 635
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. NAGAMUTHU AND ANITA SUMANTH, JJ.
Durkeshkumar - Appellant
Vs.
State by Inspector of Police, Saravanampatti Police Station - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2017
Decided On : 10-04-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. P. Pugalenthi
For the Respondent: Mr. P. Govindarajan
The judgment emphasizes the significance of circumstantial evidence, the credibility of extra judicial confessions, and the corroboration of confessions through independent evidence in establishing guilt.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to circumstantial evidence, motive, last seen theory, extra judicial confession, and recoveries made based on the confession. The court emphasized the importance of corroboration of extra judicial confession and the significance of evidence in establishing guilt. The judgment relied on Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code to convict the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, an office boy, killed the husband of the woman he was staying with, severed the head and trunk, and disposed of them in different locations. The deceased's son and wife reported him missing, leading to an investigation. The accused made an extra judicial confession and led the police to the locations where he disposed of the body parts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, motive, and extra judicial confession. The recoveries made based on the confession corroborated the confession, leading to the conviction.
Issues: The issues involved the establishment of guilt based on circumstantial evidence, the credibility of the extra judicial confession, and the corroboration of the confession through recoveries.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the last seen theory, motive, and extra judicial confession as key factors in establishing guilt. The corroboration of the confession through recoveries further strengthened the case against the accused.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellant were confirmed.
S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
The appellant/sole accused in S.C.No.262 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Court for Bomb Blast Cases at Coimbatore, has come up with this Criminal Appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for offences u/s.302 and 201 I.P.C. The Trial Court, by the Judgment dated 15.04.2016, convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
The accused hails from Bihar State. He was working in a Flour Mill at Ganapathi Sivasakthi Colony, Coimbatore, as an Office Boy. One Mrs.Jothi @ Julie was also working in the same Mill. The accused was staying at the house of Mrs.Jothi @ Julie at Balakrishnabavan II Street, Ganapathi Nagar, Coimbatore, from the year 2006 onwards. The accused gave his entire salary to Mrs.Jothi @ Julie for safety purpose. It is alleged that, the deceased in this case was one Mr.Krishnamoorthy who is the husband of Mrs.Jothi @ Julie. They have a son by name, Mr.Prabu, who was studying in a local college. During the month of January 2015, the deceased was in need of Rs.10,000/- to pay the college fees for Mr.Prabu. Therefore, he wanted the accused to pay him Rs.10,000/-. But, the accused did not pay so.
3. On 06.01.2015, the deceased again demanded Rs.10,000/- from the accused. When the accused refused to pay any amount to the deceased, the deceased warned him that he should not come to his house, if he was not prepared to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-. This statement of the deceased infuriated the accused. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.
4. On 06.01.2015, around 10.30 am, it is alleged that the accused cut the deceased on his neck with a knife and killed him. The accused severed the head from the trunk and packed the head in a gunny bag and the trunk in another gunny bag. He threw the gunny bag containing the head in a watter in the channel near the municipal play ground at VNS Nagar, Ganapathi, Coimbatore. Similarly, he threw the gunny bag containing the trunk in a water in the channel at Sanganur, Aavarampalayam Road. Then he fled away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence was not witnessed by anyone.
5. P.W.1 - Mr.Prabu is the son of the deceased. According to him, on 06.01.2015 at 08.45 am, Mrs.Jothi @ Julie, the wife of the deceased had left for Flour Mill. P.W.1 also left for the College. The accused and the deceased alone were there in the house. On the same day, around 5.00 pm, P.W.1 returned home. At that time, the accused was found painting the hall of the house. The deceased was not found in the house. P.W.1 enquired the accused about the whereabouts of the deceased. But, he did not reply properly. Then, P.W.1 tried to contact the deceased over cellphone. But, the cellphone of the deceased was in a switch off mode. On the same day, around 7.00 pm, the wife of the deceased returned home. She also tried to speak to the deceased through cellphone. But, the cellphone of the deceased was continuously in a switch off mode. When P.W.1 and Mrs.Jothi @ Julie enquired the accused about the whereabouts of the deceased, he said that he was not aware of. Thereafter, the accused left the house informing P.W.1 and Mrs.Jothi @ Julie, the wife of the deceased that he was going in search of the deceased.
6. P.W.1 and the other family members also went in search of the deceased. Since, the deceased was not seen anywhere, on 09.01.2015, Mrs.Jothi @ Julie, the wife of the deceased, made a complaint at 5.00 pm at Saravanampatti Police Station. Ex.P.1 is the complaint. On the said complaint, the then Head Constable (P.W.19) registered a case in Crime No.20/2015 for “man missing”. Ex.P.2
