Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 761
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.T. SELVAM, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
Murugan - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 452 of 2017 & Crl.MP. No. 9342 of 2017
Decided On : 13-02-2018
For the Appellant :M/s. J. Star, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V. Arul, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal evidence, and the prosecution has the duty to establish every circumstance against the accused without infirmities and doubt.
Headnote:
Extra-Judicial Confession - Murder - IPC 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC 302 - The court analyzed the evidence and circumstances surrounding the case, including the last seen theory, extra-judicial confession, and the statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. The court highlighted the inconsistencies and infirmities in the evidence, emphasizing the lack of legal evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the circumstances against the accused, leading to the benefit of doubt and acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife based on the prosecution's evidence, including the last seen theory, extra-judicial confession, and the statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. The appellant denied the charges and appealed against the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, including the last seen theory and extra-judicial confession, was unreliable and created serious doubt about the guilt of the accused. The court emphasized the inconsistencies and infirmities in the evidence, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the circumstances against the accused.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the last seen theory, extra-judicial confession, and the statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, and whether the prosecution had proven the circumstances against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal evidence, and emphasized the duty of the prosecution to establish every circumstance against the accused without infirmities and doubt. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to meet this standard, leading to the benefit of doubt and acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The court directed the release of the appellant unless his presence/custody was required in connection with any other case/proceedings.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
1. Appellant is arrayed as the sole accused, in the case tried in SC.No.1/2015 on the file of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mahalir Court, Erode, for offence u/s.302 IPC. The Trial Court, under impugned Judgment dated 21.11.2016, found the appellant / accused guilty of the above said offence and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000/- with a default sentence of 2 years rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant/accused.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, are as follows:-
[a] P.W.1-Sathishkumar is the husband of the deceased Parimala. P.W.1 and his wife were working in a Brickiln known as Sakthi Sivan Chambers owned by one Deivasamy-P.W.8 in Savadipalayampudhur village. P.W.1 and his wife were residing in a thatched shed near the Brickiln Chambers and the appellant/accused was also residing in the neighbouring shed.
[b] On 31.10.2013, P.W.8 distributed salary and bonus to his workers, which include P.W.1 and the appellant/accused, After receipt of salary and bonus from P.W.8, when P.W.1 returned to his house at 9.30 p.m., he found his wife Parimala was missing and he searched in the nearby places along with his parents and found the dead body of his wife with head injuries caused by a granite stone. As the appellant/accused was not available in the vicinity, P.W.1 suspected the involvement of the appellant/accused in his wife's murder and thereafter, he lodged the report-Ex.P.1.
[c] P.W.2-Kasiammal, sister of the deceased Parimala, on receipt of telephonic message about the death of her sister, went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body. P.W.3-Kumar, deposed about his search for P.W.1's wife along with P.W.1 and others on 31.10.2013 and of his seeing of the dead body in the nearby canal. P.W.5-Rajavelu, deposed about his seeing of the appellant/accused in the company of the deceased Parimala near the Brickiln Chambers at 9.00 p.m. on 31.10.2013. P.W.6-Elango stated about his hearing of noise of a woman at about 10.00 p.m., on 31.10.2013 from the place of occurrence and when he went out, he saw the appellant/accused standing. However, he was under the impression that the appellant/accused would have gone there to attend the nature's call. P.W.7-Ravikumar, stated that on 31.10.2013 at about 10.00 p.m., while he was proceeding to Modakurichi, the appellant/accused asked for a lift in the two-wheeler of P.W.7 till Modakurichi Bus Stand. P.W.13-Kanagaraj, Special Sub Inspector of Police attached to Modakurichi Police Station at the relevant point of time, received the complaint from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 on 01.11.2013 at about .30 a.m. and registered the crime in Cr.No.221/2013 u/s.302 IPC. Ex.P.13 is the First Information Report. He despatched the originals of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.13 to the jurisdictional Court and copies to the higher officials. P.W.14-Jamunarani, Head Constable attached to the said police station handed over the originals of Exs.P.1 and 13 to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.3, Erode and copies P.W.15.
[d] P.W.16-Subburathinam, Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station, on receipt of FIR in Cr.No.221/2013 on 01.11.2013, went to the place of occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.2] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P.14] in the presence of P.W.4 and one Rajendran. He recovered M.O.1-blood stained granite stone ; M.O.2--Blood stained earth ; M.O.3-sample earth and M.O.14- teeth [4 Nos.] under the cover of Mahazars in the presence of the said witnesses. He inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P.15-Inquest Report. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem along with a requisition.
[e] P.W.10-Dr.Kalanjiarani, Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital, Erode, at the relevant point of time, received the requisition sent by P.W.15 and commenced the postmortem on 01.11.20
