The judgment emphasizes the need for corroborative evidence to support circumstantial evidence in establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

P.N. PRAKASH, J.

1. This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 27.04.2017 in S.C.No.46/2016 on the file of the I Additional Sessions and District Court, Madurai.

2. The trial Court, by the said judgment, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court in this appeal.

3. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this criminal appeal are as under:

It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Alphonse Mary was married to one Justin, son of Arulraj (P.W.4) and Therasamary (P.W.5). Justin was employed abroad. Alphonse Mary has a four year old son Nelson through Justin. It is alleged that Alphonse Mary developed illicit intimacy with the appellant. When the appellant wanted to get married to another girl, Alphonse Mary protested. That apart, the appellant suspected that Alphonse Mary was having affair with other men. Therefore, on 01.08.2015, the appellant came to the first floor portion of the house in D.No.4/579 Adaikkalampillai Colony, where Alphonse Mary was residing and had a quarrel with her, after which, he strangulated her by using her Thali chain and caused her death. Admittedly, Alphonse Mary's parents-in-law, viz., Arulraj (P.W. 4) and Therasamary (P.W.5) were living in the same house, but, separately in the ground floor portion.

3.1. On the same day, around 5.15 p.m., Vasanthi (P.W.3) a neighbour, who had given her blouse to Alphonse Mary for stitching, went to the house of Alphonse Mary to collect it. At that time, she found the body of Alphonse Mary on the cot. She raised a hue and cry and with the help of neighbours, she took Alphonse Mary to G.S.Hospital, where Dr.Anandhi Babu examined her and declared as “brought dead”. Thereafter, Vasanthi (P.W.3) and the neighbours brought the body of Alphonse Mary and kept it in the ground floor portion of her parents-in-law (P.W.4 and P.W.5). Information was sent to Savariammal (P.W.1), mother of Alphonse Mary to her village. Savariammal (P.W.1) came to the house of Alphonse Mary and gave a statement (Ex.P.1) to the police, based on which, Rajendran (P.W.24), the Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.887/2015 on 01.08.2015 at 21 hrs. under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P23). Since the death of Alphonse Mary was within seven years of marriage, Senthil Kumar (P.W.23), the Revenue Divisional Officer, conducted inquest and gave Preliminary report (Ex.P21) and final report (Ex.P22), wherein, it is stated that the death was not due to dowry demand.

3.2. Investigation of the case was taken over by Jose Thangaiah, (P.W.26) the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and rough sketch (Ex.P24). The Investigating Officer (P.W.26) requested the services of Kumar (P.W.2) Scientific Expert attached to the Mobile Unit of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory to collect clue materials, from the place of occurrence. He recovered the material objects under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P3) in the presence of witnesses Narayanan (P.W.6) and Manikandan (P.W.9). He recovered 9 items, of which, it may be relevant to refer to two items, namely, a Nokia model mobile phone with two SIM cards (Vodafone and Idea) having IMEI No.35726205336658 and IMEI No.35726205336659 (M.O.3) and a pair of chappals (M.O.9).

3.3. The body was despatched to the Government Rajaji Hospital for postmortem, where Dr.Rajavelu (P.W.21) performed autopsy and issued the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P5), where, six ante-mortem injuries, including ligature mark around the neck were noted. After obtaining the Viscera report, Dr.Rajavelu (P.W.21) gave the final opinion vide Ex.P6, wherein, it is stated as follows:

“The deceased would appear to have died of As