The circumstantial evidence, including abscondence and false explanation, can be crucial in establishing guilt in criminal cases.

P.N. Prakash, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the accused assailing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.07.2017 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.No.62 of 2014.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this criminal appeal are succinctly stated as under:

2.1 Meenakshi (D1) married the appellant/Thirupathi and they were blessed with two daughters, viz. Divya (P.W.6) and Karthika (P.W.7) and one son Dinesh (D2). The appellant suspected his wife’s fidelity and frequently quarrelled with her. The family was residing in Door No.2352, Housing Board Colony, Anupanadi West, Madurai. Meenakshi’s (D1’s) sister Karpagavalli (P.W.3) was residing in Door No.2318 in the same colony. The appellant’s parents were also residing nearby. The parents of Meenakshi (D1), viz. Perumal (P.W.1) and Kamakshi (P.W.2) were residing in Sayalkudi in Ramanathapuram District, which is about 200 kilometres away from Madurai.

2.2 Four days prior to Deepavali in 2011, Kamakshi (P.W.2), the mother of Meenakshi (D1), tried to speak to her daughter, but, was not able to get her on line. So, she contacted her younger daughter Karpagavalli (P.W.3) and asked her to find out the whereabouts of Meenakshi (D1). Karpagavalli (P.W.3) went to Meenakshi’s (D1’s) house and found that it was locked. Since there was no news from Meenakshi (D1), her parents suspected foul play and came to Madurai in the evening of 22.10.2011 and went to Karpagavalli’s (P.W.3’s) house. Then, they all came to Meenakshi’s (D1’s) house and found that the door was locked. They staved in through the rear door of the house and to their shock, they found the dead bodies of Meenakshi (D1) and Dinesh (D2) with injuries.

2.3 On the written complaint given by Perumal (P.W.1), Uma Shankar (P.W.18), Inspector of Police (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Investigating Officer’) registered a case in Crime No.535 of 2011 on 22.10.2011 at 22.30 hrs. under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.31), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on 24.10.2011 at 05.00 p.m., as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.

2.4 The Investigating Officer (P.W.18) came to the place of occurrence and despatched the two bodies through Mahendran, HC 1785 (P.W.16) to the mortuary in the Government Hospital, Madurai. On 23.10.2011, at the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.18) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.19), in the presence of witnesses Azhagarsami (P.W.5) and Mahendran (P.W.15). At the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) seized the following items:

* A screw driver measuring 12 inches (M.O.3);

* A sharp edged metal comb specially used by women for untangling the knots in the tress (M.O.4) and

* A 100ml. box of Endosulfan (pesticide) (M.O.5).

2.5 On 23.10.2011, the Investigating Officer (P.W.18) went to the mortuary and conducted inquest over the body of Meenakshi (D1) and the Inquest Report qua Meenakshi (D1) was marked as Ex.P.21. After inquest, he despatched the body of Meenakshi (D1) for post-mortem. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the body of Dinesh (D2) and the Inquest Report qua Dinesh (D2) was marked as Ex.P.22. After the inquest, he despatched the body of Dinesh (D2) for post-mortem.

2.6 Dr.Rajavelu (P.W.11) performed autopsy on the body of Dinesh (D2) and issued the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.6). After obtaining the Viscera Report (Ex.P.7), he gave the final opinion (Ex.P.8). In his evidence as well in the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.6), he has stated as follows:

“Appearances found at the post-mortem

Decomposed body of a male child aged about 10 years. Finger & toe nails are blue.

The following ante-mortem injuries are noted on the body

On dissection of scalp, skull & dura:

Contusion of 4cm x 3cm seen on the left temporal region. Contusion of 4cm x 2cm seen on the right