2019 Supreme(Mad) 1252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P.N. PRAKASH, B. PUGALENDHI, JJ.
Murugan - Appellant
Versus
State, Rep By The Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station - Respondent
Crl.A(MD). No. 415 of 2016
Decided On : 06-03-2019

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 447, 341, 397 and 302 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 313 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872, - Sections 8,9,65-B – Offence of murder - Punishment for criminal trespass. - shepherd and native of S.S. Puram in Tirunelveli District, was tending cattle in Kerala. He came to his native village on 12.02.2015, for harvesting the crops in his lands and stayed in his natal home with his brother and sister. At the request of his brother-in-law - Krishnan, he took around 300 goats to the lands belonging to his family for grazing. The goats strayed into the fields of the deceased - Esakkimmal and devoured the crops. On coming to know of this, the deceased saw the appellant on 25.02.2015, near the village temple and berated him for allowing his cattle to destroy her crops and made snide remark about the character of his wife. It is alleged that on 26.02.2015, at 11.00 AM, when Esakkiammal was watering the crops in her lands, the appellant is said to have caused her death by belabouring her with a sickle. Thereafter, the appellant is said to have taken a chain belonging to her and had left the village on the same day for his work place in Kerala. Since Esakkiammal did not return home, Devika [PW-1], the daughter of the deceased and the other relatives, namely, Arumugam [PW-2] and Ramiah [PW-3] started searching for her and ultimately, on the same day, around 10.00 PM, they went to the fields and found the body of Esakkiammal. On the complaint [EX-P1] given by Devika [PW-1], Rajaram [PW-17] registered a case in Crime No. 39 of 2015, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, against unknown accused, at 11.00 PM, on 26.02.2015 and prepared the printed First Information Report, [EX-P18], which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 06.45 AM, on 27.02.2015, as could be seen from the endorsement made therein. – Held, without a certification under Section 65-B of the Act, CCTV footages cannot be admitted in evidence. It is true that in the absence of a certification under Section 65-B of the Act, CCTV footage cannot be admitted in evidence. However, Section 65-B of the Act does not bar dock evidence under Section 9 of the Act, conduct evidence under Section 8 of the Act and evidence aliunde. Viewing the CCTV footages and coming to a conclusion in the mind will not be hit by Section 162 Cr.PC. Both Prince [PW-8] and Mery Pravija [PW-9] have stated that the police brought the appellant to their office on 05.03.2015. They played the CCTV footage recorded on 26.02.2015. All of them viewed the CCTV footage and looked at the face of the appellant and the face of the person in the CCTV footage and came to the irresistible conclusion that the appellant was the person in the CCTV footage. Thereafter, Prince [PW-8] and Mery Pravija [PW-9] have deposed in the Court about these facts and identified the appellant and the person, who came on 26.02.2015 to pledge imitation chain [MO-4]. Perhaps, fearing for this incriminating material, the appellant changed track in the examination under Section 313 Cr.PC by stating that he came to Muthoot Fin Corporation on 26.02.2015, but, wanted to pledge only a gold ring and not a chain. Had he suggested to Prince [PW-8] and Mery Pravija [PW-9] that he wanted to take a loan by pledging his gold ring, then, the issue would have been different. However, the appellant suggested to Prince [PW-8] and Mery Pravija [PW-9] that he did not come to Muthoot Fin Corporation on 26.02.2015 at all. This, in our considered view, is a very powerful incriminating circumstance. The appellant did not take a stand that he has a twin brother - a look alike - and the person in the CCTV footage could have been him - intention of the appellant was not to commit the murder for gain. His intention was only to teach a lesson to Esakkiammal for abusing him and for character assassinating his wife, when he had married against all odds. A little greed would have crept in his mind on seeing the ornaments worn by Esakkiammal and believing that the imitation chain [MO-4] was of gold, he would have taken it alone. Otherwise, there is no reason for him to go to Muthoot Fin Corporation on the same evening, namely, on 26.02.2015, at 05.00 PM, to convert it into money. Unfortunately, the imitiation chain turned out to be his waterloo. Criminal Appeal is dismissed