The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, the adverse inference drawn from the appellant's silence during questioning, and the recovery of the murder weapon in accordance with the law to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to set aside the Judgment dated 25.11.2013 passed in S.C. No. 33 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.)

R. Subbiah, J.

1. The sole accused in S.C. No. 33 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant in this appeal. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 (2 counts). After trial, by the Judgment dated 25.11.2013, he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for each count with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for each count. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Narayana Reddy (PW7) was in the process of putting up a building construction in his land situated at Manikarar Thottam, Peelamedu Pudur, Sowripalayam, Coimbatore. PW7 had entrusted the work of putting up the construction to Uppili @ Uppiliappan, PW3, who is an Engineer by profession. For the purpose of safeguarding the construction site where the building materials will be stored, PW3 had engaged the services of PW1, Vengatachalamoorthy, who is running a Security Service in the name and style of M & M Home Services and Security Services. PW1 in turn deputed one Elangovan as a Day Watchman in the construction site. The appellant/accused was a mason engaged by Balasubramanian @ Balan, PW8. The appellant/accused stayed in a thatched shed within the construction site. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant/accused used to consume alcoholic liquor and he led a wayward life. Earlier, PW1 engaged PW10 as a Watchman in the construction site. When PW10 was working as a Watchman, he had a quarrel with the appellant/ accused owing to the fact that the appellant attended natures call within the constructed site itself. During such quarrel, the appellant threatened PW10 with dire consequences. PW10 therefore reported this to PW1 and also expressed his dis-inclination to work in the construction site any longer. Therefore, PW10 was sent to some other work by PW1 and in his place, one Ramasamy was posted as Night Watchman.

3. It is the further case of the prosecution that even after the change of Security guards, the appellant engaged in a quarrel with the said Elangovan, Day Watchman and Ramasamy, Night Watchman besides which he continued his nasty activities in attending to natures call within the construction site. Hence, both the watchmen have complained about such activities of the accused to PW1, who is their employer. While so, on 19.08.2012 around 5.30 pm, PW7, the owner of the construction site along with his wife supervised the progress of the construction. At that time, Elangovan, Day Watchman complained to PW7 about the attitude of the appellant in attending natures call within the construction site itself. On hearing this from Elangovan, PW7 instructed him to call the appellant/accused. Hence, Elangovan, raised his voice and called the appellant/accused, who was inside the construction site. On hearing his name being called by Elangovan, Day Watchman, the appellant/accused came out of the construction site. On seeing the appellant/ accused, PW7 questioned him with regard to his activities in the construction site. At that time, the appellant/accused even confronted PW7 by stating as to who had given such a complaint against him. When it was stated that Elangovan, Day Watchman is the complainant, the appellant indulged in a wordy quarrel with Elangovan and in that process, both Elangovan and the appellant have exchanged body blows in front of PW7. PW7 therefore intervened and directed the appellant to get out of the construction site. PW7 also informed this to PW8 through whom the appellant was engaged as a Mason in the construction site. PW7 also asked PW8 to remove the appellant