Charge
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(Mad) 2578
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, R.HEMALATHA, JJ.
R. Marimuthu @ Suresh @ Kozhi Suresh & Another - Appellant
Versus
The State represented by, The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Trichy - Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No. 516 of 2019 & 458 of 2022 & Crl.M.P(MD)No. 8467 of 2022
Decided On : 18-08-2022
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:R. Manickaraj for R. Alagumani, B. Jameel Arasu, K.R. Laxman. For the Respondent: A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
For the Appellant:R. Manickaraj for R. Alagumani, B. Jameel Arasu, K.R. Laxman. For the Respondent: A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeals - Conviction and Sentence - 406 IPC, 120(b) IPC, 302 r/w 201 IPC, 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 302 r/w 392 IPC, 302 r/w 109 IPC - The judgment and order dated 25.04.2019 in Spl.S.C.No.5/2015 passed by the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR), Trichy District convicted and sentenced the appellants. The appeals were allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and directing the release of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, Sasikala, went missing after leaving home with her friend and two others. Her decapitated body was found in a rainwater pond. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence unconvincing and raised doubts about the reliability of witnesses, the timeline of events, and the motive for the crime. It criticized the police for their handling of the case and concluded that the conviction and sentence could not be sustained.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of witnesses, the credibility of the evidence, the handling of the investigation by the police, and the motive for the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a strong and consistent chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions. It highlighted the shortcomings in the police investigation and the lack of clarity in the prosecution's theory of the crime.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeals were allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence, and directing the release of the appellants. The court also ordered the refund of any fine paid by the appellants.
JUDGMENT
(Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2019 in Spl.S.C.No.5 of 2015 passed by the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichirappalli.)
Common Judgment:
R. Hemalatha, J.
1. These criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2019 in Spl.S.C.No.5/2015 passed by the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR), Trichy District. The Trial Court framed six charges, as detailed below.
| | Penal Provisions | Accused |
| 1 | 406 IPC | A1, A2, A3 |
| 2 | 120(b) IPC | A1, A2, A3 |
| 3 | 302 r/w 201 IPC | A1, A2, A3 |
| 4 | 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA)Act | A1 & A2 |
| 5 | 302 r/w 392 IPC | A1 & A2 |
| 6 | 302 r/w109 IPC | A3 |
2. By judgment and order dated 25.04.2019, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, as detailed below:
| Section of Law | Accused | Sentence of imprisonment | Fine amount |
| 120(b) r/w 302 IPC | A1 to A3 | Life Imprisonment. | Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. |
| 302 r/w 34 IPC | A1 & A2 | Life Imprisonment. | Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. |
| 201 r/w 302 r/w 34I PC | A1& A2 | Simple Imprisonment for three years | Rs.1,000/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. |
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up in these Criminal Appeals.
3. The prosecution case unfolds the following sequence of events.
i. The victim Sasikala was a resident of Sudhanthirapuram, Thirumayam Taluk, Pudukkottai District. She was residing with her maternal aunt Ilanjiyam (P.W-24) since she had lost her mother when she was very young. On 14.12.2013, she had reportedly left her home along with her friend Sathya (A3) and two other acquaintance of Sathya, namely, Saravanan @ Renganathan(A1) and Marimuthu @ Suresh(A2). She (deceased) informed P.W-24 that she would be visiting Umayal temple but she did not return that evening when P.W-24 came back home from her work. After verifying from other relatives, she (P.W-24) along with the victim's sister Radhika (P.W-25) went to Pudhupatti Police Station and gave an oral complaint and also requested the police not to register any FIR since it involves the reputation of their family. P.W-25 was a resident of Irumpanadu near Embal. Subsequently, both the women went to the tailor shop of Sekar (P.W-18) where the victim used to work and to the broiler shop of Vasantharajan (P.W-15) and enquired them. Both of them had seen the victim going along with Sathya(A3) and two other youngsters (A1 & A2). Since the victim did not return even on 15.12.2013, both the women approached the police again and informed them that they suspected foul play by Sathya (A3). However, no written complaint or FIR was prepared. Thiru.Sundarjaperumal (P.W-30) Inspector of Police, K.Pudhupatti Police Station, on 17.12.2013 summoned Sathya (A3) and the two accused (A1 & A2), who were seen with the victim on 14.12.2013 morning by P.W-15 and P.W-18. However, all the three accused claimed ignorance of the whereabouts of the victim. On 21.12.2013 as the victim was really missing P.W-24 gave a written complaint (Ex.P28) and requested the police to find the victim. P.W-30 received the complaint from P.W-24 and registered an FIR (Ex.P31) in Crime No.101/13 under 'woman missing'. Subsequently, on 24.12.2013
