Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 2642
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
Saravanan - Appellant
Versus
State through, The Inspector of Police, Tiruchirappalli - Respondent
Crl.A (MD) No. 565 of 2019
Decided On : 25-08-2022
For the Appellant:R. Manickaraj, R. Alagumani, Advocates. For the Respondent: S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The judgment underscores the significance of circumstantial evidence, effective prosecution narrative, and the absence of alternative theories in establishing guilt in murder cases.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Murder for Gain - Sections 302 and 392 r/w 397 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence and legal provisions related to circumstantial evidence, misuse of debit/credit cards, impersonation, and the chain of events leading to the murder. The judgment highlighted the importance of circumstantial evidence and the effective narrative of the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, an A.C. mechanic, was murdered after distributing wedding invitations. The appellant, a friend of the victim, was found guilty of the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty based on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies, call records, and financial transactions. The court dismissed the defense's arguments and confirmed the conviction and sentence.
Issues: The case revolved around establishing the guilt of the accused based on circumstantial evidence, financial transactions, and witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the importance of a strong narrative backed by evidence in cases relying on circumstantial evidence. It highlighted the effective efforts of the investigating officer and the absence of any other plausible theory for the murder.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant were confirmed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 15.03.2012 made in S.C.No.27 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court, Tiruchirappalli.)
R. Hemalatha, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 15.03.2012 in S.C.No.27 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court, Tiruchirappalli. in and by which, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 r/w 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC., and to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:
i. Balakrishnan (P.W-1) and his wife Vasuki are residents of Kurur village, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur District. He had two sons and one daughter and was also the owner of a rice mill. His elder son Rajan is the victim. The victim was living in Kuwait working as an A.C.mechanic and had come down to his native village to attend his brother(P.W-7) Aranganathan's marriage, which was slated for 31.10.2008. On 21.10.2008, the victim had taken the 'Maruti Zen' car belonging to Manoharan (P.W-15), his brother-in-law to Trichy. The purpose of this visit to Trichy was to distribute the wedding invitations to his friends and relatives in and around Trichy and also to receive younger brother Aranganathan (P.W-7), who was expected to arrive from Kuwait on 22.10.2008. In order to distribute the wedding cards, the victim had taken Vinothkumar (P.W-2) his longtime friend and also Saravanan, the appellant, who was his classmate. After distribution of the invitations and after all the three of them had lunch together in 'Hotel Mayas' near Chathram bus stand, Trichy, P.W-2 returned by bus to his village. Balakrishnan (P.W-1), who is the father of the victim tried to contact his son (victim) in the evening on 21.10.2008. When he found one of the two numbers switched off and the other number was not reachable, P.W-1 made telephonic enquiries to P.W-2 with whom the victim had gone for distribution of invitations and also checked with other acquaintance, but his efforts were futile. P.W-2 informed P.W-1 that he was dropped by the victim in Chathram bus stand by 3.00 p.m., and that the victim left with the appellant in the 'Maruti Zen' car. P.W-1 along with P.W-2 and Chelladurai(P.W-3), the maternal uncle of the victim, went to Trichy, the next day morning and reached the Airport to find out whether the victim's car was parked. Aranganathan(P.W-7), the younger brother of the victim, who had arrived from Kuwait early in the morning also was perplexed on not finding his brother to receive him. However, Aranganathan found his father (P.W-1), maternal uncle (P.W-7) and the victim's friend Vinothkumar(P.W-2) in the Airport and they all went to Trichy. After they reached Trichy, they tried to trace out the victim and his car. They got an information that a white Maruti Zen car was parked near Pettavaithalai on Trichy- Karur main road. On reaching the spot, they found the deserted car with no sight of either the victim or the appellant. However, in a short distance from the parked car, the body of the victim was found in the nearby coconut grove owned by one Natarajan. The body of the victim bore cut injuries on the neck region, face and other parts of the body. Word was passed on to the victim's wife Sowmya(P.W-4) and Vasuki, the mother of the victim. Simultaneously P.W-1 went to Jeeyapuram Police Station and gave a written complaint(Ex.P1). Even in the written complaint (Ex.P1), it is stated that the deceased went to Trichy by 'Maruti Zen' car bearing Registration No.TN 09 P 5666 to distribute the marriage invitation of his brother Aranganathan(P.
