Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 3003
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, R. HEMALATHA, JJ.
S. Charles Appellant - Appellant
Versus
State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kanyakumari - Respondent
Crl.A. (MD) No. 365 of 2020
Decided On : 22-07-2022
For the Appellant:M. Krishnaveni, Legal Aid Counsel. For the Respondent: A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The significance of a conclusive chain of evidence and motive in establishing guilt in circumstantial evidence cases.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Section 302 IPC - [Summary of Acts and Sections referenced: Section 302 IPC] - The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence and emphasized the need for a conclusive chain of evidence to establish guilt. It highlighted conflicting motives presented by the prosecution and emphasized the significance of motive in a circumstantial evidence case. The court ultimately set aside the conviction and directed the appellant's release.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of murdering a couple who ignored his advice not to go to church and worship evil spirits. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including an extrajudicial confession and witness testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a conclusive chain of evidence and highlighted the lack of details about the deceased's children and conflicting motives presented. It set aside the conviction and ordered the appellant's release.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant was the perpetrator of the offence, based on circumstantial evidence and conflicting motives presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a conclusive chain of evidence in circumstantial cases and highlighted the significance of motive. It also noted the lack of details about the deceased's children and conflicting versions of the motive presented by the prosecution.
Final Decision: The judgment and order of conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. seeking to call for the records and set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2010 passed in S.C.No.6 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kanyakumari Division at Nagerocil.)
P.N. Prakash, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the sole accused in Keeriparai P.S.Cr.No.62 of 2009, calling into question the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 26.08.2010 passed in S.C. No.6 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil.
2. The prosecution story in a nutshell is as under:
2.1 This is a case in which a couple, viz., Rajendra Kumar and Leela, was said to have been murdered by the appellant, who is none other than their servant, since according to the latter, the deceased turned deaf ears to his advice that they should not go to church and worship evil spirits.
2.2 While Rajendra Kumar (D.1) and Leela (D.2) were living with their children in Door No.6-31/H-305, Kamarajapuram, Thadikarankonam, Kanyakumari District, the appellant was a resident of Kuttipothai Village in Thadikarankonam and was working under the deceased for eight years, residing in their outhouse and looking after their farm.
2.3 While so, on the evening of 08.08.2009, the deceased went with their children to partake in the chariot festival in the local Mother Mary’s Church. They returned home around 9.30 p.m. without their children, after which, they both were found dead with multiple injuries on their bodies. Of course, none knew of it until the appellant surrendered to Marudanayagam (P.W.1), V.A.O. of Dharisanamkoppu Village at 7.00 a.m. on 09.08.2009 and gave an extrajudicial confession stating inter alia that he was a resident of Kuttipothai Village; his wife and children abandoned him eight years ago after which he joined as a farmhand under the deceased and was looking after their farm; on 08.08.2009, around 7.00 p.m., the deceased, along with their children, went to the chariot festival in the Mother Mary’s Church, which was not to his liking, because, he was advising them to abstain from worshipping evil spirits, but, they were not listening to his words; Rajendra Kumar (D.1) was, for some time, suffering from mental illness; at that time, Leela (D.2) used to listen to his (appellant’s) words; but, later, she ignored his words, which infuriated him; he (appellant) advised the deceased not to go to the church on that day, but, they ignored his advice and went to the church; therefore, he was very angry at them; when they returned home at 9.30 p.m., he belaboured Leela (D.2) with a knife and when Rajendra Kumar (D.1) came to her rescue, he attacked him also indiscriminately resulting in their death; thereafter, he went with the knife to an open field and spent the night there and hid the knife beneath a bush; since he did not know what to do, he surrendered before him (P.W.1) and confessed to the offence.
2.4 Marudanayagam (P.W.1) recorded the confession statement of the appellant and the same has been marked as Ex.P.1. Thereafter, Marudanayagam (P.W.1) took the appellant to the place of occurrence where he found two dead bodies. Thereafter, he took the appellant to the police station and produced him along with his report (Ex.P.2). The extrajudicial confession (Ex.P.1) was treated as a complaint and the police registered a case in Keeriparai P.S. Cr.No.62 of 2009 on 09.08.2009 at 9.00 a.m. under Section 302 IPC against the appellant and the printed FIR (Ex.P.13) was made ready.
2.5 Investigation of the case was taken over by Sudesan (P.W.12), Inspector of Police, who was holding additional charge of Keeriparai Police Station. Sudesan (P.W.12) went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.5) and rough sketches (Exs.P.14 and 15). He recorded the police confession of the appellant and based on the disclosure of the appellant, he recovered a knife (M.O.1) from beneath a bush under the cover of
