HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR, JJ.
Murugan - Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vellore - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 111 of 2019
Decided On : 12-04-2023
Criminal Appeal - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Sections 341, 302, 397, 201 read with 302 IPC - The court acquitted the appellant due to lack of conclusive evidence and failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offences including wrongful restraint, murder, and theft of a vehicle based on circumstantial evidence. Witnesses claimed to have seen the appellant and the deceased together, and a confession by a juvenile accused implicated the appellant. However, the evidence of the witnesses and the confession were found to be highly doubtful and contradictory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the witnesses and the confession were unreliable and failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The recovery of the stolen vehicle and the wooden log used in the crime were not conclusively linked to the appellant. The court also noted that the confession of the co-accused was inadmissible as the co-accused was tried separately.
Issues: The key issues were the reliability of the witnesses' testimony, the admissibility of the confession, and the conclusiveness of the recovered evidence in establishing the guilt of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for each relevant fact to be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It also highlighted the inadmissibility of the confession of a co-accused when tried separately.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant from all the charges due to the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Sections 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the entire records in connection with S.C.No.66 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruppathur, Vellore District and set aside the judgment dated 12.02.2019.)
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
1. The appellant/accused in S.C.No.66 of 2017 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur was convicted by judgment dated 12.02.2019 and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment, to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 397 IPC and to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 read with 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Against which, the present appeal is filed.
2. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and M.O.1 to M.O.5 were marked. On the side of the defence, D.W.1 was examined, Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were marked.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant is a resident of Kudiyanakuppam, Jolarpettai and his friend minor Sasikumar is a resident of Boyar Vattam, T.Veerapalli, Natrampalli Taluk. The appellant and his minor friend were in the habit of committing theft of two wheelers. On 01.04.2016 at about 6.30 p.m. Near Kudiyanakuppam lake and Elango''s Guava Orchard, the appellant and the said minor Sasikumar in furtherance of common intention of committing the offence had wrongfully restrained the minor Sathyamoorthy, who was returning home in a TVS XL Super motorcycle bearing registration No.WB-E-1188 after attending his School Annual Day function rehearsal, the appellant and minor Sasikumar picked up a quarrel with him. The said minor Sasikumar took away the two wheeler key and forced the said minor Sathyamoorthy to hand over the two wheeler to them. Thereafter, quarrel picked up the said minor Sasikumar hit the minor Sathyamoorthy on his forehead with a wooden log/M.O.5, the appellant abetted and joined the attack. The said minor Sathyamoorthy swooned and fell down, sensing minor Sathyamoorthy dead, he was dragged and thrown in the nearby lake. The appellant and the said minor Sasikumar taken the vehicle and the same was hidden in the house of the appellant, sensing they would be caught, they fled from the Villages. P.W.1/father of the said minor Sathyamoorthy finding that his son had not returned home even after 6.30 p.m., enquired with the School and he was informed that his son had left the School. Thereafter, he enquired for his son and made searches in the nearby places including with P.W.3 (a relative of father of deceased). Later P.W.3 on coming to know about the boy missing called P.W.10/his friend, informed that both had seen the appellant, minor Sasikumar and minor Sathyamoorthy near Elango Guava Orchard on that day at about 5.00 p.m. who were quarreling, which fact was informed to P.W.1 and others. Thereafter, they made a search near that area and unable to find anything in the dark, P.W.1 informed the Fire Service but they were also unable to find anything in the dark. On the next day i.e., 02.04.2016 between 6.00 a.m. and 6.30 a.m. the Fire Service Personnels found the drowned body of the deceased minor Sathyamoorthy and lifted the dead body to the floor.
4. P.W.1 lodged a complaint/Ex.P1, P.W.12/Sub-Inspector of Police registered FIR/Ex.P10 and informed to his superiors. P.W.13/Inspector of Police on getting the information visited the scene of occurrence at 8.00 a.m., conducted inquest, sent the body for Postmortem, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch and examined the witnesses. The Juvenile Offender minor Sasikumar sensing fear of being caught approache
State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram
Prakash vs. State of Karnataka
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, each relevant fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by independent evidence, and the chain of evidence must be complete without giving room to any oth....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of events in cases based on circumstantial evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasona....
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and coherent chain of events that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Court emphasized the application of circumstantial evidence principles where all links confirmed the appellant's guilt in the kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a minor, upholding a death sent....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.