Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
J. Nisha Banu, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.
A.Jeyakumar - Appellant
Vs.
The State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Police Station, Thoothukudi District - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.503 of 2019 and 52 of 2020
Decided On : 18-10-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 342 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313(1)(b) – Criminal appeals have been filed by A1 and A2 against judgment and order of learned Sessions Judge, Court, made in S.C., convicting and sentencing appellant – Held, However, fact that there was some misunderstanding between A1 and the deceased, by itself, cannot form basis for convicting accused persons without other links in chain of circumstances being proved by prosecution – In a case involving circumstantial evidence, prosecution must fully prove every circumstance and each circumstance must form a chain of evidence so complete as to exclude every hypothesis other than guilt of accused – In instant case, most important circumstance, viz. the extra judicial confession is totally unbelievable and that completely snaps chain of circumstances relied upon by prosecution – In view of above discussion, Court holds that prosecution has not proved case beyond reasonable doubts and accused persons are entitled for benefit of doubt – criminal appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
J.Nisha Banu, N.Anand Venkatesh, JJ.
These Criminal appeals have been filed by A1 and A2 against the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fastrack Mahila Court, Thoothukudi, made in S.C.No. 460 of 2015, dated 20.08.2019, convicting and sentencing the appellants in the following manner :
| Sl.No | Rank | Conviction for offence under | Sentence/Punishment |
| 1. | A1 | Section 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment. |
| 2. | A2 | Section 342 IPC | 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment. |
|
| A2 | Section 302 IPC | Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment. |
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and A1 had an affair and the deceased had separated from her husband and was living with her daughter (P.W-2). A2 is the friend of A1. A1 developed suspicion against the deceased and used to fight with her. Hence, the deceased informed A1 not to come to her house and a complaint was also given by her to P.W-14 based on which, a CSR receipt was given, which was marked as Ex.P9.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that this resulted in a strong motive for A1 and he, along with A2, is said to have attacked the deceased on 29.04.2014 at about 6.00 a.m. with aruval (M.O.2 and M.O.3).
4. The dead body was found in a lake and the news came to P.W-1, who was the VAO, on 29.04.2014 at about 06.30 a.m. The news was immediately conveyed to the police and a complaint(Ex.P1) was given by P.W-1. The body was identified to be that of the deceased Subbammal.
5. An FIR (Ex.P14) came to be registered by P.W-18 on 29.4.2014 at 9.30 a.m. The investigation was taken up by P.W-20 and on completion of the investigation, a final report was laid before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi. The case was committed and thereafter made over to the Court below. The Court below framed the charges against A1 for offence under Section 302 IPC and as against A2 for offence under Sections 342 and 302 IPC. The prosecution examined P.W-1 to P.W-20 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 and identified and marked M.O.1 to M.O.9. The incriminating materials collected during the course of trial was put to the accused persons while questioning them under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and they denied the same as false.
6. The Court below, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after appreciating the evidence available on record, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and consequently, convicted and sentenced the accused persons in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, two separate appeals have been filed by A1 and A2.
7. Heard Mrs.A.Victoria for Mr.I.Pinaygash, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
8. In the present case, the prosecution is relying upon circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The circumstances that were relied upon by the prosecution are:
(ii) Motive to the crime spoken by P.W-2 and P.W-14 through whom the earlier CSR was marked as Ex.P9.
(iii) The extra judicial confession given by A2 to P.W-12 and the recovery of M.O.1 and M.O.2 under Ex.P2 to Ex.P5.
(iv) Confession and recovery from A1 spoken by P.W-13 with respect to recovery of M.O.3 under Ex.P7 and Ex.P8.
(v) Last seen theory spoken by P.W-7 to P.W-11 and
(vi) The non-explanation by the accused persons on the incriminating materials put against them.
9. The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon the so calle
For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere confessions are inadequate without corroborative evidence.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and cogent chain of circumstances; extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated by reliable evidence.
The judgment emphasizes that the confession of a co-accused cannot be the sole basis for conviction and must be used to lend assurance to other evidence on record.
The admissibility and reliability of extra judicial confession as evidence, the requirement for corroboration by independent witnesses, and the burden of proof on the accused under Section 106 of the....
Extra-judicial confessions require corroboration from independent evidence to be credible; without it, convictions cannot be sustained.
In criminal cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence must form a complete chain that excludes other hypotheses ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
