IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, JJ.
Raman S/o. Selvaraj - Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Vennandhur Police Station - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 646 of 2018
Decided On : 07-10-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302, 341 – Convicting appellant for offence – Default to pay fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment – Appeal is against judgment passed by learned Sessions Judge, District, in S.C. convicting appellant for offence u/s 341 and 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month for offence under Section 341 of IPC and to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine for offence u/s 302 of IPC and in default to pay fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment or a further period – Held, Though, materials on record holds some suspicious towards appellant/accused prosecution has failed to elevate its case from realm of “may be true” to place of “must be true” as is indispensably required in law for conviction on a criminal charge – It is trite to state that in a criminal trial, suspicion, howsoever grave, cannot substitute proof – Taking into consideration, facts of case and law regarding case of circumstantial evidence, coupled with extra judicial confession and scientific evidence with regard to matching of blood group and in view of discussions and reasons on overall analysis of evidence placed on record we come to irresistable conclusion and opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt – Appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and appeal needs to be allowed and appellant is entitled to acquittal – Criminal appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
S. Vaidyanathan & A.D. Jagadish Chandira, JJ.
This appeal is against the judgment dated 12.10.2018 passed by the learned Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Judge, Namakkal, Namakkal District, in S.C.No.80 of 2016 convicting the appellant for offence u/s 341 and 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month for offence under Section 341 of IPC and to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence u/s 302 of IPC and in default to pay fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment or a further period of six months.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
(i) The deceased Sakthivel, aged about 27 years, is the son of P.W.1-M.Manivel and P.W.2-Tmt.Pappu and brother of the deceased P.W.3-Dhanapal. P.W.4 is the brother of P.W.2 and brother-in-law of P.W.1. PW.5 is the wife of P.W.4. P.W.12 is the sister of P.W.1 and P.W.13 is the son of P.W.12. P.W.15 is a neighbor of the accused.
(ii) The deceased graduated in B.Com. However, he was doing milk vending business. He used to leave his house at 06.00 a.m. every day for procuring milk and return between 10.00 or 11.00 a.m. and similarly, in the evening, he used to leave his house at 04.00 p.m. and return after the business was over. As usual, on 13.02.2016 at about 04.00 p.m. the deceased left the house and proceeded on his M80 motorcycle bearing TN 38 R 7537 with empty milk cans for procuring milk, but, he did not return till 06.00 a.m. on 14.02.2016. Sometimes the deceased used to stay at his maternal uncle’s house after the business of the day was over and therefore, he was thinking that he would have stayed at his maternal uncle’s house. On 14.02.2016 at 06.00a.m. his brother-in-law contacted him over phone and informed that his son Sakthivel was found killed at the field of one Natarajan of Thulakkankadu and asked him to come over there. He immediately rushed to the spot where he found his son’s dead body with stab injuries. Immediately, he made a complaint (Ex.P.1) before Vennandhur P.S. P.W.28, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty on 14.02.2016 at 08.00 a.m. on receipt of the complaint from P.W.1 registered a case in Crime No.22 of 2016 for the alleged offences u/s 302 of IPC. He forwarded the original FIR (Ex.P.16) to the jurisdictional Magistrate through P.W.26-Head Constable and submitted the case file to the Inspector of Police for investigation. Accordingly, P.W.26 handed over the original FIR to the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram on 14.02.2016 itself.
(iii) P.W.30, the Inspector of Police took up the case on 14.02.2016 itself for investigation and summoned for scientific experts and sniffer dog. He visited the spot at 10.00 a.m. on the same day and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch (Ex.P.18) in the presence of witnesses P.W.6 and one Thiyagarajan. He also held an inquest in the presence of panchayatars and prepared an inquest report (Ex.P.19). At 01.00 p.m. he forwarded the body of the deceased to Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital for post-mortem through P.W.27, the Head Constable attached to the police station. Thereafter, he examined the independent witnesses and also recorded their statements individually.
(iv) Thereafter, P.W.30, the investigating officer, recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth, M80 motorcycle TN 38 R 7537, a big aluminum milk can, a small aluminum milk can, a stainless steel tumbler, a small wire bag rose in colour, a wire bag green in colour, an one liter milk measure jug, an half liter milk measure cup, a pair of slippers, a Micromax Cellphone without SIM card but with Memory Card, Two blood stained knives, another small aluminum can under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, P.W.30 forwarded all the material objects that were recovered from the scene of occurrence for onward submission to the Forensic Department for chemical analysis.
(v) P.W.22, the Tutor in Forensic Medicine at Government Mohan Kumaramangalam College Hospital,
Govinda Reddy and another vs. State of Mysore
Sonvir @ Somvir vs. State of NCT of Delhi
Chakarai @ Chakaravarthi v. State rep by Inspector of Police
SupremeToday
Circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain conclusively proving guilt and excluding innocence hypothesis; failure of key links like last seen, extra-judicial confession, motive, recover....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, with the prosecution required to establish every link beyond reasonable doubt.
Prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence for conviction, and reliance on inadmissible confessions undermines the case.
The judgment emphasizes the high standard of proof required in cases based on circumstantial evidence, highlighting the need for complete and conclusive evidence consistent only with the guilt of the....
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; conviction upheld due to strong incriminating circumstances.
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.