The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroborative evidence, admissibility of confession and recovery, timely submission of FIR, and adherence to principles of natural justice during examination under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order of conviction passed by the learned Judge in S.C.No.117 of 2018 dated 07.08.2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur.)

R. Sakthivel, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the sole accused in S.C.No.117 of 2018 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, assailing the judgment awarded by the trial court on 07.08.2019 in which he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) [hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for the sake of brevity] and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life with a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for another six months.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

2.1. PW1 -Muniyappan was working as a Security in the Exide Battery company situated inside the premises of TVS Logistics, Senneerkuppam. On 24.03.2018, when PW1was on night duty, the deceased and the accused came to the Exide Battery company in an Ashok Leyland lorry loaded with Exide batteries bearing Registration No.KA 39 7690. The appellant/accused (Santhosh Pandaragiri) is the Cleaner and the deceased (Ravidra Natekar) is the Driver. Since there was a delay in unloading, they parked the lorry opposite to the said company and slept inside the lorry. Then, on 25.03.2018 at 3.00 am, because of mosquito bites, both came to the company veranda and laid down on the cardboards used for packing. At that time, there occurred a quarrel between them. Thereafter, at 03.30 am, when the deceased was lying down with himself tucked inside a blanket, the accused attacked the deceased on head using a wooden log used for packing and the deceased succumbed to death. Then the accused set ablaze the blanket covering the deceased causing burns on the deceased’s face and chest. Hence the offence.

2.2. P.W.1 on witnessing the said occurrence, filed a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Poonamallee Police Station. The Inspector of Police, after investigation, laid a charge sheet against the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. After perusing the entire materials, the learned Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant.

2.3. With a view to prove the case, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14 and 10 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.10.

2.4. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and awarded judgment as stated supra.

2.5. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment, the accused has filed this Criminal Appeal under Section374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as follows:

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant/ accused beyond reasonable doubt?

(ii) Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court on the appellant / accused is to be interfered by this Court?

Discussion and decision for Point Nos.(i) and (ii)

4. The learned counsel for the appellant / accused submitted that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence; has not considered the contradictory evidence of the witnesses; that has not considered the fact that no identification parade was conducted in this case. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court has miserably failed to consider the fact that P.W.4 and P.W.5 could not have seen the alleged occurrence. He further submitted that there is a delay in sending the First Information Report, statement of the witnesses allegedly recorded under Section 161(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [hereinafterwards re