Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
Babu - Appellant
Versus
State represented by Inspector of Police, Vellore - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 176 of 2019
Decided On : 02-02-2024
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 374, 302, 397, 449, 120(b), 392, 34/114 - The court discussed the evidence related to the recovery of gold jewels and bond papers, the lack of conclusive evidence connecting the accused with the crime, and the absence of a complete chain of circumstances to establish guilt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/accused challenged the conviction and sentence imposed for offenses including causing death and robbery. The prosecution alleged that the appellant/accused conspired to cause the death of the deceased and commit robbery, and recovered gold jewels and bond papers based on the appellant/accused's confession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances connecting the appellant/accused with the alleged offense. The recovery of gold jewels and bond papers, while important, did not conclusively prove the appellant/accused's guilt. The court also noted discrepancies in the evidence and lack of proof regarding the ownership of the recovered items.
Issues: The key issue was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the recovery of gold jewels and bond papers, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof. It held that the prosecution's evidence did not form a complete chain of circumstances to rule out any other hypothesis, except pointing out the guilt of the appellant/accused.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused were set aside. The appellant/accused was acquitted of all charges and directed to be released forthwith.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the conviction of the appellant and sentence in S.C. No.9 of 2017 dated 04.01.2019, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in judgment dated 04.01.2019 and acquit the appellant.)
Sunder Mohan, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the Accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 04.01.2019 in S.C.No.9 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore.
2. For the sake of convenience, the accused is hereinafter referred to as 'appellant/accused'.
3(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused along with other juvenile accused entered into criminal conspiracy to cause the death of the deceased (Saravanan) in this case and commit robbery; that pursuant to the said conspiracy, on the information given by one of the juvenile accused 'Vijay' and with the help of the other juvenile accused, the appellant/accused trespassed into the house of the deceased and caused his death in the night intervening 29.05.2015 and 30.05.2015; that all the accused caused head injuries with a stone and an iron rod and robbed 10 sovereigns of gold chain, 5 gold rings, two pairs of gold studs, nose rings, and cash of Rs.95,000/-.
(ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that PW1, who is the sister-in-law of the deceased and her mother-in-law (mother of the deceased) went out of the house to attend a function on 29.05.2015; that when they tried to call the deceased to pick them up, the phone was switched off; that therefore, PW1 informed PW3 to check as to what happened to the deceased; that PW3 found the deceased dead with head injuries and he also found a stone lying nearby; that PW1 thereafter, went to the house and found the deceased lying dead; that the front door of the house was broke-open and her mother-in-law's gold chain, 4 bangles and 10 finger rings, all weighing 15 sovereigns as well as the loan bond papers, were found missing from the steel box in the room; that PW1 lodged a complaint for the offences under Sections 302 and 380 of the IPC at 2.00 p.m., on 30.05.2015, which was registered by PW7, the Sub Inspector of Police. The complaint was marked as Ex.P1, and the printed copy of the FIR was marked as Ex.P10.
(iii) PW10 took up the investigation and went to the scene of the occurrence at about 3.00p.m., on the same day, i.e., on 30.05.2015. He examined the witnesses and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P28] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P29]. He examined the witnesses, and conducted an inquest, and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P30]. Thereafter, he sent the body for a postmortem through PW6. The postmortem was conducted by Dr.A.Nagendra Kumar, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, at the Government Vellore Medical College, and the postmortem certificate was marked as Ex.P37 through PW10. However, the prosecution had not examined the postmortem doctor during the trial. In the postmortem certificate, the doctor had opined that the deceased died due to head injuries.
(iv) There was no progress in the investigation for nearly seven months after the occurrence. PW10 would state that a juvenile accused one Selvakumar, was close to the mother of the deceased and was acquainted with the house and family. Suspecting the involvement of the said Selvakumar, he monitored the movements of the said Selvakumar and found that he had a lot of money to spend. On 16.12.2015, at about 1.15p.m., when the accused and the juvenile accused were going in two two-wheelers, they were intercepted, and on the information of the appellant/accused, they seized the gold jewels pledged with one Muthoot Finance
The judgment emphasizes the principle that suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt in establishing guilt in a criminal case.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, with the prosecution bearing the burden of proof.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of law : whenever the charge is framed for higher offence, the Court retains the power to convict an accused for a lesser offence even in the absence of a charge being framed for lesser offence....
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
