IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the complete chain of circumstances and establish the motive beyond reasonable doubt in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

G. Jayachandran, C. Kumarappan, JJ.

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 15.10.2019 made in S.C.No.149 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi and set aside the same as illegal.)

1. The present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused against the conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi in S.C.No.149 of 2018 vide judgment dated 15.10.2019, by which the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. According to the case of the prosecution, on 24.07.2016 at about 18.00 hours to 20.30 hours, there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased. In pursuance thereof, on 24.07.2016, the accused went to Sivakumar Workshop and picked up a heavy hammer. It is the further case of the prosecution that when the accused picked up a big hammer, it was questioned by one Sethuraman, who was examined as P.W.4. Thereafter, on 25.07.2016, when the deceased was lying in the bus stop, the accused hit the deceased on his head and caused the fatal injury.

3. After the occurrence, based on the complaint of one Mr.Rajasekar, Village Administrative Officer at 8.00 AM, an FIR was registered in Crime No.214 of 2016 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. P.W.18, the Investigating Officer received the FIR and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at about 9.00 AM and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch at about 9.15 AM. Further, he had collected the hammer, blood stained soil and sample soil under mahazar and also conducted inquest in the presence of the witnesses between 10.40 and 12.00 hours.

4. It is further the case of the prosecution that after completion of inquest, the Investigating Officer made arrangements for the postmortem of the body of the deceased. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and has also found the identity of the deceased. Based on the confession statement given by the accused in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, one Mr.Selvakumar and his Assistant Mr.Kumaralingam, the accused was arrested on 30.07.2016 at about 10.15 hours and a discovery of fact was made. In pursuance thereof, the blood stained dhoti as well as the shirt of the accused have been recovered. The Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, has laid the charge sheet before the Court concerned.

5. In order to prove the above charge, the prosecution has examined 19 witnesses and marked 19 documents as exhibits. Apart from that, eight material objects were also marked.

6. The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charge against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and has imposed a punishment of life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that though this is a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the complete chain of circumstances and that there are many missing links. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kavitha Vs. State by the Inspector of Police reported in 2012 (2) MWN (Cr.) 563 (DB).

8. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that when the prosecution case heavily relies upon the picking up of big hammer from the workshop, where the accused was working, such crucial factum has not been proved by the prosecution. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a serious doubt in respect of the identity of the weapon as