Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
D. Thiagarajan – Appellant
Versus
State rep. By The Inspector of Police, Nazarethpet Police Station, Chennai – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 97 of 2020, Crl. M.P. No. 20195 of 2023
Decided On : 07-03-2024
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - S.C.No.27 of 2015 - Summary: The court acquitted the appellant/A2 of the charges as the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/A2 were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/A2 challenged the conviction and sentence imposed upon him in S.C.No.27 of 2015 for the murder of his alcoholic brother. The prosecution primarily relied on the extra judicial confession given by A1 and the evidence of a witness who had last seen the deceased with the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that apart from the extra judicial confession, there was no other evidence to prove the motive for the occurrence and the conspiracy. The court emphasized 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.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution had provided sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant/A2 beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized 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. It clarified that the prosecution cannot begin with the extra judicial confession and must rely on other evidence to establish the case.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the appellant/A2 was acquitted of the charges. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/A2 were set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Sunder Mohan, J.
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the entire records in connection with the S.C.No.27 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee, and set aside the Judgment dated 31.01.2020.)
1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by A2, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 31.01.2020 in S.C.No.27 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.
3(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased and A2 were brothers; that since the deceased was an alcoholic and was causing trouble to the family members by demanding money for consuming alcohol and lying on the streets after drinking, A2 decided to do away with the deceased with the help of A1 and A3, his friends; that pursuant to the conspiracy, A1 took Rs.1000/- from A2 on 26.08.2014 and took the deceased in his motorcycle bearing Regn.No.TN12A3007 to a wine shop; that after the deceased consumed alcohol, A1 took the deceased to a secluded place and slapped him; and that thereafter he removed the shirt of the deceased and strangulated him, thereby causing his death.
(iii) PW19, the Inspector of Police went to the scene of the occurrence and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P10). He conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 8.00 to 10.00 a.m., and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P17]. Thereafter, he sent the body for postmortem. PW16-Doctor conducted the postmortem and issued a postmortem certificate (Ex.P8).
(iv) On 29.08.2014 at 1.00 p.m., A1 appeared before the Village Administrative Officer [PW4] and is said to have given an extra judicial confession [Ex.P3], in the presence of PW6 and PW7. The Village Administrative Officer produced A1 along with the confession statement to the investigating officer PW19.
(v) PW19 recorded the confession in the presence of PW4 and other witnesses and seized the two wheeler viz., Yamaha Bike [M.O.2] of A1 along with the mobile phone with SIM cards [M.O.1] under seizure mahazar [Ex.P5]. The admissible portion of the confession was marked as Ex.P4. He also seized the dress materials of A1. At about 9.30p.m on the same day, A2 and A3 appeared before the investigating officer and thereafter, they were arrested by him. On the confession given by A2/appellant, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P6, the police seized M.O.3 and M.O.5, mobile phones belonging to A2/appellant and A3, respectively under seizure mahazar Ex.P14. He thereafter altered the offence to Section 302 of the IPC and sent the accused for judicial remand to the learned Magistrate. The alteration report is marked as Ex.P16. He sent the dress materials of the accused and deceased to the Forensic Science Laboratory. He also collected the call details record of the accused (Ex.P19) and after examination of all witnesses, filed a final report against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 120-B and 34 of the IPC, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee.
(vi) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.27 of 2015 and was made over to the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur at Poonamallee for trial. The trial Court framed charges
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.
In criminal proceedings, the prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and reliance on weak circumstantial evidence fails to support a conviction.
It is well settled proposition of law that the evidence of hostile witnesses need not be ignored in total and it can be relied on to the extent to which the witnesses have spoken about incriminating ....
In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events connecting t....
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence and testimonies indicating continuous domestic abuse, reaffirming that even without direct witnesses, enough evidence exist....
Extra-judicial confessions can support convictions if corroborated by independent evidence; circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt.
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
