Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt; absence of direct evidence and reliance on a single unreliable witness led to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri dated 31.10.2019 made in S.C. No.31 of 2015, the appellants herein/accused 1 and 2 have preferred this criminal appeal. Both the appellants/accused 1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced as follows:

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2 had illicit relationship, which was objected by the deceased, husband of A2 and hence A1 and A2 had decided to eliminate the deceased. Both A1 and A2 had called the deceased to A2's mother's place and on 13.08.2014, A1 had attacked and inflicted injury on the left side of the head of the deceased and all over his body with the handle of a spade and A2, with a wooden reaper, had caused injury on the head, ear and left neck of the deceased and the deceased succumbed to the injuries caused to him.

3. In order to prove prosecution case, as many as 27 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 27 and 35 documentary evidence were marked as Exs.P1 to P35 and 11 material objects were produced as MOs.1 to 11 on the side of the prosecution. Neither a witness was examined nor a document was produced on the side of the defence.

4. PW1, though had set the law in motion, had not seen the occurrence and on the basis of the information received by way of a telephonic call, PW1 had given a complaint with the respondent police and a case was registered. Though several witnesses were examined to establish the case of the prosecution, none of the prosecution witnesses, have witnessed the occurrence. According to the prosecution, the occurrence was said to have taken place in between 12.00 midnight on 13.08.2014 to 5.00 a.m on 14.08.2014. The only available evidence is PW9, who had seen the deceased along with the accused 1 and 2. PW9 is doing a quarry business and while he was returning on the date of occurrence, he saw the accused along with the deceased during the night hours. Based on the evidence of PW9, who had identified the accused in the test identification parade, which was held on 01.09.2014, the trial court, by taking into consideration of the unequivocal evidence of PW9 who had last seen alive of the deceased and the accused and taking into consideration the evidence of PW14, who alleged to have seen the deceased and the accused on the date of occurrence, had convicted the accused. However, PW14 has turned hostile. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, during trial had come to know that A1 and A2 having an illicit relationship, wanted to eliminate the deceased, who had objected the illicit relationship between A1 and A2, had committed the murder of the deceased.

5. A1 and A2 were arrested on 16.08.2014 and 15.08.2014 respectively, and based on their confession statements and the admissible portion of which led to recovery of MOs.1 and 2, namely broken spade handle and a wooden reaper, from A1 and A2, under the recovery mahazar, marked as Ex.P8. The availability of blood stains in the material objects along with other recovery, namely the dress worn by A2 on the date of occurrence, were sent to the forensic lab. The serological report was marked as Ex.P28.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that it is a case of circumstantial evidence, where there is no witness to establish the case of the prosecution, to prove the theory that A1 and A2 had committed the murder on the deceased. The only evidence that was available before the trial court was PW9, who had identified the deceased along with the accused in the early hours on the date of occurrence. Apart from 27 recoveries, there is no other material to establish the case of the prosecution. However, by taking into consideration of the blood stained material objects and other blood stains which tallied with that of the deceased, the trial court has convicted