For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere confessions are inadequate without corroborative evidence.

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Senthilkumar, J.)

Challenging the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hosur, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.232 of 2016, dated 11.06.2019, the present appeal has been filed by the accused 1 & 2 respectively. A1 is the first appellant herein and A2 is the second appellant herein.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case is that A1 and A2 jointly had committed murder of the deceased Sathish Kumar, who was aged about 8 years. A1 is a neighbour of A2 and A2 is the daughter-in-law of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant's son Sankar had married A2. A1 and A2 had developed an illicit relationship while the defacto complainant's son Sankar, the husband of A2 was working at Bangalore as a driver.

3. According to the prosecution, on 01.09.2012, around 5.00 p.m., the deceased had informed his sister Maheswari PW6 that when he went to the house of A2, he had seen A1 and A2 in a compromising position. A1 and A2 intended to commit murder of the deceased to prevent him from informing others about their illicit relationship. Therefore, the accused 1 & 2 committed murder of the deceased and concealed the body from the scene of occurrence.

4. The murder took place at the house of A2, where A1 had inflicted injuries on the head and other body parts of the deceased with Koduval M.O.2 which was recovered based on the confession statement given by A1. The admissible portion of confession statement given by A1 was marked as Ex.P14.

5. The Police had registered the case in Crime No.183 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 302 , 201 of IPC on 01.09.2012 at about 11.00 p.m. and thereafter, charge sheet was filed. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court at Denkanikottai verified the documents produced by the prosecution. As the case is triable by the Sessions Court, the same was transferred to the Sessions Court and taken on file in S.C.No.232 of 2016. The Trial Court had examined PW1 to PW17 on the side of the prosecution and Exs.P1 to P32 were marked. The prosecution had produced M.O.1 to M.O.16 in support of their case. No witnesses were examined on the side of the appellants.

6. PW 1 is the mother of the deceased. The elder son of PW 1, Shankar had married A2 which is a love marriage. According to PW1, A1 who was a neighbour of A2 had developed illicit relationship with A2 since the husband of A2 was away for his employment and he comes home only once in a fortnight. PW2 is the father of the deceased, who have witnessed the dead body kept at his house after the occurrence. PW6 is the sister of the deceased, who have last seen the deceased alive with A2. PW 11 and PW16 are the village administrative officers before whom the accused persons had given their extra judicial confession by narrating how they committed the murder.

7. In the complaint of PW1 marked as Ex.P1, PW1 had stated that after returning home from work, she realised that the deceased had gone missing and she went in search of the deceased along with PW6. The body of the deceased was later found in a urea bag in the land belonged to Venkatraj. The said urea bag, bloodstained earth, plain earth and nylon rope (M.O.6 to M.O.9) were recovered from the said place by the Inspector of Police, Incharge of Uddanappalli Police Station, who was examined as PW17.

8. As per the evidence of PW17, A2 was arrested on 02.09.2012 at 10.00 a.m. After the arrest, a confession statement was recorded before the Village Administrative