IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Chinnaraj - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.A.No.677 of 2022
Decided on : 23-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 304(2) - Criminal appeal against conviction for murder - Appellant convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment and fine by Trial Court - Appeal filed on grounds of doubt regarding the complaint and confession - Court found foundational facts of the prosecution case to be shaky and unproven - The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the crime. (Paras 3, 5, 7, 8, 9)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Requirements for conviction based on circumstantial evidence - The circumstances must be cogently established, point towards guilt, and form a complete chain - Mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 9, 42)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering Lalitha, with whom he had an illicit relationship. Following a quarrel, Lalitha was found dead, and the appellant confessed to the murder. However, the prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, which was found lacking.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion that the appellant was not guilty.
Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of the complaint, the validity of the confession, and whether the prosecution established a chain of circumstantial evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing that suspicion cannot replace proof.
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the impugned order in S.C.No.131 of 2019 dated 02.11.2019 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore.
2.The appellant/accused in S.C.No.131 of 2019 was convicted by the Trial Court dated 02.11.2019 and sentenced to undergo ten years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(2) IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the present appeal is filed.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the appellant is residing in Poojari Street, Kalaignar Nagar, Peranampet. The deceased Lalitha and the appellant having illicit relationship for nearly three years, both are rag pickers, they would collect the plastic articles and rags, store it and hand over to P.W.7/Ashok who was running waste paper and articles collection mart. Both deceased Lalitha and appellant used to stay in the said mart and with the money they earn, they consume alcohol, have food and sleep in the waste paper mart. They were also in the habit of picking up quarrel between them in sharing their income. On 21.10.2018, there was a fight between the appellant and the deceased. P.W.3, brother of P.W.7 having a welding shop opposite to waste paper mart intervened and advised them not to fight, which was at 8.00 p.m. and thereafter left the pace. At 9.00 p.m., P.W.4, a two wheeler mechanic having mechanic shop opposite to the waste paper mart intervened and pacified them. Thereafter at 10.00 p.m., P.W.5, a tailor intervened and advised them not to fight and left the place. On 22.10.2018 at about 9.00 a.m., P.W.3 came there to clean the waste paper mart, at that time, smelt foul smell, found the deceased Lalitha dead in a pool of blood, Lalitha’s right side face and right side of the body with injuries and there was a stone (M.O.4) nearby. P.W.3 informed P.W.1/sister of the deceased Lalitha and others. P.W.1 came along with her son/P.W.2 and lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 at about 10.00 a.m. to P.W.11. On receipt of complaint, FIR/Ex.P14 naming the appellant as accused registered in Crime No.465 of 2018. Thereafter, P.W.11 visited the scene of occurrence, recorded the statement of witnesses present there, recovered M.O.2 to M.O.7 in the presence of P.W.7, prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P15 and rough sketch/Ex.P16 in the presence of one Pandian and Ashok, conducted inquest and sent the body for postmortem. The appellant appeared before P.W.6/Village Administrative Officer (VAO) on 22.10.2018 at 3.00 p.m. and gave a confession admitting that he murdered Lalitha by using M.O.4. Thereafter, the appellant was produced before P.W.11 and again gave a confession, M.O.1 (Shirt) seized from the thatched house of the appellant. The internal organs were sent for viscera test and the Material Objects were sent to forensic examination. Human blood stains found in M.O.1, M.O.2., M.O.4, M.O.5, M.O.6, M.O.8 and M.O.9. On collecting the medical records, forensic report, postmortem certificate and on examining the witnesses, charge sheet filed. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.11 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 marked and M.O.1 to M.O.10 produced on the side of the prosecution. No witness examined and no documents marked on the side of the defence. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellant as stated above.
4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case, Ex.P1/complaint is highly doubtful. P.W.1 states that her Left Thumb Impression [LTI] was received by the Police at the time of inquest but she is not aware as to what is written in the complaint. The admitted position is that P.W.1 is an illiterate and there is nothing in Ex.P1 to show that the contents of the complaint was read over to P.W.1, she understood the same and thereafter affixed her LTI. In this case, even in the complaint/Ex.P1 and FIR/Ex.P14, the name of the appellant is shown as accused. P.W.2 is the son of P.W.1. Both P.W.1 and
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
The court reaffirmed that conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires clear establishment of motive, last seen theory, and connections through unbroken chains of evidence.
Convictions under circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of proof; mere suspicion is insufficient for establishing guilt.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient for conviction.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'last seen together theory' and the reliance on circumstantial evidence, medical evidence, and recovery evidence to establis....
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and cogent chain of circumstances; extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated by reliable evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt; absence of direct evidence and reliance on a single unreliable witness led to acquittal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.