BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.JAYACHANDRAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ.
Raja - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Crl.A(MD)Nos.263 of 2021 and Crl.A.(MD).No.263 of 2022
Decided on : 02-04-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 449, 302, and 380 - Conviction and sentencing of appellants for murder and robbery - Appellants convicted for life imprisonment for murder and additional sentences for other offences - Evidence included witness testimonies, forensic reports, and circumstantial evidence - Prosecution established a complete chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime. (Paras 1, 7, 23)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence leading to the only logical conclusion of guilt, excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. (Paras 7A, 7B)
Facts of the case:
The complainant discovered his wife murdered in their home, with valuables missing. The investigation led to the arrest of the accused, who confessed and were found in possession of stolen items. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The trial court found the evidence credible and consistent, leading to the conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies. (Paras 23, 24)
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and the sufficiency of evidence linking the accused to the crime. (Paras 3, 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain leading to the conclusion of guilt, supported by credible witness testimonies and forensic evidence. (Paras 7, 23)
Result: Appeals dismissed and the trial court's judgment confirmed.
JUDGMENT :
R.POORNIMA, J.
These Criminal Appeals are filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants/Accused Nos.1 & 2 in the judgment dated 22.03.2021 passed by the Ist Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi in S.C No. 145 of 2017 by convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302 and 380 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under Section 449 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence U/s.302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence u/s.380 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(a) The complainant is the husband of the deceased Gomathi. He was living with his wife Gomathi at Teppakulam Street, Srivaikuntam. On 17.06.2014, he left the house at 09.00 a.m. to visit Utchimahaliamman Temple to conduct a special prayer, while his wife remained alone in the house. He returned to the residence at 06.00 p.m. and found that the second and third room’s doors were open, and the television was switched on. Upon entering the fourth room, he found his wife's dead body in a pool of blood with a deep cut injury on her front neck 10 sovereigns of Mangalsuthra and 1 sovereign gold stud were found missing. The studs had been cut and removed from her ears. He suspects that someone killed his wife for jewels worth about Rs. 2,40,000/-.
(b) He lodged complaint (Ex.P1) before the Srivaikuntam Police Station and the same was received by Ms.Dhanalakshmi, Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.14) who registered FIR in Crime No.246 of 2014, for the offences punishable under sections 302 & 380 of IPC (Ex.P.11). She forwarded the original FIR to the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikuntam through Special Sub Inspector Mr. Ananthamuthuraman at 20.45hrs and forwarded the copies to other officials. A copy was sent to the Inspector of Police, Srivaikuntam (P.W.18) for investigation.
(c) The Inspector of Police (P.W.18), Srivaikuntam after receipt of the FIR, went to the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P15) in the presence of witnesses Sankaranarayanan and Subramanian, he recovered blood stained earth (M.O.19) and ordinary Earth (M.O.20) in the presence of the same witnesses at 21.40 hrs under recovery mahazar (Ex.P.3). He conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of Panchayathars Krishnaiyyar, Revathi, Ganapathysankara Narayanan and prepared inquest report under Ex.P16.
(d) On 18.06.2014, he recorded the further statement of P.W. 1 and his daughter Lalitha, his son-in-law Raja Ramasami and recorded their statements. He also examined the neighbours and recorded their statements.
(e) Dr. Athishiyamani, (P.W.15) conducted post-mortem on the dead body and found the following injuries;
External injuries
1. cut injury in left ear lobe about 2cm (ear lobe divided),
2. deep cut injury over the anterior aspect of neck from 5 cm below right side of angle of mandible, 10cm below the chin, to 5cm below the right mastoid of size (20x7x5cm) exposing muscle, throat major vessels, throat separated just below hyoid cartridge.
3. Abrasion 5x5cm over the left side wall of the chest
Internal injuries:
Opening of thorax: No bone injury, lungs congested, petechial haemorrhage present over the lungs. Hyoid bone: intact. Stomach 500ml of undigested food materials. Heart normal in size, chambers empty. Liver normal size congested, Kidneys – pale. Intestine distended with gas, Uterus: normal empty on cut section. Head: Hematoma 6x6cm over the occipital side of the scalp, no bone injury, membrane intact, no intra cerebral haemorrhage, Spinal column no fract
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain leading to the only logical conclusion of guilt, excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Convictions under circumstantial evidence require a complete and unbroken chain of proof; mere suspicion is insufficient for establishing guilt.
The insufficiency of circumstantial evidence is crucial for acquittal in criminal cases.
Eyewitness testimony, accused's conduct, confession, and forensic evidence prove attempted robbery and murder beyond doubt despite minor investigative lapses.
Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove the circumstances relied upon by them to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence, including recovery of crucial items, must be coherent and consistently point to guilt to meet the burden of proof required for conviction in murder cases.
The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the accused, leading to their 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.