BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.JAYACHANDRAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ.
Easwari - Appellant
Versus
Gopal @ Karungopal - Respondent
Crl.A(MD)Nos.294 of 2020 & 476 of 2021
Decided on : 25-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Appeal against acquittal - The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence, particularly in establishing the last seen theory and the chain of circumstantial evidence - The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, which the trial court found insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - The appeals were filed by the wife of the deceased and the State against the acquittal - The court emphasized that in cases of circumstantial evidence, each link must be established without doubt and the conclusion must be logical - The court found that the prosecution failed to provide reliable evidence to support the claims made -
Result: Appeals dismissed. (Paras 1, 12, 20, 30)
JUDGMENT :
Crl.A(MD)No.294 of 2020 is filed by PW-1/wife of the deceased. Crl.A(MD)No.467 of 2021 is filed by the State. These two Criminal Appeals are against the judgement of acquittal passed on 07.07.2020 in S.C.No.25 of 2019 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Mahila Court, Karur.
2. On 27.02.2018, morning at Pichaimuthu land, Kumaran Nagar, Poonjolaipudur, within the territorial limits of Mayanur Police Station, the dead body of Amalraj with cut injuries on his neck, with abrasions on forehead and cheek was found. At about 10.30 hours, Eswari, W/o.Amalraj (PW-1) set the law into motion through her complaint Ex.P-1 addressed to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mayanur Police Station. PW-16, Natesan, Sub Inspector received the complaint and registered the FIR in Crime No.39 of 2018 (Ex.P-22) under Section 302 IPC mentioning Gopal @ Karungopal(A-1), Kanniappan (A-2) and Palkara Gurusamy @ Kakkayan (A-3) as the suspects.
3. Thiru. Rajmohan, the Inspector of Police (PW-17) took up the investigation, went to the spot, prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P-23) and rough sketch (Ex.P-24). Conducted inquest and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P-25). Sent the body of Amalraj to the Government Hospital, Karur with request letter to conduct autopsy. Suspected incriminating materials like blood stained soil, empty liquor bottles and the two wheeler bearing registration No: DL 6 SR 7168 were recovered under mahazar Ex.P-26.
4. On 28.02.2018, near Panchapatti State Bank, A-1 and A-2 were arrested at 10.00 am by PW-17. On their confession, the motive and the manner in which the offence committed came to light. The confession of A-1 lead to the discovery of the fact that A-1 and A-2 with the aid of A-3 hired A-4 and A-5 to assist them to kill Amalraj. On the information provided, the blood stained shirt of A-1 from thorn bush behind the KSRV School, Kovakulam was recovered under mahazar Ex.P-10. The two wheeler bearing registration No:TN-47-AW-4539 used by A-1 and A-2 was seized under mahazar Ex.P-7. From A-2, Rs.10,000/- was recovered being his share of hire money.
5. On the same day, at about 14.30 hours, Senthilkumar (A-4) and Malayali (A-5) were arrested near Uppidaimangalam – Santhaipettai Gate, while both were proceeding in a two wheeler bearing Registration No:TN-59-BE-4885 Honda City 110 DREAM. They both confessed their guilt and the receipt of Rs.25,000/- each from Gurusamy (A-3) for assisting A-1 to A-3 to kill Amalaraj. The two wheeler and the money were recovered from them under Mahazar Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-14.
6. Gurusamy (A-3), on 28.02.2018, after committing the crime surrendered before learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi. Knowing that, PW-17 got order for police custody and interrogated him on 09.03.2018. On his information, the blood stained clothes M.O.7, M.O.8 and the knife-M.O. 10, thrown near the bush behind Sankaramalaipatti Malai Temple were recovered under mahazar Ex P-16.
7. The case of the prosecution as projected through its witnesses is that, there was an enmity between A-1 and A-2 families with the deceased. A-3 is the old associate of the deceased. On 26.02.2018, at about 2.00 pm, A-1, A-2 and A-3 came to Amalraj house and called him to come for compromise talk. PW-1 tried to stop her husband going along with them. However, the deceased prevailed upon her and went with them in his two wheeler. At that time her sister Tulasi (PW-3) was also present. Thereafter, PW-3 Subramanian (husband of PW-2) saw A-1 and A-2 in a two wheeler, A-3 in another two wheeler and the deceased in his two wheeler passing together near Old Jayamkondan Community Hall. PW4-Maruthanayagam, on 26.02.2018 while he was returning from Karur towards Seaangal via Uppidaimangalam, saw Malayali(A-5) and Senthil(A-4) proceeding towards East near Madukarai TASMAC shop. Then, near Munaiyanoor turn, he saw Amalaraj( deceased), A-1 to A-3 coming in two wheelers from West. Next day, Amalraj was found dead in the land of Pichaimuthu.
8. PW-5 and PW-6,



In circumstantial evidence cases, each link must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and the conclusion must logically follow from the evidence presented.
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.
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 establish a continuous chain without breaks; otherwise, the accused is entitled to acquittal due to reasonable doubt.
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.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, especially in cases relying on circumstantial evidence.
The judgment emphasizes the principle that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially when relying on circumstantial evidence, which requires stringent adherence to established evidentiary standards....
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
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.