BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.Jayachandran, R.Poornima, JJ.
The State rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court - Appellant
Versus
Nataraj - Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.158 of 2021
Decided On : 20-03-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of initial facts of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. apellant's grounds for appeal against acquittal. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. circumstantial evidence presented. (Para 11 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. circumstantial evidence and prosecution's burden of proof. (Para 12 , 33) |
| 5. confession and evidence validated. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. relationship between accused and deceased established. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. missing persons inquiry leads to suspicion. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. witness accounts corroborate. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. accused's whereabouts questioned. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 10. legal considerations of burden of proof. (Para 32 , 34) |
| 11. cctv evidence discussed. (Para 35 , 36) |
| 12. accused's actions viewed skeptically. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 13. prosecution evidence overcomes reasonable doubt. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 14. medical evidence discussed. (Para 42 , 43) |
| 15. discussion on the evidence and the defendant's actions. (Para 44 , 45) |
| 16. the conclusion regarding the defendant's culpability. (Para 46 , 48 , 59) |
| 17. conclusions on intent of the accused. (Para 47 , 49) |
| 18. legality of confession assessment. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 19. trial court judgment critiqued. (Para 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 20. reversal of trial court judgment ruled. (Para 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 21. decision on appeal summarized. (Para 63 , 64) |
| 22. final verdict and implications for the defendant. (Para 65 , 66) |
| 23. post-conviction procedural walkthrough. (Para 67 , 69) |
JUDGMENT :
G.JAYACHANDRAN, R.POORNIMA , JJ .
The Criminal Appeal has been filed by the complainant, questioning the judgment dated 31.01.2018 in S.C.No.66 of 2018 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karur, by which judgment, the accused therein was acquitted of all charges.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :
(a) On 02.05.2017 at about 5.30 p.m., the complainant who is the village administrative officer was informed by the Ex-vice president of Anjoor Village, Thiru.Saravanakumar, that within their village limits at Kodumudi to Muthoor road on the western side near NRS channel bridge a white colour nylon gunny bag was found in a tied condition. He smelt bad odour from the said bag.
(b) Immediately he and his Assistant Tmt.Geetha went to the place at about 6.00 p.m. and partially opened the bag in the presence of witnesses Ravi @ Velusamy and Saravanakumar. They found a human finger in the said bag, upon opening fully they found a decomposed body of a woman, approximately between 30 to 40 years. She was wearing a violet colour nighty, light coffee brown colour skirt. Her body had a black skin infested with maggots. They also found 4 studs in her ear, a mangal sutra thread around her neck and a toe ring.
(c) They made Enquiries about the identity of the women, but they could not get any information, suspecting somebody would have killed her and tied her in a gunny bag, he lodged a complaint before the Paramathi Police Station, Thennalai at 19.20 hours.
(d) P.W.29 Tmt.Sumathy, Sub-Inspector of Police, Paramathi Police Station received the complaint Ex.P.1 and registered FIR in Crime No.50 of 2017 under Section 302 and 201 IPC under Ex.P.21. She sent the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur and copy to the Paramathi Police Station for investigation.
(e) P.W.30 Thiru.Gunasekaran, Inspector of Police, on 02.05.2017 after receipt of the FIR went to the place of occurrence namely, Kodumudi-Muthoor main road, near NRS bridge and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.3, rough sketch Ex.P.22 in the presence of witnesses Murugesan and Muthusamy. Thereafter, he recovered 1) nylon bag with letters as Joker Riz, Special Joker Sortex Silky Rice – 2 nos. M.O.11 and M.O.12, saree with saffron colour, violet and yellow colour rope 3-½ ft. length, yellow and violet colour 7 ft. length nylon rope, yellow and violet colour nylon rope 9 ft. length, 6ft. length tied together, 4 ft. Length, 3 ft. length rope tied together, with yellow and violet colour rope - M.O.7 to M.O.10, purge fluid, cem

AI
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that lead to the only conclusion of guilt, warranting reversal of an acquittal when misread.
In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the gui....
The court determined that in circumstances of domestic disputes leading to death, the accused's actions warrant a lesser charge when proven without premeditation and intent to kill.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
Point of law: Conviction set aside – Murder case - duty is cast upon the prosecution to produce worthwhile evidence to establish the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Point of Law : Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reveals that whenever a Court desires to give judgment as to any legal right or liability depend on the existence of facts which he asserts....
Circumstantial evidence must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, with clear, cogent connections to establish guilt; the accused's release is warranted when gaps exist in prosecution evidence.
Conviction for murder can be sustained based on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory, particularly when the accused fails to explain crucial circumstances.
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.