IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S.Ramesh, N.Senthilkumar, JJ.
Puttappa and ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Represented by Inspector of Police - Respondent
CRL.A.No.545 of 2019 and CRL.M.P.No.16919 of 2019
Decided On : 21-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201, 364 - Murder of minor - Accused charged with murder of 8-year-old victim to conceal illicit relationship - Prosecution failed to establish a cogent chain of circumstantial evidence linking accused to crime - Extra-judicial confessions deemed unreliable without corroboration - Conviction set aside. (Paras 24, 30, 31)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Requirements for conviction based on circumstantial evidence include establishing every link in the chain and ensuring all circumstances point to guilt - Inconsistencies in witness statements fatal to prosecution case. (Paras 26, 30)
Facts of the case:
The accused, A1 and A2, were charged with the murder of the deceased, Sathish Kumar, aged 8, to prevent him from revealing their illicit relationship. The body was discovered concealed, and the prosecution relied on confessions and circumstantial evidence. (Paras 2-5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a reliable chain of evidence, particularly regarding the last seen alive theory and the credibility of witness statements. (Paras 24, 30)
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of extra-judicial confessions and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt. (Paras 30, 31)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without corroborative evidence, extra-judicial confessions are insufficient for conviction, and the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing to guilt. (Paras 24, 30)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction set aside and accused released.
JUDGMENT :
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 Officer, PW11 and one Murugesan between 10.15 a.m. and 11.15 a.m. Based on the confession statement, bloodstained half burnt Saree (M.O.1) was recovered from A2. Thereafter, A2 was sent to judicial custody along with 11 months old child. The admissible portion of the confession statement of A2 is marked as Ex.P12.
9. PW17 has deposed that A1 was arrested on 03.09.2012 at about 7.15 a.m. Based on the confession statement, blood stained Koduval (M.O.2), blood stained lungi (M.O.3), blood stained rose colour half hand shirt (M.O.4) were re
Shailendra Rajdev Pasvan and others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and cogent chain of circumstances; extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated by reliable evidence.
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.
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link must be established beyond reasonable doubt, with all evidence consistently pointing to the guilt of the accused.
In criminal cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove each circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence must form a complete chain that excludes other hypotheses ....
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence or suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person accused of committing an offence, is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstan....
In circumstantial evidence cases, each link in the evidence chain must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, supported by all proving consistent guilt without alternative explanations.
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete and coherent chain of events that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, and extrajudicial confessions require corroboration to be credible.
The conviction must be based on a complete and reliable chain of circumstantial evidence, where extrajudicial confessions cannot solely establish guilt without corroboration.
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.