In circumstantial evidence cases, all links must cohesively establish guilt; doubts in identification and admissibility of evidence impact conviction validity.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. RAMESH, J.

1. The appellant herein has been convicted and sentenced to the following imprisonment, through the judgment of the Principal Sessions Court, Puducherry, dated 13.10.2017, passed in Sessions Case No.70/2008:-

“The prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused and the accused is guilty under Section 302 and 380 IPC and accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. For the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC, the accused is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.”

2. The aforesaid judgment is under challenge in the present appeal.For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal are addressed according to the rank in the trial Court.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, on 27.06.2008 at 09.00 P.M. at Room No.203, Royal Lodge, Maraimalai Adigal Salai, Puducherry, the accused, namely Kaleel Rahman @ Rahman @ Ragu, caused the death of one Selvi, wife of Padmanaban, by immersing her head in a bucket filled with water, as she refused to part with her thali and saradu, with the knowledge that such an act would likely cause her death or would be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death and therefore was liable to be punished under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (IPC). Thereafter, since he had stolen the jewels of the deceased, he was liable to be punished for the offence of theft, punishable under Section 380 IPC.

4. The Judicial Magistrate-II Puducherry, took cognizance of the offences and on the appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents, relied on by the prosecution to substantiate the allegations mentioned in the charge sheet, were furnished to him, as envisaged under Section 207 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). Since the charges related to the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the case was committed to the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge at Puducherry in P.R.C.No.34/2008 on 06.11.2008 under Section 209(a) Cr.P.C. When the charges framed against the accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 380 IPC were read over and explained to him, he had denied the charges and pleaded of 'not being guilty'.

5. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.20 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.28, apart from the material objects M.O.1 to M.O.16. The accused had neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents on his side. Following are some of the relevant statements made by the prosecution witnesses during trial:-

5.1. P.W.1-Muthukumaran, who was the Manager of the Royal Lodge, Maraimalai Adigal Salai, Puducherry, had registered the stay of the accused and the deceased at their lodge on 26.06.2008 at 01.15 P.M. and allotted them to Room No.203, through whom the advance receipt (Ex.P.1) and the complaint dated 27.06.2008 (Ex.P.2) given by him were marked through him.

5.2. P.W.2-Suresh, who had seen the dead body after the incident, was treated as a hostile witness by the prosecution.

5.3. P.W.3-Selva Ranjith Kumar is the Manager, who had taken charge after P.W.1 had allotted them to Room No.203. He is also the witness, who had informed the Police that there was no response from Room No.203 and thereafter, when the Police had broke open the door of