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.

JUDGMENT

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

The present criminal appeal is arising out of the order of conviction passed against the appellant herein in S.C.No.69 of 2017 dated 28.03.2019 under Section 302 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Chinnasamy and accused Aravindan are distantly related. It is the further case of prosecution that the accused Aravindan nurtured enmity and vengeance against the deceased Chinnasamy as he believed that his father was done away by the deceased. Owing to this unquenched anger and long drawn enmity, on 13.06.2016, the accused, who was under the influence of alcohol, picked up wordy quarrel with the deceased near the Sawalur bridge, and killed him by hitting with stone and fled away from the scene of occurrence.

3. While so, on knowing the death of the deceased, his son P.W.1-Madhu, rushed to the scene of occurrence and then went to the police station, and gave a complaint. The Sub-Inspector of Police PW6 -Srinivasan, on receipt of the same, on 13.06.2016 at 10.00pm, registered an FIR in Crime No.406 of 2016 under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, he forwarded the same to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate and to the investigating Officer PW17-Gandhi.

4. On receipt of the copy of the FIR, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the scene of occurrence on the same day at about 22.45 hours and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch in the presence of PW10-Murugesan and PW11-Ravi. Further, in the intervening night of 13/14.06.2016, at about 00.15 hours he conducted inquest upon the body of the deceased and recovered the materials available near the body of the deceased, and prepared an observation mahazar. He then arranged for the postmortem and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW11. From the statements of the witnesses, he came to know that the assailant is the accused Aravindan.

5. While so, on 16.06.2016 at about 16.00 hrs, PW12-Rajkumar (VAO) came to the Police Station along with the accused and gave a special report along with an extra judicial confession statement said to have been given by the accused. The I.O thereafter arrested the accused, who once again voluntarily gave a confession statement in the presence of PW12-Rajkumar and one Munusamy. Immediately, thereafter a discovery of fact was made by recovering the blood stained stone and also the ash of the burned shirt. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of the postmortem doctor, and other witnesses, and ultimately laid the charge sheet before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.

6. Before the Sessions Court, the prosecution relied as many as 17 documents and 28 material objects, besides examining 18 witnesses to prove the charges. The Sessions Court, having considered the oral and documentary evidence, had found the accused to be guilty u/s.302 IPC and convicted him by sentencing to undergo life imprisonment.

7. Assailing the order of conviction, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that, though the prosecution attempted to prove the case on two-fold i.e., by way of ocular evidence, and through circumstantial evidence, there are no trustworthy eyewitnesses. That apart, the circumstances which were relied by the prosecution has not all surfaced, so as to form a complete chain and thus, contended that the order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous and contrary to the settled legal pri