Circumstantial evidence can corroborate a conviction even without eyewitnesses, provided it forms a continuous chain and the accused fails to counter it effectively.

JUDGMENT :

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

This criminal appeal has been filed by A1 & A2 to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against them in Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2016 dated 16.09.2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases, Villupuram.

2 The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Mani on 06.02.2014 watered the land, which was cultivated by him and on the next day early morning at about 4.00 a.m. while he went to water the same land, died due to electrocution, since A1 erected an iron fencing giving electric connection from the pump set belonged to A2. On the next day when P.W.1 woke up, her husband was not at the home and at about 8.30 a.m. P.W.8 Nagaraj called her and told that her husband died in the canal near the land belonged to A1 Rajendiran. P.W.1 went to the place of occurrence and there she saw that the first appellant/A1 erected iron fencing and given electric connection from the Pumpset belonged to the second appellant/A2 and the deceased died due to electric shock. Therefore P.W.1 made complaint before the Sathiyamangalam Police Station, Sathiyamangalam, Gingee, which was marked as Ex.P1.

2.1 On receipt of the complaint Ex.P1, P.W.19, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Sathiyamangalam Police Station, registered an FIR in Cr.No.7 of 2014 and sent the same to P.W.20, who was the Inspector of Police(In-charge) of the Sathiyamangalam Police Station and P.W.20 conducted further investigation and handed over the case to P.W.21, who is the Inspector of Police, Sathiyamangalam Police Station. P.W.21, on coming to know that the deceased belonged to suppressed community, altered the charges including the provisions of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, and handed over the case to P.W.22, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Gingee Sub Division. P.W.22 after completing investigation, filed charge sheet, which was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.73 of 2016.

3 Before the trial Court, in order to prove the charges, prosecution examined 22 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 22 and marked 15 documents as Exs.P1 to 15, besides two material objects M.Os.1 and 2.

4 On completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating materials were culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and put before the accused under Section 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. and they denied the same as false. On the side the defence, no oral evidence was let in and two documents were marked as Exs.D1 and D2.

5 The learned Sessions Judge, after trial and hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, by judgement dated 16.09.2019, found both the appellants/A1 & A2 guilty for the offence under Section 304 (ii) IPC and since the deceased belonged to suppressed community, invoked the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015 and convicted and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 3 months, and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015, sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months and directed the appellants/A1 & A2 to pay Rs.50,000/- each to the defacto complainant P.W.1, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. The learned trial Judge ordered the sentence to run concurrently.

6 Aggrieved over the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with the present Criminal Appeal.

7 Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that this is the case, where there was no eye witness to the occurrence and the whole case rest upon the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution to record conviction for the alleged offences under Sections 304 (ii) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. The circumstantial e