Conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld as sufficient circumstantial evidence, including motive and last seen theory, established beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's guilt.

JUDGMENT :

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

1. The appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in S.C.No.3 of 2019, by which the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Karthick and the appellant were friends who often drank alcohol together. On 17.05.2018, while drinking at a TASMAC shop, there was a shortage of glasses. Karthick told the appellant that he would drink first and then give him the glass. The appellant replied that, as they belonged to the same caste, there was no issue in sharing the glass and that even if the appellant drank first, it would not matter. Karthick questioned the appellant about speaking on such matters in public with regard to caste and referred to the appellant’s conversion to Christianity. The appellant replied that even after conversion, he still belonged to the same caste. This led to a quarrel, during which Karthick slapped the appellant in the presence of others. Their friends intervened and pacified them, and both left the place. Despite this, the appellant felt insulted and bore a grudge against Karthick. On 18.05.2018, the appellant pretended that the dispute had been resolved and took Karthick on his motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-33-AW-7305 to a secluded place. There, due to the previous enmity, the appellant assaulted Karthick with stones, causing severe injuries and resulting in his death on the spot.

3. Following this, a case was registered as Crime No.207 of 2018 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirupur. The learned Magistrate took the case on file as P.R.C.No.11 of 2018 and, after complying with Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions, as the offence charged against the appellant is exclusively triable by that Court. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur took the case on file as S.C.No.3 of 2019, framed charges against the appellant, explained the charges to him, and conducted the trial after he pleaded not guilty.

4. During the trial, on the side of the prosecution, 17 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.17, 18 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18, and 12 material objects were produced, numbered as M.O.1 to M.O.12. On completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating materials were put to the appellant under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., which he denied as false. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. After considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the appellant guilty and imposed the sentence mentioned above. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution had no direct evidence, and the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. None of the circumstances relied on by the prosecution has been proved without any missing links, so the guilt of the appellant is not established beyond reasonable doubt. It was pointed out that the prosecution relied on three main points motive, last seen theory through P.W.7 and P.W.8, and arrest and recovery. None of these proved the appellant’s guilt conclusively. The alleged motive did not exist at the time of the incident. Even according to the prosecution, the previous dispute between the deceased and the appellant had been resolved, so there was no continuing enmity. P.W.1 to P.