The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the accused, leading to their acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

These appeals are directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.562 of 2016 on the file of the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai District, dated 07.08.2023, thereby convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 120 -B, 302, 394 and 201 of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 11.02.2016 at about 03.00 p.m., the first accused invited the deceased to her house and requested her to stitch a saree border using a sewing machine. While the deceased was doing the stitching work in the house of the first accused, the first accused, in pursuance of a conspiracy, covered the face of the deceased with a jute bag, dragged her inside the house and repeatedly dashed her head against the floor. Further, the first accused tightened the jute bag in order to prevent the deceased from breathing, as a result of which she died in the house of the first accused. Thereafter, the first accused informed the second accused and asked him come to her house. Both the accused removed a 15.800 gram gold chain, one pair of studs and one pair of anklets from the body of the deceased for unlawful gain and thereby robbed the ornaments. Further, in order to screen the evidence of the commission of the murder, both the accused had hidden the dead body in a haystack kept behind the house of the first accused. When the father of the deceased searched for his daughter, he lodged a complaint on 12.02.2016. Initially, the case was registered under 'woman missing' on the file of the respondent police.

3.On the next day, the F.I.R was altered into an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. During investigation, both the accused were arrested on 29.02.2016 and based on their confession statements, material objects were recovered. Thereafter, an alteration report was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 120 -B, 302, 394 and 201 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.20 and marked Exs.P1 to P19. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.8. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.

5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the first accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 394 and 201 of I.P.C. She was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and she was sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for each offence for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 201 of I.P.C. The second accused was found guilty for the offences punishable under and 201 of I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for each offence for the offences punishable under and 201 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed the present Criminal Appeals.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there are several contradictions in the complaint and the evidence. There is a delay in lodgement of the complaint and the prosecution has failed to explain the same with valid reasons. P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 are close relatives of the deceased and they did n