The court reaffirmed that conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires clear establishment of motive, last seen theory, and connections through unbroken chains of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

This criminal appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant in S.C.No.3 of 2017, dated 20.08.2019 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karaikal.

2 The case of the prosecution is that on 23.03.2014, at the instigation of A2 to A5, in furtherance of their common intention, A1 murdered the deceased, who is none other than husband of A2 and uncle of A1. Hence a case in Cr.No.79 of 2014 was registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC and after investigation, the respondent police laid charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal, which was taken up in P.R.C.No.05 of 2017. Since the offence charged against the appellant/A1 is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal, committed the case to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Karaikal, which was taken on file in S.C.No.03 of 2017.

3 Before the trial Court, in order to prove the charges, prosecution examined 18 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to 20 and one Court Document as Ex.C1. 13 material objects were exhibited as M.Os.1 to 13.

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 and documentary evidence was let in.

5 The learned Sessions Judge, after trial and hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, by judgement dated 20.08.2019, while acquitting the other accused A2 to A5, found the appellant/A1 guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 6 months.

6 Aggrieved over the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/A1 is before this Court with the present Criminal Appeal.

7 Learned counsel for the appellant/A1 would submit that in this case, there is no direct evidence or eye witness and the whole case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Therefore it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to establish three links of chain, namely motive, last seen theory and recovery of weapon.

7.1 The trial Court made conviction only based on the evidence of P.W.3, who is a neighbour, but his evidence is not reliable, since the same is artificial. P.W.3 deposed that while he was standing near the Vulcanising Workshop, the appellant came and told him that he murdered the deceased and should not reveal the same to anyone. No accused would voluntarily reveal about the offence committed by him to anyone. Therefore the evidence of P.W.3 is unnatural and cannot relied upon and the trial Court ought to have disbelieved the evidence of P.W.3.

7.2 P.W.4, who is the sister of the deceased, in her cross examination clearly stated that a week prior to the occurrence, the deceased was remanded for the commotion taken place in the village. Therefore the deceased used to pick up quarrel with the Villagers. Further he is also habitual drinker. The trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.4 in a proper perspective.

7.3 The trial Court disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the involvement of the other accused A2 to A5 and based on the same set of evidence the trial Court convicted the appellant/A1, which is not legally and factually tenable.

7.4 In this case, which is based on only circumstantial evidence, most of the prosecution witnesses have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Even the defacto complainant P.W.1 has turned hostile. Under these circumstances, the conviction recorded by the Trial Court is perverse.

7.5 P.W.3 in his evidence stated that on 23.03.2014 at the evening hours, he saw the appellant with blood stained shirt a