Circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain of connection to prove guilt, ruling out reasonable hypotheses of innocence; failure to establish such links results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.157 of 2021, dated 19.09.2024, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC .

2. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 is the son of the deceased. The deceased was married twice and got separated from both wives and used to stay at the nights in a dismantled mahindra van, which is used for vulcanizing work by PW2, stationed at Mudukkukadu Village, in the Service Road, Southern Side of Byepass Road. While being so, on 18.12.2020 at about 09.30 p.m., when PW2 had gone to his shop for vulcanizing work, he found that the accused, who was working as driver under him and the deceased have involved in wordy altercation over a beedi. Therefore, PW2 did not take it seriously and as such he left to his home. On the next day at about 06.00 a.m. when PW2 had gone to the shop, he found the deceased with injuries. It was immediately informed to PW1. Thereafter, PW1 came to the scene of crime and lodged a complaint.

3. On receipt of complaint, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.453 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC . After completion of investigation respondent filed a final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate 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.24 and marked Exs.P1 to P29. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.12. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.

5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present Criminal Appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is the case of circumstantial evidence, since there was no eye witnesses to the occurrence. The prosecution ought to have proved the charge by connecting the accused without breaking the chain. The chain of link to connect the accused is not at all proved by the prosecution. The deceased as well as the accused had quarrelled between them at 09.00 p.m. and thereafter, the deceased was found dead inside the van. PW2 to PW5 had seen them lastly together. Thereafter, the accused was arrested and based on his confession, the weapon, which was used for the crime, had been recovered. On the basis of which the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . Even according to the case of the prosecution, PW2 to PW5 had seen the deceased and accused at about 09.00 p.m. on the previous day. The dead body of the deceased was found only on the next day at about 06.00 a.m. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the chain of link between the occurrence and the alleged crime. Further, the last seen witnesses also turned hostile and the remaining circumstance is recovery. Mere recovery is not sufficient to convict the accused. In fact, the weapon, which was allegedly used for crime, was recovered from the open place. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubt and the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that PW1 and P