The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence and an extra-judicial confession was insufficient to establish murder, leading to a conviction for culpable homicide instead.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.36 of 2019, dated 12.12.2022, on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC .

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the accused were close relatives. Both their respective husbands had passed away, which led to a close acquaintance between the two women. During this period of acquaintance, the accused had an illegal intimacy with one Mani @ Balasubramanian. On 07.08.2018, the said Mani @ Balasubramanian borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the accused. The accused pledged her mother's jewels and paid the samd to the said person. Later, when the accused asked him to repay the loan so she could redeem her jewels, he refused repayment. The deceased inquired the accused about her problems, and the accused disclosed everything to the deceased. In response, the deceased warned the accused not to have any relationship with the said Mani @ Balasubramanian. The deceased further threatened the accused that if she continued the relationship with this person, she would inform the same to her parents. The accused allegedly pleaded the deceased not to disclose to anyone about their intimate relationship and about the money transaction to anyone. This led to a quarrel between them. Subsequently, the accused went to the deceased’s house, took an ‘Aruvamanai’ (vegetable cutter) from the house, and assaulted her with it. As a result of the attack, the victim sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to them. In the course of the crime, the accused had stolen the deceased’s gold ornaments and her cell phone. Additionally, the accused took the Aruvamanai which was the weapon used to inflict the fatal injuries, from the scene.

3. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.286 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC and thereafter, the offences were altered into , 404 and 201 of . After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

4. On the side of the prosecution, in order to bring the charges to home, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.20 and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.16. On the side of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked.

5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 , 404 and 201 of I.P.C. She was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . She was further sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment and was imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 404 of . She also sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for an offence punishable under Section 201 of . Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the entire case projected by the prosecution is solely based on the circumstantial evidence, as there is no eye witness in this case. The prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances as against the accuse