Circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions require strict scrutiny and corroboration for a conviction under murder charges, highlighting their inherent weaknesses.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C. No.304 of 2018, dated 06.04.2023, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased had an illegal intimacy with the wife of the accused. Therefore, there was dispute between the accused and his wife and hence, the wife of the accused left the matrimonial home and went to her parents' house. Therefore, the accused in order to do away with the life of the deceased, on 24.06.2016 at about 12.00 noon, dragged the deceased in his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-59-BB-5347 to Kuttoor Karanthamalai, Puthupatti, Natham Taluk to the western side of the Pillaimulungi Temple, and assaulted the deceased with sickle repeatedly and therefore, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died.

3. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered by the Inspector of Police, Natham Police Station in Cr.No.295 of 2016 initially for an offence punishable under Section 174 (3) of Cr.P.C., and subsequently it was altered into Section 302 of IPC . After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court.

4. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the trial Court. The prosecution has produced Material Objects in M.O.1 to M.O.16.

5. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . He was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to impose a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under of . Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not adequately established a clear motive for the crime between the accused and the deceased and therefore, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. Further, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of link between the accused and the crime is not intact, which would show serious doubt over the case of the prosecution. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.5 & 6, who were projected as witnesses of last seen theory.

However, they turned hostile and even then, the trial Court, without considering the facts and circumstances, mechanically convicted the accused. In fact, the evidences of P.Ws.5 & 6 are also bereft in nature and did not contain any date and time as to when they saw the deceased with the accused to prove the last seen theory. They did not even state the vehicle which was allegedly used by the accused to drag the deceased to the scene of crime. Further, the prosecution also relied upon the Extra Judicial Confession which was made before the Village Administrative Officer. It is a weak peace of evidence and it cannot be the sole basis for conviction. Therefore, the entire conviction and sentence imposed on the accused cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that though it is a case of circumstantial evidence, the motive was also proved by examining the prosecution witnesses. P.Ws.5 & 6 categorically deposed that they had seen the accused and the deceased together in their motorcycle. The accused made extra judicial confession statement before P.W.7-Village Administrative Officer.