In a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, mere last seen testimony is insufficient; a clear chain of circumstances must be established to support a conviction.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.124 of 2018 dated 09.01.2023, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court, Trichirappalli, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the sisters of the deceased were working in Trichy. The deceased was a painter and after finishing his work, he used to reach Nochiyam at about 09.00 p.m. He would then call to his sisters over phone and they would all go to their village together. While being so, on 04.02.2017 at about 09.30 p.m., the deceased phoned one of his sisters and stated that he would come late, asking her to go home. Prior to the incident, he had seen his cousin sister together with A.1 in the town bus. Therefore, the cousin sister of the deceased was acquaintance with A.1. The deceased questioned their relationship, which led to a quarrel between them. This was informed by A.1, A.2 and A.3.

3. While being so, on 04.02.2017 at about 09.00 p.m., all three accused had purchased liquor and were sitting on the bridge leading to the Kollidam river bund near Pillaiyar Temple. At about 09.30 p.m., the deceased arrived there. The accused took advantage of the situation, invited the deceased to consume alcohol, and dragged him to the area opposite the burial ground, where they sat on the cement wall and talked. While being so, A.2 questioned the deceased as to why A.1 was not allowed to love his cousin sister. A wordy quarrel ensued and as the deceased was about to stand, A.2 caught him, causing him to fall. Thereafter, A.1 and A.3 assaulted the deceased with their hands. Subsequently, A.1 broke a beer bottle and assaulted the deceased on his neck, causing grievous injuries, which resulted in his death.

4. On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.59 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court.

5. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.17 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27. The prosecution produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.11. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the trial Court.

6. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court acquitted A.2 and A.3 and found A.1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, A.1 as appellant has preferred the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that this is a case based on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses. The prosecution failed to prove the chain of circumstances connecting the accused to the crime. The alleged occurrence took place on 04.02.2017, but the complaint was lodged only on 05.02.2017. After the registration of F.I.R, the respondent went to the scene of crime. However, P.W.1 deposed that police personnel were already present at the scene of crime, when P.W.1 arrived.

8. There is no direct evidence against the accused and the conviction by the Trial Court was based solely on the motive and last seen theory. The so-called P.W.3 and P.W.4 did not even support the case of the prosecution to prove the motive behind the crime. Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the motive and the last seen theory and even then the Trial Court mechanically convicted the accuse