The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime; mere recoveries and extrajudicial confessions without independent corroboration are insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

M. Jothiraman, J.

Challenging the judgment dated 05.04.2019 passed in S.C.No.77 of 2016 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Namakkal, the appellant/State has preferred the above appeal.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1 PW1—Karunakaran, who is the brother and son of the deceased Madheswari and Krishnaswamy, respectively, deposed that he is doing weaving business; the deceased were staying in a house near his weaving shed; after completing his work, he usually hand over the weaving shed key to his father and then, the workers, who worked under him, usually collect key from his father at 4.00 a.m.; on 04.05.2014 at 4.30 a.m., while he was sleeping, his workers viz. Shanmugam (PW4) and Mani (PW5) knocked his door; he immediately woke up and enquired them; they stated that even after knocking the door, his (PW1’s) father did not open the door and while they saw inside the house through the gap in the door, his (PW1’s) father was lying on the floor; immediately, they rushed to his father’s house and opened the door and saw that his father was dead in a pool of blood with cut injury in his neck and next to his father, his (PW1’s) sister also was also dead in a pool of blood with cut injury on her neck; chilly powder was sprinkled on them; he went to the police station and lodged the complaint (Ex.P1) and signed in the FIR (Ex.P16) and his signature in the FIR was marked Ex.P2.

2.2 PW2—Bhuvaneshwari, who is the granddaughter of the deceased Krishnaswamy, deposed that she heard the news through her aunt Padmavathi that someone had murdered her grandfather and mother and therefore, she rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that her grandfather and mother were dead in the pool of blood with cut injury on their necks.

2.3 PW3—Shanmugam, deposed that he knew PWs.1 and 2; on 04.05.2014 around 5.00 a.m., he was informed by his brother that somebody had murdered Krishnaswamy and Madheswari; therefore, he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that Krishnaswamy and Madheswari were lying in a pool of blood with cut injury on their necks.

2.4 PW4—Shanmugam and PW5—Mani, deposed that they knew PWs.1 to 3; usually they get the key from the deceased Krishnaswamy at 4.00 a.m. for doing their weaving work; on 04.05.2014 at 4.00 a.m., when they knocked the door of the house of Krishnaswamy, they did not get any response and they also rang the calling bell thrice; when they noticed through the door gap, they saw Krishnaswamy laying on the floor and immediately informed the same to PW1 and PW1 rushed to the place of occurrence and they found that Krishnaswamy and Madheswari were dead with cut injury on their necks.

2.5 PW6—Velumani, deposed that through the intimation given by Rajakannan he came to know that on 04.05.2014, Krishnaswamy and Madheswari were murdered by someone; he went to the place of occurrence and at that time, the police have visited the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P19), in which, he has signed as a witness in the observation mahazar along with one Rajakannan and his signature in the observation mahazar was marked as Ex.P3; the police have also drawn rough sketch (Ex.P20) and seized blood in a white cloth under seizure mahazars Ex.P23 and P24, in which, he has signed as a witness.

2.6 PW7—Ranganathan, Head Constable, deposed that on 04.05.2014 around 7.00 a.m., as per the instructions given by their Department, he went to the place of occurrence along with a sniffer dog.

2.7 PW8—Guruvendhan, Village Administrative Officer (VAO), deposed that on 18.05.2014 at 8.00 a.m. while he was in his office with his Assistant Ramaraj, A1 surrendered before him and voluntarily gave confession statement and r