The court clarified that provocation mitigates murder to manslaughter under Section 304 IPC, confirming that circumstantial evidence and motive can support conviction despite lack of direct witnesses.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

1. These criminal appeals have been preferred against the judgment passed by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No.179 of 2016 dated 30.07.2019 convicting the appellants for the offence(s) and to undergo the sentence(s) as detailed hereunder:-

Challenging the above judgment of conviction and sentence, A1 has preferred Crl A No.237 of 2021, A2 has preferred Crl A No.155 of 2020 and A3 has preferred Crl A No.738 of 2019, respectively. Since the appeals are arising out of the common judgment, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the appellants will be hereinafter referred to as A1, A2 & A3 in this judgment.

2. The case of the prosecution runs thus:-

(a) A1 to A3 were the residents of Akkarapalayam Lakshmanur Village. One Kala, D/o Nagaraj also belongs to the above said village. She was married to one Selvam of Harur and since Selvam died 4 years prior to the occurrence, she returned to her parental house with her children. A1 developed illicit intimacy with Kala. Since Kala was engaged in construction works, A1 suspected that Kala was having illicit relationship with another worker and therefore, A1 developed an enmity against her.

(b) Due to such enmity, when PW1 was serving as the Village Administrative Officer of Uthamachozhapuram Village, on 29.10.2009 at about 9.00 A.M., A1 came to his office and gave an extra-judicial confession stating that on 26.10.2009, at about 9.00 A.M., A1 asked his lover Kala to come to Perumal Koil Karadu for a private chat and were enjoying their sweet time; that after sometime, a wordy quarrel arose between A1 and Kala, whereby Kala insisted A1 to marry her and since A1 refused to marry Kala, she asked A1 to simply kill her and infuriated by her words, A1 removed the saree worn by Kala and strangulated her neck; that after causing her death, A1 also removed the golden ear studs, silver anklets worn by Kala along with the cellphone and after keeping the silver anklets and cell phone in the house, at about 3.00 P.M., A1 took the golden ear studs and pledged the same at Sandaipettai jewel shop and while returning to his house with the money, he informed A2 and A3, who are his relatives, that since Kala was insisting him to marry her, angered by her words, he strangulated her neck with the help of the saree worn by Kala and hence sought the assistance of A2 and A3 to bury the body of Kala somewhere; that on 27.10.2009, at 12 O’ clock midnight, they packed the body of Kala in a gunny bag and threw the same underneath the Thirumanimutharu bridge.

(c) The above statement of A1 was reduced into writing by PW1, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P1. Thereafter, PW1 produced A1 before the Kondalampatty Police Station along with his report, Ex.P2.

(d) PW8, the Sub Inspector of Police, on production of A1 and on receipt of Ex.P2 from PW1 at 10.00 A.M. on 29.10.2009, registered a case in Crime No.1133 of 2009 for the offence under Sections 302, 404, 201 IPC and prepared the First Information Report, Ex.P13. Thereafter, PW8 forwarded the express report along with the copies of FIR, statement of A1 and the report of PW1 to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.V through the Head Constable, PW10 and also to the concerned higher officials. Thereafter, PW8 produced A1 before PW12, the Inspector of Police for further investigation.

(e) PW12, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P13 from PW8, took up further investigation on the same day and obtained the voluntary confessional statement of A1, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P4, in the presence of PW1 and his Assistant. Thereafter, he proceeded to the