Prosecution must establish motive and a complete chain of circumstantial evidence in murder cases; mere witness testimonies without clear linkage or motive fail to support conviction.

JUDGMENT :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in in S.C.No.21 of 2020 dated 20.06.2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Periyakulam, thereby acquitting the respondents 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2019 at about 07.00 p.m., the second accused developed an illegal intimacy with the wife of the first accused. On account of the same, the deceased used to insult the wife of the first accused by referring to her illegal intimacy with the second accused whenever she came for fetching water from the common water lane. Therefore, there was previous enmity between the accused and the deceased. Hence both the accused decided to do away with the life of the deceased.

3.While being so, on 08.07.2019 at about 07.00 p.m., the second accused had picked up the deceased in his motorcycle and took him along with liquor and snacks, to the scene of crime, which is belonging to one Jeganathan. While they were consuming liquor, the first accused pushed the deceased, causing him to fall down. Thereafter, the first accused placed a stone on the head of the deceased and the second accused placed a stone on his chest. After causing the injuries, they fled away from the scene of occurrence.

The deceased died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by him. Based on the complaint, the first respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.115 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

4.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.21 and marked Exs.P1 to P14. The prosecution had produced Materials Objects M.O.1 to M.O.13 and the Court documents were marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.

5.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found both the accused not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the defacto complainant as appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court completely overlooked the evidence of P.W.6, P.W.12 and P.W.13. They had seen the accused while they were bringing the deceased to the scene of crime. They categorically deposed that the accused picked up the deceased along with liquor and snacks. The accused had a motive to do away with the life of the deceased for the reason that he used to insult the wife of the first accused. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found at the place of occurrence. Therefore, the accused are liable to be punished by applying the principles of the “last seen theory”, which is sufficient to connect the accused in the absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence. Further, the confession statements of the accused led to the recovery of material objects. Hence, the confession statements of the accused cannot be ignored and they are liable to be punished and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC .

7.P.W.6 categorically deposed that he had seen the first accused who brought the deceased on his motorcycle while P.W.6 was talking to one Loganathan at his workshop. Though the said Loganathan turned hostile, the evidence of P.W.6 was corroborated by P.W.12 and P.W.13. P.W.12 also stated that he had seen the first accused who brought the deceased to the scene of crime on his motorcycle at about 06.45 p.m., on 08.07.2