Court determined the threshold for proving intent in murder cases, emphasizing the necessity of establishing clear circumstantial evidence and distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide.

JUDGMENT :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

These Criminal Appeals are filed to call for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C.No.37 of 2020 on the file of the learned Principal Session Court/District Court, Karur, dated 06.07.2022, and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants.

2.Both the appeals are arising out of the same Judgment and as such, a common order is passed.

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

3.The case of the prosecution is that A1 and the deceased were husband and wife. A1 and A2 were allegedly involved in an extra marital affair with each other. A3 is a friend of A2. The deceased has warned A1 several times not to be in touch with A2 but they had been continuing their relationship. At this juncture, on 23.12.2018 at about 08.30 p.m., A2 and A3 along with the deceased had consuming alcohol. At that time due to some quarrel, A2 had hit the deceased with a stone on his head and A3 had also allegedly attacked the deceased due to which the deceased died on the spot.

4.Thereafter, the VAO lodged a complaint before the respondent police and an FIR was registered in Crime No.557 of 2018 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC on 24.12.2018. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.C.No.37 of 2020.

5.On the side of the prosecution, 19 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.19 and 24 exhibits were produced as Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 and 20 Material Objects as M.O.1 to M.O.20 were produced. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined, no exhibits were marked and no material objects were produced.

6.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found A1 guilty of the offences under Section 302 of IPC read with 34 of IPC and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of the same, to undergo one-year simple imprisonment. A2 was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and was imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of the same, to undergo one-year simple imprisonment. The Trial Court acquitted A3 from all charges. Aggrieved by the same, A1 and A2 have preferred the present appeals.

ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS:

7.The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted various grounds to make his case before this Court.

8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants states that the appellants are innocent and the respondent had foisted a false case against them.

9.It was submitted that the prosecution failed to establish the motive for the alleged occurrence to hold the appellants guilty and that the Trial Court had convicted the appellants only on the basis of circumstantial evidences. It was stated that no eye witness was examined by the prosecution who witnessed the direct involvement of the appellants in this case despite the possible presence of number of people around the place of occurrence. Further, P.W.18 has also turned hostile by not supporting the case of the prosecution.

10.It was further pointed out that there was a contradiction in the time and date of death of the deceased wherein, the prosecution states that the death had taken place on 23.12.2018 between 08.30 p.m to 11.00 p.m, but P.W.17 who is the doctor who conducted the autopsy of the deceased’s body states that the death might have taken place on 24.12.2018 between 09.00 a.m to 09.00 p.m.

11. It was stated that, the prosecution failed to prove the extra marital affair between A1 and A2. There was also no evidence that proves that the deceased was aware of the alleged extra marital affair.