Conviction under Section 302 IPC requires proof of intent; absence of evidence linking co-accused to murder led to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The appellants are the accused in S.C. No. 439 of 2014 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. They have preferred the present appeals challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed upon them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 31.12.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., when the deceased, Senthilkumar, was at his residence, A1 and A3 came to his house and asked him to accompany them. Despite the objection raised by P.W.1, the mother of the deceased, having regard to prior disputes between the deceased and A1, the deceased went along with A1 and A3. It is the further case of the prosecution that A1 had been frequently demanding money from the deceased, which led to enmity between them earlier. On the fateful day, notwithstanding such antipathy, the deceased accompanied A1 and A3. As the deceased did not return home till late hours, P.W.1 and her family members searched for him. During such search, the deceased was found lying dead near the backside of Kamakshiamman Temple with a stab injury and bloodstains. Thereafter, at about 1.00 a.m. on 01.01.2014, P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the respondent police. Based on the said complaint, P.W.13 registered a case in Crime No. 1 of 2014 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and forwarded the same to the inspector of police for investigation. Upon receipt of the FIR, P.W.16 proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared the Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch, and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars. Thereafter, he made necessary arrangements for conducting the post-mortem by sending a requisition through a police constable. During the course of investigation, P.W.16 recovered blood-stained earth and non- blood-stained earth from the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses, namely P.W.9 and one Balakrishnan. On the same day, he examined P.Ws. 1, 2, and 3, as well as other witnesses, namely P.Ws. 10, 11, and 13. Subsequently, on 02.01.2014, he examined P.W.4. In the meantime, he received information that Al had surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti. Accordingly, on 03.01.2014, P.W.16 filed a petition seeking police custody of A1, and on 06.01.2014, Al was taken into police custody. While in custody, Al gave a voluntary confession in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, pursuant to which the weapon of crime, namely M.O.4 (knife), was recovered. Based on the disclosure made by A1, A2 and A3 were also secured. A2 is stated to have given a voluntary confession, leading to the recovery of a mobile phone. The Investigating Officer thereafter continued the investigation and secured the juvenile accused, who was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board on 09.12.2015. Further, P.W.16 arranged for the conduct of a Test Identification Parade, in which witnesses (including P.Ws.1 and 3) identified the accused before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI. On 10.01.2014, the recovered material objects were forwarded to the Court through P.W.15.

2.2. The Investigating Officer also sent requisitions for obtaining chemical analysis and serological reports, including viscera examination. He collected all relevant materials, including records relating to prior cases involving Al and the deceased (Crime No.181 of 2012), and obtained the post-mortem certificate from PW14, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy. Upon completion of the investigation, and after receipt of the forensic reports, the final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate. The case was taken on file in P.R.C. No.21 of 2014 and since the offence was exclusively triable b