The court upheld the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC based on credible eyewitness testimony, ruling that the evidence was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

P. DHANABAL, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant as against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in SC No.47 of 2018 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Theni, dated 11/01/2023, wherein the accused was charged for the offence punishable under Sections 450, 452, 302 and 506(ii) IPC.

2. The Trial Court found guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 450 and 506(ii) IPC and acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 452 of IPC. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused has preferred this appeal.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 28/04/2017, the deceased Sakthivel along with his friend Krishnan and Karupasamy had purchased brandy for them and while returning back, they had met the accused Chelladurai and they also invited him to his house for consuming liquor. Since they had purchased only 3 liquor bottles, they had sent Karuppasamy to purchase liquor for the accused also. In the meantime, quarrel arose between the accused Chelladurai and the deceased Sakthivel regarding the misplacement of the cell phone. The cell phone of the deceased Sakthivel was hidden by the accused and thereby, the deceased scolded the accused and immediately, the accused left the place by warning the deceased. Again, after sometime, the accused came to the house of the deceased along with one Gunasekaran, and asked about the scolding regarding the hidden of the cell phone. At that time, the deceased Sakthivel insulted the deceased alleging that the accused stolen the cell phone. Therefore, there was a wordy quarrel between them and the same was pacified by one Alagumalai. Thereafter, the accused went to the house of the father of the deceased namely Palanisamy @ Mustafa and warned him to advise his son to behave in a proper manner, otherwise he would do away the life of his son. At that time, the father of the deceased namely Palanisamy @ Mustafa pacified him.

3.1. Thereafter, at about 08.45 p.m, PW1 the father of the deceased, on suspicious went to the house of his son Sakthivel. At that time, he heard the screaming voice of his son and inside the house, he found that the accused cutting the throat of Sakthivel with a sickle. After seeing the father of the deceased, the accused threatened him and thereby unable to prevent the accused. Thereafter, the accused had severed the head of Sakthivel and had put it in a white bag along with sickle and also went to the house of Krishnan and put the severed head and sickle in front of the house of Krishnan. Thereafter, the accused fled away from that place, in the meantime, the father of the deceased also came there and thereafter, he lodged the complaint (Ex.P1) before the respondent Police.

3.2. The respondent Police, based on the complaint (Ex.P1) have registered the case in Crime No.183 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 302, 506(i) IPC through Ex.P5 (FIR). Thereafter, the Investigating Officer (PW24) went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P6) and rough sketch (Ex.P10) and thereafter, conducted inquest on the deceased body and prepared inquest report (Ex.P12) and also sent the body of the deceased for autopsy and obtained postmortem certificate (Ex.P4) from the Doctor. On 29/04/2017, t