Prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.)

The appellant, a sole accused, in S.C.No.52 of 2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court) Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur, stood charged and convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 404 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Three years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 404 I.P.C. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

The deceased Vasantha @ Muthulakshmi, is the wife of P.W.1 and they are agriculturists. On 11.01.2012, both of them were working in the agricultural field and P.W.1 left earlier, leaving the deceased in the agricultural field alone, the deceased did not return home till evening, hence, P.W.1 along with others searched for her and on 12.01.2012, at 4.00 a.m., they found the deceased dead in the field and the ear studs and nose studs were found missing. Immediately, P.W.1 has given a complaint (Ex.P.1) before the respondent police.

3.Based on that complaint, an F.I.R. has been registered by one Singaraj, Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No.9 of 2012, under Sections 302 and 379 I.P.C. and he has prepared the First Information Report (Ex.P.8), sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi and sent the copies of the F.I.R. to the Inspector of Police and other higher officials.

4.P.W.9, Inspector of Police, on receipt of F.I.R., proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.3) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.9), called the finger print expert and the scientific expert to the scene of occurrence. Then he, conducted inquest in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars, prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P.10), examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and sent the body of the deceased for conducting postmortem autopsy to Government Hospital at Sivakasi.

5.P.W.7, Doctor, working at Government Hospital at Sivakasi. He conducted postmortem autopsy and issued postmortem certificate (Ex.P.6), noting the following injuries:

“External Examination:-

1.Lacerated Lt. Ear lobule (Torn) of 1 x 1cm size.

2.A piece of cotton cloth (? towel) loosely present around the neck with one end tied with her hair.

Ligature mark seen. 3.Abdomen distend.

Internal Examination:

Opening thorax: On opening the layers of neck no subcutaneous bruise seen. Few contusion with muscle haematoma present in muscles of the neck in anterior aspect. Hyoid bone preserved. Pharynx intact. Lungs congested. Peri cardium in tact. Heart empty.

Opening Abdomen: Distended : Liver congested. Gall bladder intact. Stomach contain 300gms partially digested rice particles seen. Spleen congested. Kidneys congested. Intestine distended with gas. Uterus and Womb present. Blader empty.

Spleen & Cranium: No # found in spleen ? Cranium 5 x 6cm spread haemotoma present in rt tumble inside the muscle. Membrane intact. Brain normal.

Vaginal smear taken and preserved. Hyoid, stomach e coli, small intestine e coli, sample of kidney preserved.”

He was of the opinion that the cause of death could not be ascertained by postmortem examination.

6.After his transfer, P.W.9 handed over the investigation to P.W.10.

On 09.01.2014, at 2.30 p.m., when P.W.10, conducting vehicle inspection, the accused came in a two wheeler and afte