In a criminal case resting on circumstantial evidence, failure to establish the alleged motive, having all independent witnesses turn hostile, and an unexplained inordinate delay in forwarding the FIR to the Magistrate under Section 157 CrPC renders the prosecution case unreliable, necessitating acquittal.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of this Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.)

The accused in S.C.No.336 of 2016 on the file of 1st Additional District and Sessions Court, Thoothukudi, wherein, by Judgment, dated 18.04.2018, she had been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also convicted for offence punishable under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months, has filed the present criminal appeal.

2.Even proceeding further, it must be stated that the learned Sessions Judge had made a grievous error in sentencing the appellant herein to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Any offence which is punishable under Section 302 IPC attracts sentence of either life imprisonment or death. Registry has noted that the appellant had been sentenced 10 years rigorous imprisonment and had placed the appeal before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge on 07.08.2024 had recorded as follows:

“Perusal of records shows that the charge framed against the appellant is under Section 302 of IPC. The trial Court found the appellant guilty, convicted him and imposed sentence of 10 years Rigorous imprisonment upon the appellant. Against which, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. Therefore, the matter must be heard by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court.

2.Hence, Registry is directed to list the matter before the concerned Division Bench of this Court for hearing, after getting appropriate orders from the Honourable Administrative Judge.”

It is under those circumstances, this appeal is placed before us.

3.The appellant Latha @ Sahayalatha is the wife of Sekar @ Gunasekar. They were residing at No.3/38, JJ Nagar, 3rd Mile, Thoothukudi. The deceased is her own husband Sekar @ Gunasekar.

4 (i).It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant and her minor son had returned back home at around 08.00 p.m., on 22.02.2014 from the Church. They found that an amount of Rs.40,000/- was missing from the almirah. They suspected that the amount would have been taken by the husband of the appellant. The appellant then searched for her husband. She found him in a drunken state lying opposite to the house. The appellant and her minor son asked him about the money. He did not reply. Angered over that, the appellant had assaulted him with a log (உருட்டுக்கட்டை), thereby, causing his death. It is stated that thereafter, they had brought the body of the deceased inside the house and put in a chair and prepared the ceremony for final rites.

4(ii).It is the case of the prosecution that the next day, P.W.1, Sureshkumar, who was the Village Administrative Officer came across the house of the appellant and enquired with the neighbours, who stated that the death was suspicious. He immediately gave a complaint to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent had taken the appellant into custody. After following due procedure, the trial took place before the 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, wherein, as stated above, the appellant had been convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

5.To narrate the facts in little more detail, as stated, the appellant had been charged that she had committed the offence of murder of her own husband, since she suspected that he had taken away Rs.40,000/-, which wa