Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 28373
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.POORNIMA, J
Velmurugan – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeals | S.C.No.35 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor
The court affirmed the conviction of one accused for murder based on established motive and circumstantial evidence, while acquitting the other due to insufficient proof of involvement in the crime.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 449 - Criminal conviction for murder and house trespass - Appellants convicted for murder and sentenced to life imprisonment; one also convicted for house trespass - Evidence of illegal relationship and motive established - Court found absence of accused at the scene suspicious and affirmed conviction of one while acquitting the other due to lack of evidence. (Paras 1, 41, 42)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Burden of proof on accused when facts are within their knowledge - Accused's failure to explain absence during the crime led to adverse inference. (Paras 39, 40)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for murdering the deceased, who was the husband of one of the accused, following a quarrel stemming from their illicit relationship. The deceased was found burned and injured after the incident.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the conviction of one accused due to established motive and circumstantial evidence, while acquitting the other for lack of direct evidence linking him to the crime.
Issues: The main issues included the presence of the accused at the crime scene, the motive for the crime, and the sufficiency of evidence against the second accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution established a compelling case against one accused due to motive and circumstantial evidence, while the second accused's involvement was not sufficiently proven.
Result: The conviction of the first accused was upheld; the second accused was acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. arguments presented by the parties (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. evidence supporting motive for the crime (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. witness testimonies and their credibility (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. court's analysis of evidence and arguments (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 7. legal principles regarding burden of proof (Para 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 8. final judgment and conclusions of the court (Para 40 , 41) |
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by R.POORNIMA, J.
These Criminal Appeals are filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 in the judgment dated 18.03.2020 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in S.C.No.35 of 2019 by convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 449 IPC . A1 and A2 had been convicted for offence punishable under and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment each. A2 had been convicted for offence punishable under Section 449 and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :
(a) The complainant was residing with her husband at Keela Kodumalur. Her younger son Armugam was married, with the appellant /accused No 1 herein, 14 years back and was blessed with a girl child, aged about three years.
(b) Her son was residing separately along with his wife, until a year back, she had illegal intimacy with A2, who is the son of her husband's second wife. After knowing the same, they cautioned her; but she continued her relationship with A2.
(c) Therefore, her son deceased Arumugam left Keela Kodumalur and went to Kerala. Thereafter, A1 lodged a complaint, against the complainant before the All Women Police Station, with an allegation that the complainant had separated her husband from her.
Therefore, the complainant and others requested her son to return back from Kerala, her son therefore, returned and startedd living with A1.
(d) On 16.07.2018 at about 12.30 hours, the witness, Arjun and his wife Thotichi, noticed smoke from the house of her son, which raised alarm. After hearing the same, she, and her husband went to the house of her son, at that time, A1/her daughter-in-law came with a bill hook, A2 came with an iron rod and they fled from the occurrence place. She found her son lying in his house, bleeding from his head, when she questioned him regarding what happened, her son replied that while he was sleeping, A2 attacked him with an iron rod and inflicted injuries with a bill hook further his wife and Murugan, tied him with a rope then poured kerosene over him and set him ablaze. She found blood stains all over the house and the mat and pillows were seen in a half burnt condition.
(e) Immediately, she called 108 ambulance and admitted her son in Government Hospital for treatment, but he succumbed to his injuries at 3.15 hours. Therefore, she lodged the complaint and requested for action.
(f) P.W.20, Tmt. Jhansi Rani, Inspector of Police of Abhiramam Police Station, recorded the complainant's statement of P.W.1 and registered FIR in Crime No.93/2018, under sections 342 and 302 IPC in Ex.P19. She sent the FIR and complaint to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court.
(g) She went to the place of occurrence, prepared observation, Mahazar Ex.P2 and rough sketch Ex.P20 in the presence of witnesses Marikannu and Sasi Kumar, and recovered the material objects viz., kerosene-cane, matchbox, half burnt slipper, half burnt mat and it’s particles, half burnt Lungi, half burnt shawl, blood stained silver cup, blood stained earth sample, normal earth sample (M.O.1 to M.O.12) under a recovery m
