Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 43852
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jahaber Sathik – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police – Respondent
CRL A(MD) 253 2021
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - FINGERPRINT MATCH - RECOVERY OF STOLEN JEWELS - LAST SEEN THEORY - CONVICTION OF ONE ACCUSED AND ACQUITTAL OF ANOTHER - [Sections 457, 380, 302 IPC]
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was found murdered in her house, and the appellants were charged with murder, robbery, and housebreaking. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including a fingerprint match of one of the appellants at the scene of the crime, the recovery of stolen jewels from the house of one of the appellants, and the testimony of witnesses who had seen the appellants together near the deceased's house shortly before the murder.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that one of the appellants had committed the murder with the intention of stealing the deceased's jewelry. However, the court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the other appellant was involved in the crime.
Issues: Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the murder, robbery, and housebreaking.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that one of the appellants had committed the murder with the intention of stealing the deceased's jewelry. However, the court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the other appellant was involved in the crime.
Final Decision: The court convicted one of the appellants of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The court acquitted the other appellant of all charges.
Crl.A.(MD).No.253 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on
22.08.2023
Pronounced on
13.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.(MD)No.253 of 2021
1.Jahaber Sathik
2.Arivazhakan
..Appellants /
Accused Nos.1 & 2
Vs.
State Represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Thiruvidaimarudhur Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
..Respondent /
Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code,
praying to call for the records in Sessions Case No.13 / 2019, dated
25.03.2021 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast
Track Court), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, and set aside the judgment
and allow this Criminal Appeal.
Page 1 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.253 of 2021
For Appellants
: Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran
for Mr.K.Veilmuthu
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram,
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
The appellants herein have been arrayed as the 1st accused (A1) and
2nd accused (A2) before the trial court. The case of the prosecution is that at
about 22.45 hours of 15.04.2018, both the accused had come to the house of
the deceased Ajitha Beevi at Aaduthurai South Seniya Street. While A2 rang
the calling bell at the door, A1 had entered the house through the back door
and strangulated her with her saree. After murdering her, they had stolen 9¾
sovereigns of gold jewelry from the body of the deceased and left the scene,
in the bike of A2 and hence, both of them were charged of having
committed the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC.
2. The trial court had placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.12 and
P.W.13, who had last seen both the accused together near the house of the
deceased and also on the oral testimony of the finger print expert (P.W.15)
Page 2 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.253 of 2021
confirming the finger print match of A1, with the finger print recovered at
the scene of occurrence, as well as on the recovery of the stolen jewels from
the house of both the accused and had come to the conclusion that the
prosecution had proved all the charges against the accused, beyond
reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted both the accused to various
imprisonments, including rigorous imprisonment for life for the charged
offences. This judgment of the trial court passed in S.C.No.13 of 2019,
dated 25.03.2021 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court,
Kumbakonam is put under challenge in the present appeal.
3. Before the trial court, the younger sister's son of the deceased was
examined as P.W.1. According to his testimony, on 13.04.2018, his mother
was with the deceased and had left her house the next day morning.
Thereafter at 7.30 p.m., his mother had spoken to the deceased over phone.
On the same day at about 10.45 p.m., when his mother had called the
deceased over phone, she had heard a male voice, which created a suspicion
and therefore, his mother had called P.W.3 and P.W.4, who were residing
near the deceased's house to check up on her sister. When P.W.3 and P.W.4
had gone to the house of the deceased, they found the front door locked
Page 3 of 19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.253 of 2021
from inside and the back door open. Inside the house, the deceased was
dead with bleeding injuries. The cupboard was broken and the jewels on her
body were missing. When P.W.1 heard this news, he along with his mother
had come to the house of the deceased and had given a complaint-Ex.P.1 to
the Police.
4. The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 also corroborates with the
evidence of P.W.1. The prosecution had produced P.W.12 and P.W.13 before
the trial court, who had witnessed both the accused together near the scene
of occurrence before the incident. In their evidence
