Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66500
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, M. JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
Vakkil @ Murugan – Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvennainallur Police Station, Villupuram District – Respondent
Crl.A.No.721 of 2023|S.C.No.168 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Thirumoorthy
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Damodaran, Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
Circumstantial evidence must create a complete chain to establish guilt; any reasonable doubt results in acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, Sections 302, 392 - Criminal Procedure Code, Section 374(2) - Conviction for murder and robbery - Appellants convicted based on circumstantial evidence, court finds failure to establish complete chain of circumstances and doubts regarding confession admissibility - Appeal allowed, conviction set aside, and accused acquitted. (Paras 22, 23)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt - The prosecution must provide a conclusive link between the accused and the crime, failing which benefit of doubt is given to the accused. (Paras 13, 21)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for murder and robbery of the deceased Rama based on circumstantial evidence involving witness testimonies and alleged confessions.
Findings of Court:
Court determined that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to affirm the lower court's decision, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Central issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the credibility of witness testimonies in supporting the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that confessions must adhere to legal standards and that circumstantial evidence requires a conclusive chain to confirm guilt, leading to the judgment's reversal.
Result: Appeals allowed and judgment set aside with acquittal of the accused.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of trial court convictions (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prosecution evidence and witness testimonies (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. finding insufficiency in circumstantial evidence (Para 12 , 19 , 22) |
| 4. final decision to acquit appellants (Para 23) |
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)
Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 03.01.2023 in S.C.No.168 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Villupuram, appellants/accused have filed the instant criminal appeal.
2. The accused A1 to A3, was convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows:
| Accused | Conviction | Sentence |
| A1 to A3 | Section 302 read with 34 of IPC | Each to undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- |
| A1 to A3 | Section 392 of IPC Each to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months | |
| These sentences were ordered to run concurrently | ||
3.The case of the prosecution is as follows :
3.1.PW1 Deivasigamani is a brother of the deceased Rama. On 29.11.2015, he came to know that somebody murdered his sister, immediately, he went to the spot and saw his sister's body in the pool of blood with cut injuries in the ears, skull and forehand and the Thali kayiru was missing and some jewels were missing. He enquired Vanaji/PW13, she informed that Rama went for grazing the cow in the morning, then she was missing and further informed that the village people had seen her mother's umbrella and her towel found in one place. The deceased was wearing 2 sovereign of jewels, he lodged the complaint under Ex.P1 before PW31, who registered a case in Cr.No.819/2015 under Sections 392 and 302 of IPC. FIR is marked as Ex.P20. He sent the FIR to the concerned Judicial Magistrate and submitted the file to the Inspector of Police. PW32/Inspector of Police took up the investigation and went to place to occurrence at 18.45 hours and prepared observation mahazaar in the presence of witnesses, PW30, PW27/VAO. Observation Mahazaar prepared in the Vadivel gounder sugar cane field under Ex.P21 and rough sketch under Ex.P22. Then he went to the place near deceased Rama house at 19.45 hours and prepared another observation mahazaar Ex.P23 and prepared another rough sketch Ex.P24. At the place of occurrence, he collected the soil with blood under mahazar under Ex.P25. At 19.45 hours in the presence of other witnesses, collected the blood stained marked as M.O.12 and soil without blood marked as M.O.13. Investigating Officer conducted inquest on the body of the deceased Rama in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared inquest report under Ex.P26. He enquired the witnesses and sent the body of the deceased to the Mundiyambakkam Government College and Hospital for postmortem. PW29/Dr.Geethanajali conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and issued postmortem report marked under Ex.P10 and final report marked as Ex.P11 and opined that the deceased appeared to have died due to effects of cut injuries sustained at the head and face.
3.2. PW10 is the husband of the deceased Rama went to Sabarimala on 27.11.2015, after coming to know about the occurrence, he came back on 30.11.2015, the police enquired him after after a lapse of 1 ½ months and shown the jewels of Rama. He identified the jewels and they are M.O.1 to M.O.8. PW14/Selvamuthukumar stated that on 29.11.2015, when he went to the field for watering his land, the deceased was grazing the cows in the field, when he returned to home, he had seen the accused were talking and going toward his field. Thereafter, at about 2 pm, he came to know about the occurrence.
3.3.On 14.01.2016 at Madambattu bus stop, Investigating Officer arrested these accused in Cr.No.41/2016 under Sections 294(b), 353, 506(ii), 307 of IPC read with 25(1)f of Arms Act and enquired the accused separately. Accused voluntarily had given confession in the presence of witnesses Anbazhagan, Madubalan and VAO. The admissible portio
