Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 67296
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, M.Jothiraman, JJ
Murugesan – Appellant
Versus
State By The Inspector Of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tirupur District – Respondent
Crl.A.No.471 of 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Parthiban
For the Respondents: Mr. A.Damodaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor, assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt using circumstantial evidence when no eyewitnesses are present; confessions to police are inadmissible in favor of the accused.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Life imprisonment imposed for murder by stabbing - The accused and the deceased were husband and wife; the murder occurred after a quarrel over money for liquor. Sufficient circumstantial evidence included witnesses seeing the accused running from the scene with a knife, confirming the act of homicide. (Paras 2.1, 7, 14, 18-20)
(B) Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - The prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt solely based on circumstantial evidence despite having no eyewitnesses, which included the immediate circumstances surrounding the incident and the conduct of the accused. (Paras 13, 15)
(C) Confession - The court dealt with the admissibility of the accused’s confession to police and held such confession could not be used in his favor under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. (Paras 10, 26-30)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for murdering his wife after a dispute, resulting in multiple stab wounds. Witnesses observed the accused flee with a knife post-incident, and the deceased was found dead with severe injuries in their home. (Paras 2.2, 15)
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial court's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, affirming that the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence. (Paras 42-43)
Issues: The primary questions were whether the prosecution had proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt and if the confession made during the investigation could assist the accused. (Paras 12, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the circumstantial evidence was compelling enough to attribute guilt to the accused, emphasizing the absence of a credible defense or explanation for the injuries inflicted, thus confirming the conviction under Section 302 IPC. (Paras 11, 42)
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the incident (Para 2) |
| 2. court's analysis and evaluation of evidence (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 26 , 28 , 41 , 42) |
| 3. arguments regarding the confession and burden of proof (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. legal principles governing the confession (Para 23 , 24 , 30 , 31 , 36 , 37 , 39) |
| 5. conclusion and dismissal of the appeal (Para 43) |
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by N. Sathish Kumar J.
Challenging the sentence of life imprisonment and fine imposed for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the appeal has been filed by the sole accused.
2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
2.1.The accused and the deceased are husband and wife. They were residing as tenants under P.W.1. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the father and mother of the deceased. The deceased was working in Star Line Banian Company along with P.W.6.
2.2.On 13.07.2012, at about 2.00 p.m., while the deceased was in the company, the accused came to the company and demanded money to buy liquor. As the deceased did not give the amount, a quarrel arose, and the accused took the deceased to her house. Thereafter, at around 4.00 p.m., on hearing the sound from the ground floor, P.W.1, the house owner, who was residing on the first floor, came out from her house and saw that the accused ran from his house. On entering his house, P.W.1 saw the deceased was injured on her forehead, right thigh, and left chest. Immediately, P.W.1 informed her husband, and thereafter went to the police station.
2.3.P.W.5, who was residing near the deceased's house, also saw the accused running from his house with a knife. P.W.8 gave information to the ambulance and they took the deceased to the hospital.
2.4.On receipt of the complaint (Ex.P.1) from P.W.1, the Special Sub- Inspector of Police, P.W.9, registered the case in crime No.891 of 2012 under Section 302 IPC and registered the First Information Report(Ex.P.5) and forwarded the same to the Court and copy to the Investigation Officer.
2.5.P.W.10, the Investigation Officer, took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence. He prepared the Observation Mahazar(Ex.P.2) in the presence of P.W.4 and one Ravi Kumar, and also drew the Rough Sketch (Ex.P.6). He conducted an inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P.7). Thereafter, he sent the body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Palladam, along with a requisition for autopsy. He further seized a small portion of blood- stained cement floor(M.O.1) and ordinary cement floor(M.O.2) from the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses.
2.6.P.W.7 the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Palladam, on receipt of the request from the Investigation Officer, conducted Autopsy and found the following external injuries:-
1. 9 x 3 x 2.5 cm incised wound over middle of lateral side of (L) thigh.
2. 6 x 2.5 x 4 cm incised wound over (L) loin area.
3. 3.5 x 2 x 1 cm incised wound over (L) forearm near (L) wrist.
4. 1 x 0.5 x 7 cm incised wound 6 cm below ® breast nipple over ® lower quadrant of ® breast.
5. 3.5 x 0.5 x 4 cm incised wound just below ® breast, 8 cm from lower part of sternum towards right.
6. 3.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm incised wound over midline of forehead, just 2 cm above root of nose.
He issued Post Morterm Certificate (Ex.P.4) and opined that the deceased died would have died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries and injury to the right lung. The death would have occurred 16 to 20 hours prior to the post-morterm examination.
2.7.In continuation of the investigation, P.W.10 arrested the accused on 14.07.2012 and recorded his confession statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.8. Pursuant to the said confession, he recovered M.O.3, knife, under the cover of Ex.P.9 Seizure Mahazar. Subsequently, the accused was remanded to judicial custody and the material objects were f
