Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 79808
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, L.VICTORIA GOWRI, JJ
Poonguzhali – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. By its The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022 | S.C.No.332 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Manickkaraj for Dr.R.Alagumani
For the Respondents: Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public Prosecutor
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, a complete chain linking the accused to the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; mere absence of direct eyewitness testimony does not preclude conviction if circumstantial evidence is compelling.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 380, and 201 - Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence imposed by trial Court - Conviction upheld; circumstances of murder for gain established through motive, last-seen theory, and recovery - The appellant planned and executed the murder of the deceased to settle her debts. (Paras 2, 5, 11, 12, and 16)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Necessity for proof beyond reasonable doubt, establishing a clear chain of circumstances - Weak evidentiary links and lack of eyewitness testimony do not undermine the established motive and recovery of the stolen jewels. (Paras 5, 11, 12, and 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant murdered the deceased, a neighbor and creditor, out of financial desperation, and concealed the body after stealing jewelry. The motive stemmed from debts owed to the deceased, whose body was recovered near the appellant's home.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt with strong circumstantial evidence, including motive, last seen, and recovery.
Issues: The main issues addressed include whether the circumstantial evidence sufficiently established the chain connecting the appellant to the crime and whether the trial Court's conviction was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that despite the lack of eyewitnesses, the prosecution established a credible narrative through circumstantial evidence, thus affirming the conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trial and conviction details (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. nature of prosecution evidence (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. establishment of motive and last seen theory (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. recovery of stolen items corroborates evidence (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. affirmation of trial court's judgment (Para 13 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
P.VELMURUGAN , J. ,
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirapalli in S.C.No.332 of 2018 dated 08.11.2021.
2. By the above judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced her, as detailed below:
| Penal Provisions | Sentence of Imprisonment | Fine Amount |
| 302 of IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs.5,000/- i/d to under go six months simple imprisonment |
| 380 of IPC | Three years Rigorous imprisonment | Rs.3000/- i/d to under go three months simple imprisonment |
| 201 of IPC | One year Rigorous imprisonment | Rs.1000/- i/d to under go one month simple imprisonment |
| The sentences shall run concurrently |
3. The case of the prosecution in brief:-
3.1. The accused is the neighbor of the deceased Santhi. The deceased Santhi was carrying on business of retail sale of nighties and sarees in instalments. The accused used to purchase clothes from the deceased and she also obtained a loan from the deceased. The deceased had made a demand for the return of money due from the accused. At the time of murder of Santhi, the accused has to pay more than Rs.12,000/- towards payment of the amount due to the deceased. Further the accused had also obtained financial assistance of Rs.12,000/- from Amuthavalli and Rs.12,500/- from Saroja. The accused was heavily indebted. Therefore she had planned to kill the deceased and take away the jewels belonging to the deceased. The accused went to the house of the deceased at 3.00 p.m. on 26.03.2018 and asked the deceased to come to her house as if she had made an arrangement for the settlement of amount due to the deceased. Believing the words of the accused, the deceased went to the house of the accused at 4.00 p.m.. Initially, the deceased was sitting on the sofa. Subsequently, she sat on the floor. The deceased had once again demanded money from the accused. Having got angry, the accused barged the head of the deceased against the wall and stabbed the head of the deceased with towel at least 5 or 6 times and also strangulated the neck of the deceased with her inner garment and thereby caused the death of the deceased. After the occurrence, the accused took the jewels Thali Gundu, Kasumalai, Nanal Kuzhal , Mattal with ear studs from the body of the deceased and as the ear studs could not be removed from the ears of the deceased, she had pulled the same from the ears of the deceased. The accused had also removed the Golusu by cutting the same with trowel and stolen the "Metti" (toe ring) from the body of the deceased. The accused had concealed all the jewels stolen by her in the fish box which was placed on the slab of her house. Subsequently, the accused had buried the body of the deceased upside down in a hollow situated at the backside of her house. The accused also committed theft of the gold chain of the deceased weighing about 14.08gm and pledged the same at a pawn broker shop namely M/S Ramesh finance for Rs. 29,000/-. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, a First Information Report was registered in Crime No.95 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 302, 380 and 201 of IPC. On the basis of the complaint given by Nathamani, the defacto Complainant , FIR was registered in Cr.No.95/2018 on the file of Tiruverambur PS., under the head "Woman Missing". Subsequently, on the basis of the complaint given by the VAO, Selva Ganesh FIR was registered in Cr.No.97/2018 on the file of Tiruverambur PS., under section 174 of Cr.PC., as suspicious death. The said FIR was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruverambur PS and after registration of the FIR in Cr.No. 97/2018 it was also merged with the case in Cr.No.95/2018 with C
