In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, it is imperative that the prosecution establishes a clear chain of circumstances that unambiguously points to the guilt of the accused, without alternative hypotheses.

COMMON JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN,J.)

The Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment dated13.02.2021 in SC No.17 of 2018 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Trichy, in and by which, the appellants were convicted and sentenced for the offences as tabulated below:

Sl.No. Offences u/s. IPC Rank of the Accused Period of sentence1 449 A1 & A2 To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months

2 342 A1 & A2 To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month

3 302 r/w 34 A1 & A2 To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:

The deceased in this case was one Kalaiselvi. She was a resident of Vadukarpettai and was working as a staff nurse in Primary Health Centre, Vadukarpettai. Both the accused are residing in Semmanpalayam at Vadugarpettai. The accused used to unload the medicine boxes, which were delivered to the primary health centre. As such, the accused were known to the deceased. It is alleged that both the accused used to speak to the deceased in double meaning. When the act of the accused was brought to the knowledge of their parents by the deceased, the accused got angry and with an intention to kill the deceased, on 24.08.2017, both the accused went to the house of the deceased. On the pretext that a snake had gone inside the house of the deceased, the accused called the deceased and hence, the deceased opened her house, where the accused had trespassed into the house of the deceased with an intention to cause death. Subsequently, the accused by using unparliamentary words removed the saree of the deceased and by using a towel, first accused throttled the neck of the deceased, while the 2^nd accused was said to have attacked the deceased on her head with stick. Due to the said attack, blood oozed out from the nose of the deceased. Subsequently, the accused was said to have tied the legs and hands of the deceased using the saree and dragged her to the bathroom, where the accused, by pressing the head of the deceased, forced her to inhale the bleaching powder, which was sprinkled by them in the wash basin. The deceased fell unconscious. On the impression that the deceased died, the accused had left her by locking the bathroom from outside and escaped from the said place. Since the deceased was not taking the phone calls for two days, the father of the deceased, P.W.2, sent his grandson (P.W.1) to see the deceased. On his direction, P.W.1 had gone to the house of the deceased on 26.08.2017, where he found that inside the locked bathroom, the deceased was in an unconscious state. On seeing her, with the help of two passer-by, the deceased was taken to hospital. In the hospital, the deceased was conscious and she informed the doctor (P.W.19) that two known persons strangulated her by using towel and made her to inhale the bleaching powder by pressing her head and tied her hands and legs using saree.

2.1. On 27.08.2017, on the intimation from the hospital and the complaint (Ex.P10) given by the injured/deceased, P.W.17, the then Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.295/2017 under Sections 294(b), 323, 342, 307 IPC and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act under Ex.P.11 - FIR. The deceased died on 29.08.2017.

2.2. P.W.18 took up the case for investigation. He went to the place