The court established that no direct evidence is necessary for conviction if circumstantial evidence clearly establishes motive, connection, and participation in the crime.

JUDGMENT :

P.Velmurugan J.

This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C.No.141 of 2018 dated 08.08.2019 convicting and sentencing the appellant, who was tried as A2, to undergo life imprisonment each for the offence under Sections 120-B and 302 r/w 109 IPC, ordered to run concurrently.

2. Totally two accused were arrayed as A1 & A2 before the trial Court in S.C.No.141 of 2018 and pending trial, since A1 died, the charges framed him stood abated, necessitating the passing of the judgment of conviction and sentence against A2 by the trial Court. For convenience, the accused will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court, in this judgment.

3. The respondent Police filed the charge sheet against the accused stating that the de-facto complainant is the father of the deceased, A1 is a call taxi driver and A2 is the wife of the deceased; that A1 and A2 were having illicit intimacy; that the accused joined together and criminally conspired to commit the murder of Udayabalan to grab his properties, as he was a hindrance to their illicit relationship; that in order to execute the criminal conspiracy, A1 prepared a duplicate key for the outer door of the house of Udayabalan with the help of A2, who told A1 that she was going to her native village for festival along with her children and he can execute the plan when her husband was alone in the house, thereby abetted A1 to commit the murder; that in continuation of the criminal conspiracy, on 04.06.2017 at about 04.30 hours, A1 from his mobile phone 9884993953 called A2 on her mobile phone 9884993952 and went to her house with knife, chilly powder, duplicate key and brandy bottle and hid himself under the cot in the room at the ground floor. Later A2 left to her native village at Thirumalairayanpattinam, Karaikal along with her children at 10.10 night hours; that on 05.06.2017 at 02.30 early hours, A1 went to the room in the first floor and murdered Udayabalan, who was in sound sleep, by inflicting grave cut injuries with a knife on his head, face and hands; that he also took the gold chain weighing 5 sovereign and cash of Rs.30,000/- from the house; that in order to screen the offence, A1 spilled the chilly powder all over the floor; that after completing the crime, he locked the outer door with the duplicate key and fled from the spot, thereby A1 committed the offence punishable under Sections 450, 302 and 380 IPC and A2 committed the offence punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 r/w 149 IPC.

4. The case was taken on file by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in PRC No.81 of 2017. At that point of time, the prosecution filed the death certificate of A1 before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and as such, the case was proceeded against A2 alone. After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai committed the case for trial to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai has taken up the case for trial in S.C.No.141 of 2018 and made over to the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai for disposal of the case in accordance with law.

5. The learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, finding sufficient materials, framed the charges under Sections 120-B & 302 r/w 109 of IPC against A2.

6. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 36 witnesses as PW1 to PW36 and marked 76 d