The reliability of eyewitnesses and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence are critical in confirming a murder conviction under IPC.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by the Hon'ble G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.

This appeal is directed as against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in SC No.83 of 2019, dated 14/09/2021 by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai, thereby convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Sathya had illegal intimacy with the accused. Therefore, her mother warned her not to have the relationship with the accused. So, the deceased stopped her relationship with the accused. Due to which, the accused got enraged with the deceased. While being so, on 09/05/2019 at around 02.00 p.m, the deceased was in the agricultural field and while cutting the grass for her cattle, the accused went there and questioned her why stopped having relationship with him. He had also compelled her to continue her relationship with him. When she refused to do so, the accused scolded her with filthy language and with an intention to do away her life, he assaulted her by aruval on her right side neck. When the deceased fearing danger of her life started running, once again, the accused caused heavy cut on her left side cheek and while the deceased prevented herself using her hands, the accused also cut her left wrist, right shoulder, right hand and caused grievous blood injuries to the deceased. Though, she was admitted in the Government Hospital, Trichy, but however, she succumbed to the injuries on 10/05/2019 at 01.30 a.m.

3.On the complaint, the respondent Police registered the FIR in Crime No.124 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC. After completion of the investigation, filed a final report under Sections 294(b), 307 IPC @ 302 IPC and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in SC No.83 of 2019.

4.Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined 8 witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and marked 19 documents Exs.P1 to P19, besides produced materials objects MO1 to MO8. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked.

5.On consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary the Trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo one year SI. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant raised the grounds that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and after registration of the FIR, there was also a delay in sending the same to the concerned Jurisdictional Court. Further, in the Forensic Lab report, the bloodstained clothes which were recovered from the accused were not matched with the bloodstained of the accused. As per the report, there is a self inconclusive. The appellant is not a married man and had intimacy with the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased refused to have talked and due to it, the occurrence had taken place. Further, except PW1, no other eye witnesses were corroborated the evidence of PW1. There are complete contradictions between the evidence of PW1 and the statement recorded from the deceased. After recording the statement from the deceased, FIR has been registered and at that time, she was very much conscious and made statement. But the Doctor, who had examined the deceased deposed that the deceased was not in conscious. It is completely contradictory to the evidence of PW1 and the complaint, which was marked as Ex.P1. So, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt as against the accused. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the T