The prosecution must prove each circumstance in a case of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. The sole accused assails the judgment of the the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Fast Track Court, Srivilliputhur in Virudhunagar District made in S.C.No.119 of 2018 dated 21.02.2023, wherein the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the deceased were married in April 2011 and they were blessed with children. While the accused person was working at Hosur, he sustained serious injuries which resulted in a left femur fracture and as a result, he was not able to continue to go for work. The further case of the prosecution is that he was addicted to alcohol and he was not going to work and hence developed frequent quarrels with the deceased and the relationship was getting strained. On 20.11.2017 at about 3:45 PM, the accused person is said to have got into the kitchen and slammed the door of the kitchen room and tied the neck of the deceased with a towel and strangulated her. Thereafter, the accused person is said to have hit the deceased with the blunt part of a cutting tool used in the kitchen (MO3). The deceased died due to cardio-respiratory arrest.

3. PW1, who is the brother of the deceased, lodged a complaint before PW13 and based on the same, the FIR (Exhibit P12) came to be registered in Crime No.678 of 2017 for offence under Section 302 IPC.

4. PW14, who is the Investigation Officer, took up the investigation and on the same day visited the scene of occurrence at about 20:00 hours and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P5) and the Rough Sketch (Ex.P14) in the presence of witnesses. He also seized MO5 to MO8 under Ex.P16.

5. The accused person was arrested in the course of investigation on 21.11.2017. Based on his confession, MO1 and MO3 were recovered.

6. The dead body was sent to the hospital and the postmortem was conducted by PW10 and the postmortem certificate was marked as Ex.P9. The following injuries were recorded:

“PM Summary: Rigor mortis seen on all four limbs.

External examination: Dried blood seen coming out of both nostril. Reddish black dry lesion located in front of the neck 6 cm below the chin, 8 cm below the left angle of mandible, 7 cm below the right angle of mandible, length is about 23 cm from left to right – breadth 2.5 cm. Margin of the injury is serrated with multiple bleeding points.

Internal examination: Haemorrhage was seen all planes of soft tissue. I am of opinion that from skin, subcutaneous tissue, strap muscle, whole larynx congested. Arytenoid cartilage congested.”

7. A final opinion was given to the effect that the deceased would appear to have died of cardio-respiratory arrest due to mechanical asphyxia because of strangulation.

8. The Investigation Officer, recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and collected all the relevant materials and on completion of investigation, filed the police report before the concerned Court and after serving the copies of the documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the Court below took the case on file in S.C.No.119 of 2018.

9. The trial court framed charges for offence under Section 302 of IPC and the accused person denied the charges.

10. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW14 and marked Exhibits P1 to P20 and also relied upon MO1 to MO8.

11. The incriminating circumstances and evidence was put to the accused person when he was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and he denied the same as false.

12. The accused person did not examine any witne