Conviction based on circumstantial evidence requires a clear and complete chain of proof establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not merely conjecture.

JUDGMENT :

Sunder Mohan, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the judgment dated 03.10.2019 in S.C.No.134 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, whereby he was convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2(i) The gist of the prosecution case is that the appellant and the deceased were known to each other; that the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the deceased; that the deceased had been demanding repayment of the said loan from the appellant frequently and enraged, the appellant decided to do away with the deceased; that on 11.12.2010, the appellant had called the deceased and promised to repay the amount; that the deceased and the appellant went in a two-wheeler to Pallavaram; and that at about 8.30 p.m., the appellant had asked the deceased to stop the vehicle and thereafter, he stabbed the deceased with a knife in the neck and caused the death of the deceased.

(ii) PW6, a passer-by, found the deceased first at the scene of occurrence on 11.12.2010 and when he enquired with the deceased, the deceased had signalled that somebody had attacked him. PW16, a Constable who was on patrol duty, came to the occurrence place, met PW6, called the ambulance and informed PW21, the Investigation officer, about the occurrence. PW6 also had called PW4, the wife of the deceased, from the mobile phone of the deceased and informed her about the occurrence.

(iii) On coming to know of the occurrence, PW1, the father of the deceased, had lodged a complaint [Ex.P1] stating that his son was done to death by some unknown persons. On the said complaint, PW21 had registered the FIR [Ex.P10] in Cr.No.1010 of 2010 for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC . PW21 took up the investigation, went to the scene of the occurrence on 11.12.2010 at about 10.30 p.m., and prepared the rough sketch [Ex.P11] and also the observation mahazar [Ex.P2]. He seized the bloodstained shirt, bloodstained earth, the earth that was not bloodstained and the two-wheeler, i.e., Kinetic Honda bearing Regn.No.TN01 P 2705, from the scene of occurrence and produced the same before the learned Magistrate under Form-95.

(iv) Thereafter, on 12.12.2010 between 8.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. PW21 conducted an inquest in the presence of the panchayathars and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P12]. He examined PW3, PW8, PW9, PW13 and other witnesses. On 14.12.2010 at about 7.00 a.m., he arrested the accused in the presence of witness-PW14 and one Amaladoss. He recorded the confession of the accused and pursuant to the confession, seized a bloodstained black-coloured bag [M.O.6] in which 'LIVIYA' was written, a bloodstained knife [M.O.7] measuring 19cm in length, PAN card of the deceased [M.O.9] issued by the Income Tax Department, a keychain with two keys [M.O.8] in which it was written as (Idayavasal Sarathi)' and 36 visiting cards [M.O.10] of 'AARATHY Charitable Trust', besides advertisement notices/pamphlets [Ex.P11] in the name of(Idayavasal Old Age Home)'.

(v) After sending the dead body for postmortem and obtaining the postmortem report [Ex.P4] and obtaining the reports [Ex.P7 & Ex.P9] of the Scientific Officers, PW21 filed the final report against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of