Circumstantial evidence must establish a clear chain of events linking the accused to the crime; failure to prove motive or support claims undermines conviction.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. Challenging the conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur dated 23.05.2024 in S.C. No.76 of 2018, the present criminal appeal has been filed by the accused.

2. The trial Court has convicted the accused as follows:

3. The accused and the deceased are husband and wife. The complainant is the mother of the deceased. Three years prior to the occurrence, the accused and the deceased fell in love with each other and got married. After a period of six months from the date of marriage they settled at Ernakulam, State of Kerala. Whenever the deceased and accused visit Srivilliputhur, they used to stay at Madha nagar in their own house. While being so, the accused had illegal intimacy with another woman and as such they had misunderstanding and wordy quarrel with each other. Hence on 03.09.2017 at about 12.00 p.m.  the accused and the deceased came to Srivilliputhur and stayed in their house at Madha Nagar. The next day, on 04.09.2017, at about 10.00 a.m.  the accused and the deceased went to the house of the complainant. The deceased informed about the illegal intimacy of the accused to the complainant and thereafter the accused went to his house along with the deceased. On the same day evening the deceased again came to the house of the defacto complainant and informed about the illegal intimacy of the accused with another lady and that he wants to get divorce from her. Thereafter the deceased did not visit the house of the defacto complainant.

4. Further on 05.09.2017, the accused had called his brother-in-law and told him that he had assaulted the deceased. In turn the brother-in-law of the accused called one Muthuram and through him the complainant was informed about the incident. Immediately the defacto complainant rushed to the house of the deceased at Madha Nagar and she found that the house was under lock and key. Once again on 06.09.2017 she visited the house of the deceased but the house was still locked. The complainant found these circumstances fishy and went to the house of the deceased along with others and they had seen the deceased through window where she was found lying on the cot without any movement. It was informed to the police and with the help of carpenter the door was broke open and thereafter they entered into the house . Later they found that the deceased was murdered by the accused by strangulating her neck with a thread. Due to the same she had vomitted blood and had eventually died.

5. On the complaint lodged by the defacto complainantm the respondent police registered First Information Report in Crime No.565 of 2017 for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

6. After completion of the investigation, the respondent police laid the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Srivilliputhur and the same was taken on file as P.R.C. No.12 of 2017.

7. On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. was complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was taken on file in S.C.No. 76 of 2018 and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur for trial under Section 209(A) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

8. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.17, and 18 exhibits were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and six material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.