Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 597 (MAD)

Sannasi alias Muthiah v. State

2000-06-23

N.DHINAKAR, V.BAKTHAVATSALU

body2000
Judgment : N. Dhinakar, J. 1. The appellant, who will be hereinafter referred to as an accused, had been convicted for an offence of murder by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramnad and on being convicted, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Hence, the present appeal. 2. The allegation against the accused is that at 2.30 p.m. on 14.7.89, he caused the death of Samyadurai by beating with, Pestle, M.O.1, on the cheek, chest and other parts of the body. 3. The case of the prosecution is this: The accused and the prosecution witnesses belong to Devakottai, P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is the father-in-law of the deceased, P.Ws.3 and 4 are the neighbours of the deceased. P.W.5 is not only the sister-in-law of P.W.1, but also a neighbour of the deceased. At about 1.00 p.m. on 14.7.89, when the deceased, accused, P.Ws 5 and 6 were playing cards a quarrel ensued between the parties. The accused and the deceased beat each other. P.W.1 went there and separated the parties. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased was also selling illicit distilled arrack in his house. After separating the parties, the deceased went into his house and had his lunch. Shortly thereafter, P.W.1 left for her father’s house, where she had left her child. P.W.2 after the arrival P.W.1, left his house to take bath and on the way, P.W.2 entered the house of the deceased and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. He raised alarm bringing. P.Ws 3, 4, 5 and others to the spot. He also went and informed P.W.1 and brought her to the place. P.W.1 on seeing the dead body of her husband lying in a pool of blood and a pestle, M.O.1, lying nearby cried. Thereafter, she went to Devakottai Police station where she gave a complaint under Ex-P-1 to P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police at 5.00 p.m. On the basis of Ex.P-1, P.W.12 the Sub-Inspector registered the case in Crime No. 326 of 1989 under Section 302 IPC and prepared express reports. Ex.P-15 is the printed copy of the First Information Report. Investigation was taken by P.W.13, the Circle Inspector of Police. P.W.13 after taking up investigation reached the scene of occurrence at 7.00 p.m. and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P- 2 in the presence of P.W.7. Ex.P-15 is the printed copy of the First Information Report. Investigation was taken by P.W.13, the Circle Inspector of Police. P.W.13 after taking up investigation reached the scene of occurrence at 7.00 p.m. and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P- 2 in the presence of P.W.7. He also drew a rough sketch Ex.P-2 in the presence of P.W.7. He also drew a rough sketch Ex.P-16 and conducted inquest between 8.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. Over the dead body of Samyadurai during which time he questioned and recorded the statements of P.Ws 1,2,3,4 and 6. Ex.P-17 is the inquest report. He seized M.O.1, blood stained pestle, and other blood stained articles lying near the scene under a mahazar E.P. 3. The dead body was sent with a requisition for post mortem through P.W.9. 4. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.8, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Devakottai conducted autopsy and found the following external injuries: External: (1) A contusion below a right eye 1" x V in size (2) An abrasion 1 1/2. " x 1/4" skin deep on the right upper abdomen. (3) A diffuse contusion over the temporal region of scalp right side” He issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P.5 and his final opinion under Ex.P-6 opining that the death is on account of shock and head injury. 5. P.W.13 continued his investigation and searched for the accused. But, he could not be traced. On 16.7.89, at about 7.30 p.m. the accused appeared before P.W.10, the Revenue Inspector and confessed that he committed the crime. The statement given by the accused was reduced into writing by P.W.10, which stands marked as Ex.P.7 in the case, P.W.10 thereafter took the accused and produced him before P.W.13. P.W.13 arrested the accused. A cycle was also seized on the basis of the statement given by the accused. The blood stained shirt and lungi, M.Os 11 and 12, were seized under a mahazar Ex.P-9 attested by P.W.10. The material objects were sent to the Court with a request to forward them for analysis. Exs.P-13 and P-14 are the reports of the Chemical Analyst and Serologist, according to which all the material objects contained human ‘A’ group blood. P.W.13 questioned other witnesses and recorded their statements on various dates and after completing the investigation, he filed final report against the acc used on 30.4.90. 6. Exs.P-13 and P-14 are the reports of the Chemical Analyst and Serologist, according to which all the material objects contained human ‘A’ group blood. P.W.13 questioned other witnesses and recorded their statements on various dates and after completing the investigation, he filed final report against the acc used on 30.4.90. 6. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied his complicity. 7. Before the trial Court, the prosecution tried to prove its case through circumstantial evidence, since admittedly the occurrence was not witnessed by anyone. It is a settled law, that where the prosecution in relies upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution should prove all the links in the chain of circumstances and that even if one link is found missing, the prosecution case has to be rejected. (vide C.K. Raveendran v. State of Kerala, 2000 (1) SCC 225 . 8. In Deonandan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1955 SC 801 , the Supreme Court has held that where there is no eye-witness to the murder and the case against the accused depends entirely on circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof required to convict the accused on such evidence is that the circumstances relied upon must be fully established and the chain of evidence furnished by these circumstances should be so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and in a case of circumstantial evidence not only should the various links in the chain or evidence be clearly established, but the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. The said view had been reiterated by the Apex Court in the later decisions. Keeping the above principles of law in mind, we will now analyse the evidence on record to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving all the links in the chain of circumstance. 9. It is of course true and it is also not disputed by the defence that Samayadurai died on account of violence, since the said fact has been proved through the evidence of post-mortem doctor, P.W.8, who conducted autopsy and the certificate and final opinion given by him. 9. It is of course true and it is also not disputed by the defence that Samayadurai died on account of violence, since the said fact has been proved through the evidence of post-mortem doctor, P.W.8, who conducted autopsy and the certificate and final opinion given by him. Though the prosecution, before the trial Court, attempted to prove that the accused caused the death of Samayadurai by beating him with a pestle, M.O.1, we may, even, at the outset say that the circumstances relied on by the prosecution are not sufficient to prove the case against the accused. 10. The first circumstance is of course the motive, which according to the prosecution, the accused had against the deceased. According to P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6, the accused, deceased, P.W.5 and some others played cards behind the house of the deceased and quarrel ensued between the parties and at that time, they further state that, both the deceased and accused beat each other and they had to be separated by the witnesses. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that after the incident, she took her husband to the house, gave him food and left the house to fetch her child, who was left in the house of P.W.2, her father, P.W.2 in his evidence has deposed that after the arrival of P.W.1, he left his house to take bath and returned. According to him, while returning, he went to the house of the deceased only to find the deceased lying a pool of blood. He has, further, deposed that he raised alarm bringing the neighbours P.Ws 3, 4, and 5. P.W.4 of course turned hostile. P.W.3 in his evidence claims that on seeing the body of the deceased P.W.2 raised alarm. He went to the spot and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. P.W.3 also told him that the accused entered the house of the deceased and thereafter, left in a cycle. 11. Learned counsel for the accused contends that though P.W.3 in his chief has stated that the accused alone entered the house, after P.W.1 left the house of the deceased, he did not say so when he was examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation. 11. Learned counsel for the accused contends that though P.W.3 in his chief has stated that the accused alone entered the house, after P.W.1 left the house of the deceased, he did not say so when he was examined by the Investigating Officer during investigation. A perusal of the evidence of P.Ws 3 and 13 would show that the present version given by P.W.3 that he saw the accused and accused alone entering the house of the deceased was not given by him when he was examined by the police officer. Further, P.W.3 in his evidence has admitted that the place where the deceased was lying in a place where many used to frequent for taking attack. He has also admitted in the cross examination that after P.W.1 left the house and before he saw the accused, he did not know whether anyone entered the house. In the light of the above inconclusive evidence that after P.W.1 left the house, the accused and accused alone went to the house of the deceased, we are unable to hold that the accused caused the death of the deceased; more so, when P.W.3 himself has admitted that it is a place where many used to frequent for taking illicit arrack distilled by the deceased. 12. It is also relevant at this juncture for us to refer to Ex. P-7, the extra judicial confession, alleged to have been given by the accused to P.W.10, the Revenue Inspector at about 7.30 p.m. on 16.7.89. We may straight away say that the evidence of P.W.10 and Ex.P-7 are to be rejected in the light of the evidence of P.W.1 who has stated that on 15.7.89, the police party took the accused to the police station and was detained there. If the evidence of P.W.1 is to be accepted that he saw the accused even o n 15.7.89, then the present version of the prosecution that the accused was arrested on 16.7.89 on being produced by P.W.10 to whom he had confessed (Ex.P-7) has to be rejected. We reject not only the evidence of P.W.10, but also Ex.P-7, the extra judicial confession which in law is also a weak piece of evidence. We reject not only the evidence of P.W.10, but also Ex.P-7, the extra judicial confession which in law is also a weak piece of evidence. Once we reject the evidence of P.W.10 and the arrest as claimed by the prosecution, then the fact that M.Os 11 and 12, shirt and lungi, contained human blood ‘A’ group has no significance in connecting the accused with the crime, since the arrest and recovery are to be disbelieved in the light of the evidence of P.W.1. We are of the view that the prosecution did not establish all the links in the chain of circumstance, since it has failed to prove each of the circumstances having a definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused are set aside. It is reported that the accused is on bail and hence, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.