Madras High Court
Sasi vs State Through on 21 October, 2021
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :21.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
Sasi ... Appellant /sole accused
-vs-
State through
the Inspector of Police,
Eraniyal Police Station,
Kanyakumari District
(in Crime No.450 of 2013) ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to call for
the records in S.C.No.128 of 2014, on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court,
Nagercoil, dated 12.05.2015 and set aside the conviction and sentence
imposed against the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.BHARATHIDASAN,J.)
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.128 of 2014, on the file of
the Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagercoil and he stood charged and tried for the
offence under Section 302 I.P.C.
2. The trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 12.05.2015, has
convicted the appellant herein for the above said offence and imposed the
sentence, thus:
Accused Conviction Sentence
To undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine
Sole U/s. 302 of
of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo two years
Accused I.P.C.
rigorous imprisonment.
Now, challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant
is before this Court.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased in this case one Jothi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
is the wife of the appellant/accused, their marriage took place 14 years prior
to the occurrence and out of wedlock, three children were born to them.
Thereafter, there was a dispute between the husband and wife and the
deceased was staying at her mother's house in Sungankadai along with the
children and all the three children were admitted in a hostel run by P.W.15. On
13.07.2013, both the deceased and P.W.2, the mother of the deceased, met the
children in the hostel and returned to Sungankadai. Thereafter, P.W.2 went to
see her granddaughter at Kalungadi and asked the deceased to go home. After
returning home, P.W.2 found the deceased missing. On the next day, both the
accused and his parent came to the house of P.W.2, demanding for a divorce
from the deceased. After knowing that the deceased was found missing, they
went in search of the deceased and after three days i.e., on 16.07.2013, they
got an information that a body was found floating in a tank near Nedungulam
and identified the body as that of the deceased. Immediately, P.W.1, the
brother of the deceased filed a complaint before P.W.20, Marimuthu, Sub
Inspector of Police in the respondent police station. Based on the complaint,
the F.I.R. has been registered in Crime No.450 of 2013, under Section 174(3)
of Cr.P.C., and send the F.I.R. to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court and
copies of the same to the higher officials.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
4. P.W.21, Inspector of Police, in the respondent police station after
receipt of the F.I.R., has commenced the investigation, visited the scene of
occurrence at about 9.00 a.m., and prepared the Observation Mahazar and
Rough Sketch, Ex.P11 and recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent
the body for postmortem to the Government Medical College Hospital,
Asaripallam. Then, he conducted inquest in the hospital from 11.15 a.m., to
13.15 a.m., and prepared the Inquest Report, Ex.P12. The investigation
revealed that the accused only attacked the deceased and caused her death.
Therefore, the investigating officer filed an alteration report, Ex.P13, on
19.07.2013. On the very same day, he arrested the accused. On such arrest,
the appellant/accused voluntarily given a confession, based on the admissible
portion of the confession, P.W.21 recovered the blade, M.O.1. Thereafter, he
forwarded the accused to the jurisdictional Magistrate Court for judicial
remand.
5. In the mean time, P.W.16, a Doctor working in the Government
Hospital, Asaripallam conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead body of the
deceased and given a Postmortem Report, Ex.P7 and he found the following
injuries:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
“Median gaping out injury seen over the perineum
extending from the vagina, anus up to the gluteal region
measuring 11 x 4 x 5 cm loops of intestine found protruding
through this gap.”
and he was also opined that the deceased would appear to have died of
drowning.
6. P.W.21, Inspector of Police, continued the investigation and recorded
the statement of the other witnesses and after completion of investigation,
filed a final report.
7. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges
against the accused as mentioned above. However, the appellant/accused has
denied the same. The prosecution in order to sustain their case, examined 21
witnesses, marked 14 documents and also produced 2 material objects.
8. Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased.
He spoke about the dispute between the husband and wife. According to him,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
prior to the occurrence, the deceased left the matrimonial home and staying
with his mother, P.W.2. She was found missing from 13.07.2013 and after
identifying the body, on 16.07.2013, he has given a complaint before the
respondent police.
9. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased and according to her, on
13.07.2013, both the deceased and P.W.2 visited the children of the deceased
in the hostel and at about 7.00 p.m. P.W.2 gone to see her granddaughter at
Kalungadi and returned back to Sungankadai but, the deceased did not return
home. On the next day, both the accused and his parents came to P.W.2's house
and stayed for 2 - 3 days, searched for deceased and found the dead body on
16.07.2013.
10. P.W.3 is the brother– in–law of the deceased and his evidence has no
substance.
11. P.W.4 is the niece of the deceased. He spoke about the dispute
between the deceased and the accused and according to him, on 13.07.2013, at
about 8.30 p.m., both the deceased and P.W.2 returned back to Sungankadai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
and the deceased left the place after having told her mother/P.W.2 that she
would meet her employer to get her salary and return. Thereafter, she was
found missing.
12. P.W.5 is the employer of the deceased. According to him, the
deceased was working under him. P.W.6, who is running a Tea Shop near the
house of accused, turned hostile. P.Ws.7, 8 and 9 also turned hostile.
13. P.W.10 is the neighbour of the accused. According to him, on
13.07.2013, at about 11.30 p.m., there was a quarrel between the deceased and
the accused in the accused house and after three days, the deceased died and
the body was found in the lake.
14. P.Ws.11 and 12 are the witnesses to the arrest of the accused,
confession and recovery of M.O.1. P.W.13 is the Milk Vendor. He spoke
about the quarrel between the deceased and the accused. P.W.14 is the witness
to the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P6. P.W.15 is running a hostel, where the
deceased children were boarding. P.W.16, the Doctor, who conducted the
postmortem autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and given a
Postmortem Report, Ex.P7.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
15. P.W.17 is the Scientific Officer, working in Forensic Lab,
Tirunelveli, he examined the material objects and given a report, Ex.P9. P.W.
18 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who identified the body for postmortem.
P.W.19 is a photographer, who took photographs at the scene of occurrence.
16. P.W.20 is the Sub Inspector of Police and he registered the F.I.R.
and sent the same to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court. P.W.21 is the
Inspector of Police, who continued the investigation and filed the final report
after the investigation was over.
17. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the same as false and he has not
examined any witnesses and not marked any documents.
18. Considering the above materials, the trial Court convicted the
accused and sentenced him as stated above. Challenging the same, the present
appeal has been filed.
19. Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
contend that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and absolutely there is
no circumstances available to point out the guilt of the accused. Admittedly,
both the deceased and the accused were separated for more than two years
prior to the occurrence and the deceased was residing along with her mother,
P.W.2. The occurrence has taken place near the place of the deceased and it is
far away from the accused's residence. There is no evidence available on
record to show that the accused was seen with the deceased before the
occurrence. P.W.10 is the only witness said to have seen the deceased and the
accused together and P.W.10 is the neighbour of the deceased. According to
him, on 13.07.2013, both the deceased and the accused available in the house
of the accused and there was a quarrel between them at about 11.30 p.m., but
it is contrary to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, brother and mother of the
deceased. They said all along the deceased was residing in P.W.2's house and
there is no occasion for her to go to the matrimonial house. Hence, the
evidence of P.W.10 is not believable. That apart, absolutely there is no other
circumstances available in this case. But the trial Court, without considering
the same, convicted the appellant/accused.
20. Per contra, Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar, learned Additional Public
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
Prosecutor appearing for the State would contend that P.W.10, who is the
neighbour of the deceased, seen both the deceased and the accused together
prior to the occurrence and being the husband of the deceased, under Section
106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, burden is on him to prove the said
circumstances as to how this occurrence has taken place and absolutely, there
is no explanation from the accused. That apart, so far as the motive for the
occurrence, P.W.1 clearly stated that the accused harassing the deceased to
give divorce to him. After the arrest of the accused, based on his confession, a
blade used by the accused for the commission of offence was recovered.
Considering those circumstances, the trial Court has rightly convicted the
appellant/accused and the accused has committed the murder and there is no
reason to interfere with the judgement of the trial Court.
21. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the materials
available on record carefully.
22. It is the case of circumstantial evidence. Prosecution mainly rely
upon the evidence of P.W.10, who is the neighbour of the deceased, and said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
to have seen the deceased and accused together in the accused house prior to
the occurrence. The accused was residing at Palavilai Village. Admittedly,
both the accused and the deceased separated two years prior to the occurrence
and the deceased was residing along with her mother, P.W.2 at Sungankadai
Village. It is far away from the accused house. The testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2
and 4, who are the brother, mother and niece of the deceased, would clearly
show that, for two years, prior to the occurrence, the deceased was residing in
Sungankadai Village along with P.W.2. On the date of occurrence, both the
deceased and P.W.2 visited her children in the hostel and came back to
Sungankadai Village at about 7.00 p.m. Thereafter, she was found missing. It
is contrary to the evidence of P.W.10. That apart, there is no evidence
available on record to show that the deceased gone to the accused house prior
to the occurrence. In those circumstances, the evidence of P.W.10 cannot be
believed. As per the evidence of P.W.2, both the accused and his parents came
to the house of P.W.2, on the next day ie., on 14.07.2013 and stayed with her
for three days and they also went in search of the deceased, finally, the body
was found on 16.07.2013 floating in a tank. As per the postmortem report, the
deceased appears to have died of drowning. Even though some injuries found
on the private part of the deceased, there is no material available on record to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
show that those injuries were inflicted by the accused. Apart from that, there is
no strong circumstances available against the accused to connect with the
murder.
23. It is settled position of law that in a case based on the circumstantial
evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusive guilt is to be drawn
should be fully established and the facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and it should exclude
every possible hypothesis except one to be proved. The chain of evidence
must be so complete and there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should
be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of
the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.
24. In Hanumant v. State of M.P. [A.I.R. 1952 SC 343], the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as follows:
“10. ... It is well to remember that in cases, where the
evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from
which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
instance be fully established, and all the facts so established
should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude
every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other
words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent
with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to
show that within all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused. ...”
25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State
of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] held as follows:
“153.(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established;
(2) The facts so established should be consistent with
the hypothesis of guilt and the accused, that is to say, they
should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty;
(3) The circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency;
(4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved; and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
(5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probability the act must have been done
by the accused.”
26. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra, [(2006) 10
SCC 681], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the
occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on
circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based
on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from
which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be
cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances
should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards
the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken
cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no
escape from the conclusion that within all human probability
the crime was committed by the accused and they should be
incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of
the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.”
27. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court may infer from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
available evidence, which may lead to prove the guilt of the accused and the
Courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within
the parameters of a “Chain of Circumstances” and then find out the fact of the
case and to see that there is a chain of events, which unerringly proving the
guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh v. State of Haryana [(2018)
18 SCC 654], held as follows:
“42.Circumstantial evidence are those facts,
which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast
between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases
of circumstantial evidence, the Courts are called upon to make
inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the
accused’s guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is
usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the
point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately
based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore,
the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit
the case within the parameters of ‘chain link theory’ and then
see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt.
In India we have for a long time followed the ‘chain
link theory’ since Hanumant v. State of M.P. [AIR 1952 SC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
343], which of course needs to be followed herein also.”
29. Following those principles, we are of the considered view that, the
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not have definite tendency
unerringly point out the guilt of the accused and the appellant/Accused cannot
be convicted based on the solitary circumstance, a doubtful evidence of P.W.
10 and the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused. In
these circumstances, the accused is only entitled for acquittal.
30. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellant/Accused, by the Fast Track Mahila Court,
Nagercoil in S.C.No.128 of 2014, dated 12.05.2015, is hereby set aside. The
appellant/Accused is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. Fine
amount if any paid by the appellant/Accused shall be refunded to him. Bail
bond executed by him also shall stand cancelled.
[V.B.D.,J.] [S.A.I.,J.]
21.10.2021
akv
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web
copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring
that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be
the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.
To
1.The Fast Track Mahila Court,
Nagercoil.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Eraniyal Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Copy to
The Section Officer,
Criminal Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
V.BHARATHIDASAN,J.
and
S.ANANTHI,J.
akv/
JUDGMENT MADE IN
Crl.A.(MD).No.475 of 2018
21.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
