MOHAMED SAMEER KHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal challenges the judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter, "High Court") dtd. 28/10/2021, whereby the appeal preferred by Mohamed Sameer Khan (hereinafter, "Appellant") against the order of conviction and sentence under Ss. 302, 449, 376 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court for Bomb Blast Case, Coimbatore dtd. 17/11/2017, had been upheld and the appeal dismissed.

(2.) Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has asserted that the case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence specifically connecting the appellant with the offence for which he had been accused. Her further submission is that the Appellant is falsely implicated. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt and has also not probed in the right direction to find out the truth. No scientific evidence has been led connecting the Appellant with the crime, and some important and relevant persons who would have shed light on the incident have neither been associated in the investigation nor produced in the court. On these basic assertions, with reference to the facts of the present case, the challenge is sought to be pressed to the judgments of the courts below by the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent-State has submitted that there are concurrent findings returned by the courts below holding the Appellant guilty of the offences for which he was charged and punishment has been handed out in accordance with law. It has further been submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the case on the basis of circumstantial evidence leaving no unbroken link in string of events which pinned down the Appellant to be the person who had committed the offences. Recovery has been effected from the Appellant of the two (2) gold bangles worn by the deceased which he had taken after murdering her. The said recovery has been proved on the basis of the statement of Raghavan (PW-8) to the effect that the Appellant produced the said bangles from his pocket, which were seized and the mahazar report was prepared. Reference has also been made to the statement of Senthil Kumar (PW-5) to assert that the Appellant was seen coming out of the compound where the deceased was residing. On this basis, he submits that judgments passed by the courts below being based on proper appreciation and assessment of the facts in accordance with law, do not call for any interference and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.