S SELVARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/accused was tried for charges under Secs.302, 201 and 392, I.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tanjore in S.C.No.67 of 1992. THE trial court found the accused guilty under Sec.302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. THE accused was also found guilty under Secs.201 and 392, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 5 years respectively. Being aggrieved by the verdict of the lower court, the accused has preferred the above appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution in its endeavour to bring home the guilt of the accused examined P.Ws.-1 to 15, marked Exs.P-1 to P-19 and produced M.O.s-1 to 16.

(3.) THERE are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and this is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is the settled principle of law that in a case where there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence 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 the circumstances should be such that they should lead to only inescapable and irresistible conclusion that it was the accused who committed the crime and there should not be any circumstance which would be consistent with the innocence of the accused. Or, in other words, in a case of circumstantial evidence, not only should the various links in the chain of evidence be clearly established, but also the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. Keeping the above principles of law in mind, let us proceed to analyse the evidence to find out whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing all the links in the chain of circumstances to prove that the accused committed not only robbery but also in the course of same transaction, committed murder of the deceased.