NAGARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NAGARAJ, the appellant was convicted by the trial Court (Principal Sessions Court, Salem) for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE short facts leading to the conviction are as follows:- (a) Deceased Shanmugam was doing javuli business. Accused was associated with him as Commission Agent. On 24. 07. 2000, the deceased shanmugam and accused went to Mari Chetty, Burgur (P. W. 3) and sought for some loan. When he expressed his inability, the accused and deceased left the place stating that they are going to Bangalore . On the same day, they went to P. W. 4 Rajammal, mother of the deceased and the deceased informed his mother that they are going to Salem . (b) On 25. 07. 2000, they met P. W. 2 Senthil, a relation of the deceased at the javuli shop of Veeravel, where P. W. 2 was employed. Veeravel did not purchase clothes from Shanmugam. On 25. 07. 2000 at 9. 30 a m deceased Shanmugam and accused went to Sampathkumar lodge and got room No. 115. After occupying the room, they left out and returned in about 10 minutes. At 11. 00 a m P. W. 1 saw the accused alone going out of the room locking the same. THEreafter, p. W. 1 when enquired, the accused did not hand over the key and left the place. That room was continued to remain locked. (c) On 27. 07. 2000, foul smell emanated from that room. Because the room was locked, nothing could be found. On 28. 07. 2000, P. W. 1, room boy informed the Manager and with the help of master key, the Manager opened the room and found the deceased with the head injuries in the bath room. THE manager of the lodge gave Ex. P-14 written complaint to P. W. 10, Inspector of police, Salem Town at 12. 00 Noon on 28. 07. 2000. THEreupon, a case under section 302 IPC was registered in Crime No. 489 of 2000 at Salem Town Police Station. Ex. P-16 is the printed first information report prepared by P. W. 10 Inspector of Police. (d) P. W. 10 Inspector of Police taken up investigation and inspected the scene of occurrence, prepared Ex. P-2 observation mahalar and ex. P-17 rough sketch of the scene of occurrence. P. W. 4 Rajammal, mother of the deceased identified the deceased. (e) P. W. 10, Inspector recovered M. O. 1 blood stained cement plaster piece and M. O. 2 sample cement plaster piece under Ex. P-3 mahazar. He examined the panchayatdars and held inquest over the body of the deceased. Ex. P-18 is the inquest report. THEreafter, he handed over the body to p. W. 8 Head Constable along with Ex. P-5-requisition for post mortem examination. (f) On receipt of the requisition, P. W. 7 Doctor vallinayagam conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following four injuries. (i) lacerated injury over left parietal region; (ii) lacerated injury over left temporal region; (iii) contusion over the occipital region; and (iv) fissured fracture over left parietal bone extending on to left temporal bone. He opined that the deceased died due to head injuries. Ex. P-6 is the post mortem certificate. P. W. 8 Head Constable recovered blood stained clothes of the deceased M. Os. 3 and 4 under Ex. P-7 Form 95. Ex. P-10 is the Chemical analysis report and Ex. P-11 is the serology report and they would show that blood group of deceased Shanmugam is that of � b� blood group, which was detected in M. O. 3. Human blood group was detected in the cement plaster pieces recovered. (g) THE accused surrendered on 29. 11. 2001 before Judicial magistrate, Palacode. THE police took custody of the accused on 11. 12. 2001 and on interrogation, he gave a confession statement, which was recorded in the presence of P. W. 6, Village Administrative Officer and one Basheer. THE admissible portion of which is Exp-4. On 12. 12. 2001, during examination, P. W. 1 identified the accused. After enquiry, the accused was sent to judicial custody. (h) After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. (i) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to 11 were examined; Exs. P-1 to P-18 were filed and M. Os. 1 to 4 were marked. (j) When questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the accused denied his complicity in the crime in question. He filed a written statement and according to him, he was threatened by the police in October, 2001 to come to Salem Town Police Station. THErefore, he surrendered before the said Court and denied having given any confession statement. On the side of defence, Exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked and no witness was examined. (k) THE trial Court, on analysis of the materials available on record, by accepting the case of the prosecution, concluded that the accused was guilty of the offence under section 302 IPC, and convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) NOW, we will see as to how the guilt was otherwise proved. As mentioned supra, it is a case based only upon circumstantial evidence. Catena of cases are there indicating that in a case of circumstantial evidence, there must be a chain of evidence so complete as to leave the reasonable ground and they must show in all human probability that the act must have been done by the accused and none but the accused. In the absence of direct evidence, where the guilt of the accused had to be established by circumstantial evidence only, the circumstances should be of definite tendency pointing towards the guilt of the accused and in their totality must unerringly lead to the conclusion that the offence was committed by the accused and none else. (Mahmood vs. State of U. P. , (AIR 1976 SC 69), Kansa Behera vs. State of orissa (1987 L. W. Crl. 460 (SC), State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Sanjay Rai (2004 crl. L. J. , 2006), Chandran vs. State of Kerala (1991 SCC (Crl.) 245 and Suresh vs. State ( (2004) MLJ (Crl.) 1046 ).