MUTHUSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/first accused faced trial on the charge that he murdered a boy aged about 4 1/2 year after kidnapping him with the help of the second accused. PW-1 is the wife of PW-2 and the deceased boy is their son. PW-3 is the younger sister of PW-2. THE second accused is the mother of PWs-2 and 3. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant herein/first accused was in illicit intimacy with the second accused and she intended to give her daughter/PW-3 in marriage to A-1, for which, PW-2 objected and her marriage was performed with some other person in the village. Even thereafter, A-1 was attempting to separate PW-3 from her husband and in that regard, there was a panchayat in the village at the instance of PW-2. THE first accused was reprimanded in the panchayat and on account of that, he nurtured grudge against PW-2. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 19.11.2004, A-2 kidnapped the deceased boy and handed over him to the appellant, who took away the boy to Palani Temple and tonsured him. After purchasing rope, knife and cloths there, he took the deceased to Mugambigai Amman Temple near Arulsakthipuram, tied his hands and leg and cut the neck with knife, resulting in his death. Finding that their son was found missing, after searching for two days, PWs-1 and 2 lodged a complaint with the police on 22.11.2004. Subsequent to the arrest of the appellant, the police party and witnesses were taken by him to the place where he committed the murder of the boy and the deceased was identified by PW-2 as his son. Thus, the first accused was charged for offences punishable under Sections 364 and 302 IPC. while the second accused under Sections 364 read with 109 IPC and 302 read with 109 IPC. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 24, marked Exs.P1 to P22 and produced MOs-1 to 6. THE learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur, on conclusion of the trial against the accused in S.C. No.97 of 2006, by judgment dated 19.07.2007, finding the appellant herein guilty of the aforesaid charges, sentenced him to undergo 7 years R.I. and imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- with default sentences. THE second accused was found not guilty and accordingly, she was acquitted of the charges. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence, the 1st accused has preferred the above appeal. THE State did not prefer any appeal as against the acquittal order in favour of A-2.

(2.) THE prosecution case, as unfurled by its witnesses, is narrated in brief here-under:-

(3.) WE have carefully perused the entire materials available before us and considered the rival submissions advanced on either side. There is no doubt, as could be seen from the medical evidence, that this is a case of homicidal violence. Now, the issue to be determined is as to whether the trial court is justified in passing the order of conviction and sentence as against the first accused/appellant herein. There are no eye witnesses to the occurrence and this is a case of circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, before the Court can record conviction, it must satisfy itself that circumstances from which an inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution and that all the circumstances put together are not only of a conclusive nature but also complete the chain so fully as to unerringly point only towards the guilt of the accused and are not capable of any explanation which is not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It is on the basis of these principles that we shall examine the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution in this case.