VELMURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE important and interesting question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is: " Whether in a case based on circumstantial evidence, not proving the motive is fatal to the prosecution, when other circumstances connecting the accused with the commission of crime are substantiated ?"

(2.) THE sole accused in Sessions Case no. 179 of 2006 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, vellore District, appeals against the conviction and sentence imposed on him.

(3.) ORIGINALLY, charges were framed against the appellant/accused along with another by name Durai Murugan for offences under sections 120 (b), 364, 302 and 201 I. P. C. But, before the trial commenced, the other accused Durai Murugan died and hence, the charges levelled against him abated. The appellant, on being tried before the Court of sessions, was convicted as charged, and was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 120 (b)I. P. C. ; five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 364 I. P. C. ; imprisonment for life under Section 302 I. P. C. ; and two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 I. P. C. No fine amount was imposed and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.