High Court · 2025

Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022For Appellant : Mr.Manickkaraj for Dr.R.AlagumaniFor Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan Additional Public ProsecutorJ U D G M E N TP.VELMURUGAN , J., This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirapalli in S.C.No.332 of 2018 dated 08.11.2021.2. By the above judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant and sentenced her, as detailed below:Penal Provisions Sentence of ImprisonmentFine Amount 302 of IPCLife ImprisonmentRs.5,000/- i/d to under go six months simple imprisonment 380 of IPCThree years Rigorous imprisonment Rs.3000/- i/d to under go three months simple imprisonment 201 of IPCOne year Rigorous imprisonment Rs.1000/- i/d to under go one month simple imprisonment The sentences shall run concurrently2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 20223. The case of the prosecution in brief:-3.1. The accused is the neighbor of the deceased Santhi. The deceased Santhi was carrying on business of retail sale of nighties and sarees in instalments. The accused used to purchase clothes from the deceased and she also obtained a loan from the deceased. The deceased had made a demand for the return of money due from the accused. At the time of murder of Santhi, the accused has to pay more than Rs.12,000/- towards payment of the amount due to the deceased. Further the accused had also obtained financial assistance of Rs.12,000/- from Amuthavalli and Rs.12,500/- from Saroja. The accused was heavily indebted. Therefore she had planned to kill the deceased and take away the jewels belonging to the deceased. The accused went to the house of the deceased at 3.00 p.m. on 26.03.2018 and asked the deceased to come to her house as if she had made an arrangement for the settlement of amount due to the deceased. Believing the words of the accused, the deceased went to the house of the accused at 4.00 p.m.. Initially, the deceased was sitting on the sofa. Subsequently, she sat on the floor. The deceased had once again demanded money from the 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022accused. Having got angry, the accused barged the head of the deceased against the wall and stabbed the head of the deceased with towel at least 5 or 6 times and also strangulated the neck of the deceased with her inner garment and thereby caused the death of the deceased. After the occurrence, the accused took the jewels Thali Gundu, Kasumalai, Nanal Kuzhal , Mattal with ear studs from the body of the deceased and as the ear studs could not be removed from the ears of the deceased, she had pulled the same from the ears of the deceased. The accused had also removed the Golusu by cutting the same with trowel and stolen the "Metti" (toe ring) from the body of the deceased. The accused had concealed all the jewels stolen by her in the fish box which was placed on the slab of her house. Subsequently, the accused had buried the body of the deceased upside down in a hollow situated at the backside of her house. The accused also committed theft of the gold chain of the deceased weighing about 14.08gm and pledged the same at a pawn broker shop namely M/S Ramesh finance for Rs.29,000/-. Thereafter, on the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, a First Information Report was registered in Crime No.95 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 302, 380 and 201 of IPC. On the basis of the 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022complaint given by Nathamani, the defacto Complainant , FIR was registered in Cr.No.95/2018 on the file of Tiruverambur PS., under the head "Woman Missing". Subsequently, on the basis of the complaint given by the VAO, Selva Ganesh FIR was registered in Cr.No.97/2018 on the file of Tiruverambur PS., under section 174 of Cr.PC., as suspicious death. The said FIR was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tiruverambur PS and after registration of the FIR in Cr.No.97/2018 it was also merged with the case in Cr.No.95/2018 with Cr.No.97/2018 and took up investigation in this case.3.2. After completion of the investigation, the respondent police laid the charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy, and the same was taken on file as P.R.C. No.38 of 2018.3.3. On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Session, where it was taken on file in S.C.No.332 of 2018 and made over to the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirapalli , for trial under Section 209(A) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court framed charges against 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 380 and 201 of IPC.3.4. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.29, and 28 exhibits were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28, and 12 material objects were exhibited as M.O.1 to M.O.12.3.5. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against her, she denied the charges as false. No witness was examined on the side of the accused, nor was any document marked.4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing both sides, by judgment dated 08.11.2021, convicted the appellant and sentenced her as detailed in Paragraph No.2 supra. Challenging the above-said conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal.6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 20225. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there was a delay in filing the complaint and also there was a delay in sending the First Information Report to the Court . It is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no direct eyewitness to the occurrence. The main ingredients for a case of circumstantial evidence are motive, last seen theory and recovery. All those have to be proved without a break in the chain. The body of the deceased was not found in the house of the appellant and there is no direct evidence to show that soon before the occurrence the appellant was alone seen with the deceased. The prosecution case rests upon the extra judicial confession . The extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the conviction imposed on the appellant on the basis of the extra judicial confession is liable to be set aside. Except the alleged extra judicial confession no other materials were available before the trial Court for convicting the appellant. The body of the deceased was found after four days of the occurrence and the body of the deceased was not properly identified by the prosecution and superimposition test was not taken. Except relative witnesses other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.11 stated that he had put up a CCTV camera in his 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022house and the police verified the CCTV camera put up in his house as to whether the deceased went to the house of the appellant. Despite the police collected the CCTV footage they did not mark the same as evidence and therefore, the evidence of P.W.11 is highly doubtful. Admittedly in this case there is no eye witness and the trial Court convicted the appellant only on the basis of circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances connecting the appellant with the commission of the offence is broken. There are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The motive was not established and also Ex.P.17 /receipts as recovered from the pawn broker/P.W.25 were not recovered from P.W.27. If at all the appellant pledged the jewels with P.W.25/Pawn broker the receipts might have been only with the appellant and not with P.W.25, therefore recovery is also not proved and there are material contradictions to prove that the appellant alone has committed the murder. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is a settled proposition of law that if two views are possible, the view in favour of the appellant has to be taken into consideration. The trial Court convicted the appellant only based on assumptions, conjectures and preponderance of probabilities. 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022As per criminal jurisprudence, in criminal cases of this nature, the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no cogent, consistent and reliable evidence to implicate the appellant in the crime. The evidence of P.W.25 is not credible and therefore the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is perverse and therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellant and the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant ought to be acquitted.6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though in this case there is no eyewitness to the occurrence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence namely motive, last seen theory and recovery. In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, totally 29 witnesses were examined and 28 documents were marked besides 12 material objects were exhibited. The prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence and the body of the deceased was recovered from the backside of the house of the appellant. Therefore, it is for the appellant to explain as to how the body of the 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022deceased was found in the back side of her house. The prosecution has proved the last seen theory through P.W.8, P.W.11 and P.W.15. Motive was established through P.W.19, P.W.20 and P.W.21 and recovery was also proved through P.W.25 and Ex.P.17. The evidence of the post mortem doctor P.W.23 would show that the cause of death was due to the head injuries which is unnatural, therefore the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is the one who has committed the murder for gain and also screened the evidence. Therefore the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for the charged offence and there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.7. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and have consciously gone through the evidence and materials on record.10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 20228. The specific case of the prosecution is that the appellant had murdered the deceased and also stolen the jewels of the deceased. It is a case of murder for gain, and the trial Court framed charges under Sections 302, 380 and 201 of IPC. In this case originally the husband of the deceased gave a complaint /Ex.P.1 before the respondent police and the respondent police registered a case in Crime No. 95 of 2018 under the caption 'woman missing'. Subsequently the Village Administrative Officer/P.W.4 gave a complaint under Ex.P.2 that an unidentifiable body was found, thereafter the case was altered and registered under Ex.P.18 in Crime No. 97 of 2018 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.,. During investigation it was found that the body of the deceased was identified by the husband of the deceased. Thereafter the case was altered to Sections 302,380 and 201 of IPC. In order to substantiate the case of prosecution totally 29 witnesses were examined, 28 documents were marked besides 12 material objects were exhibited. 9. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. The husband of the deceased gave a compliant /Ex.P.1. The son of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and he has spoken about the missing of his mother 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022and the same was informed by his father and he only advised his father to search his mother and give a complaint to the police. The wife of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.2. P.W.3 is another son of the deceased. They have spoken about the missing of the deceased. The Village Administrative Officer/P.W.4 has stated that he received an information on 28.03.2018 than an unidentified body was buried in the earth in the backside of the house of the appellant. He has also stated that the body was halfly buried in the occurrence place and after having visited the spot he gave a complaint/Ex.P.2. For establishing motive the prosecution has examined P.W.19, P.W.20 and P.W.21 and also to some extent P.W.25. From the evidence of P.Ws. 19 to P.W. 21 it it seen that the appellant borrowed money from P.W.19 and P.W. 21 and soon after the occurrence she repaid the said amount. The evidence of P.W.25/pawn broker shows that the appellant pledged the gold jewels with him and borrowed a sum of Rs.30,000/- Later, based on the confession statement made by the appellant the police went to the shop of P.W. 25 and recovered the pledged jewels of the appellant in the presence of the witnesses P.W22 and one Ashok and subsequently the jewels of the deceased were identified by P.W.1. Therefore motive has been clearly 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022established by the prosecution that for want of money the appellant murdered the deceased.10. So far as the last seen theory is concerned the prosecution has examined P.W.8, P.W.11 and P.W.15. The evidence of P.W.8 clearly shows that he saw the deceased going towards the house of the appellant at about 3.30 pm., on 26.03.2018. From the evidence of P.W.11, it is seen that he has fixed a CCTV camera in his house and through which he saw the deceased going to the house of the appellant on 21.03.2018 and later she did not come back. P.W. 15 also clearly stated that at about 3.00 pm., on 26.03.2018 the deceased was talking with the appellant and thereafter at 7.00 p.m., on the same day the husband of the deceased enquired for about the deceased. Therefore from the evidence of P.W.8 it is seen that he had seen the deceased nearby the house of the appellant and from the evidence of P.W.15 it is seen that he saw the deceased with the appellant and thereafter no one saw the deceased anywhere with anybody. The evidence of P.W.4/Village Administrative Officer shows that on 28.03.2018 that an unidentified body was found to be halfly buried he went to the scene of occurrence 13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022and later set the law in motion. Accordingly the respondent police registered a case under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., Since already the complaint given by the father of PW.1 registered as 'woman missing' was pending without any clues the respondent police after examining the half burnt body suspected and informed P.W.1. P.W.1 to P.W.3 and went to the place of occurrence and identified the dead body that of the mother of P.W.1. Therefore the last seen theory has also been established by the prosecution without any break. 11. So far as the recovery is concerned, based on the confession statement, the jewels were recovered from P.W.25. From the evidence of P.W.25, it is seen that the police went along with the appellant to the shop of PW.25 and showed the receipt /Ex.P.17. P.W.25 gave the jewels and they were recovered in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Though the confession made before the police are not admissible in evidence, being hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, the portion of the confession statement leading to recovery is admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the said Act. Accordingly, based on the admissible portion of the confession, the jewels were recovered from P.W.25 (pawn 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022broker) who has clearly stated that the appellant was the person who had pledged the jewels for which Ex.P.17/receipt was given and the signature of the appellant is also found therein. Thereafter the said jewels were shown to P.W.1, who is none other than the son of the deceased, and he has also identified the jewels which belongs to his mother. P.W.1 to P.W.3 identified the body and also the jewels recovered from P.W.25. From the evidence of P.W.25, it is clear that the jewels were pledged only by the appellant, and the body of the deceased was recovered from the backyard of the house of the appellant, and the jewels were missing from the body. The said jewels were recovered from P.W.25. The evidence of P.W.25 is corroborated by Ex.P. 17/receipts issued to the appellants for pledging the jewels. Therefore, the recovery has been clearly proved and from the evidence of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, it is seen that he has clearly stated that the death was unnatural. 12. From the reading of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, P.W.8, P.Ws.11, 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, and 25, Ex.P.17, and Material Objects 9, 10, and 11, it is evident that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all 15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022reasonable doubt. From the above evidence, the Court finds that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is cogent, consistent and credible and inspires the confidence of this Court. This Court also finds that except the appellant, no one could have committed the offence. Since the murder was committed for gain (for the jewels) in order to screen the commission of the offence, she had also concealed the body of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant has committed the charged offence. 13. The contradictions and discrepancies pointed out by the defence are not material contradictions which would go to the root of the prosecution’s case. Further, it is a settled proposition of law that a defect in investigation is not fatal to the case of prosecution. Though in this case there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and the case is based on circumstantial evidence, on a perusal of the records, this Court as an appellate Court and as well as fact-finding court, while re-appreciating the circumstantial evidence, finds that the prosecution has proved its case without any break in the chain of circumstances i.e., motive, last-seen theory, and recovery.16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 202215. This Court does not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and this appeal deserves to be dismissed 16. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial Court. (P.V.,J.) (L.V.G.J.,) 18 .11.2025Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoaavTo:1.The Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirapalli2.The Inspector of Police,Thiruvarumbur Police Station,Trichy District3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,Madurai.4. The Section OfficerCriminal Records,Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A(MD)No.312 of 2022P.VELMURUGAN,J.andL.VICTORIA GOWRI,J.aavCrl.A(MD)No.312 of 202218.11.202518