(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Mahila Court, Chennai, made in S.C.No.8 of 2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 302 and 380 of IPC, tried, found guilty of murder and also theft and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.25000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 IPC and 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence under Sec.380 IPC.
2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.1 a Doctor by profession, is a resident of Door No.6/12, River View Apartment, 1st Crescent Part Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. Her daughter Anitha Sheron was doing her II year B.E. at Anna University. The accused came to the house along with his uncle Arul in connection with the purchase of a land. On 8.5.2006, P.W.1 left for her prayer to the Church leaving her daughter Anitha in the house. The son of P.W.1 already left for a movie that day. P.W.10, who is already known to the appellant/accused, found the accused near the house, and when enquired, he informed him that his uncle was not doing well, and so, he wanted to take the Doctor. Sometime later, P.W.10 again found him nearby, and when he questioned, the appellant/accused did not give any answer and moved from the place.
(b) P.W.1 returned to the house from the Church, after the prayer was over, and she was knocking the door, but it was not opened. Thereafter, she went inside and found bloodstains in the hall. When she opened the doors of the bedroom, she found her daughter Anitha in a pool of blood. Immediately, she raised alarm, and all the persons namely P.Ws.4 to 6 assembled. P.W.7, the Security, also rushed over there. Immediately, P.W.1 phoned over to her brother P.W.3, and he also came over there. P.W.1 took her daughter in an ambulance driven by P.W.8, to Malar Hospital where Anitha was declared dead.
(c) Thereafter, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station, where she gave a complaint under Ex.P1. P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, who was on duty that time, received the complaint Ex.P1, on the strength of which he registered a case in Crime No.905 of 2006 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P16, was despatched to the Court. Then the Inspector of Police, P.W.16, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P3, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P18. He also recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.1 after noticing that a gold chain and also Rs.400/- were also found missing, gave an additional complaint, Ex.P2, on the strength of which Sec.380 of IPC was added, and the amended FIR, Ex.P21, was despatched to the Court. Then the Investigator conducted inquest on the dead body of Anitha in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P16. A requisition was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of autopsy.
(d) P.W.15, the Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, G.R.H., Chennai, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Anitha Sharon and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P12, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of cut throat injury 16 to 20 hours prior to postmortem.
(e) Pending investigation, bloodstains were taken from the place of occurrence in a filter paper by P.W.12, the Scientific Officer from the Forensic Sciences Department. Then the accused was arrested on 15.5.2006, in the presence of P.W.11 and other witness. He came forward to give a confessional statement. The admissible part is marked as Ex.P6, pursuant to which M.O.2, broken chain, M.O.11, bloodstained shirt, M.O.12, bloodstained black pant, M.O.13, bloodstained black colour banian, M.O.14, blue colour underwear, M.O.15, knife, and M.O.16, Rs.100/- were all recovered under a cover of Ex.P6, the mahazar. Then the accused was sent for judicial remand. P.W.1 identified M.O.2, chain, which was used by her daughter. The statement of the accused was recorded by the XII Metropolitan Magistrate under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. which is marked as Ex.P24.
(f) The Deputy Superintendent, P.W.13, compared the finger prints taken from the place of occurrence, with the finger prints of P.W.1 and of the accused. The report given by him is marked as Ex.P7. All these material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and also the material objects which were recovered from the accused on his production, were subjected to analysis by the department which brought forth chemical analyst's reports, Exs.P13 to P15 and serologist's report, Ex.P20.
(g) P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation and on completion of the same, filed the final report.
3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also relied on 24 exhibits and 16 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side, and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt in respect of the above charges and awarded the above punishment. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant.
4.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer; that the occurrence has taken place between 6.00 P.M. and 7.00 P.M. on 8.5.2006, according to the prosecution; that one of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, was P.W.10, according to whom, he has seen the accused person nearby the place of occurrence just before and after the occurrence was over; and that merely because he has seen him in the street, it cannot be taken as an evidence connecting him or pointing to the complicity of the offender.
5.The learned Counsel would further add that in the case on hand, the prosecution rested its case much on the recovery of the material objects; that P.W.9, who was examined for the recovery of the material objects from the place of occurrence, has categorically stated that the chain was actually recovered from the place of occurrence; that had it been the real intention of a person to go over there for stealing and had it been true that only a chain and Rs.400/-, according to P.W.1, were actually stolen, he would not have left the chain at the place of occurrence; and that under the circumstances, the evidence of P.W.9 that the chain which was worn by the deceased Anitha, was actually found in the place of occurrence would go to the root of the prosecution case.
6.Added further the learned Counsel that all these recoveries pursuant to the confessional statement as put forth by the prosecution, were nothing but only a story trotted out, and it was only a document created; that the prosecution case as if the chain has actually been recovered pursuant to the confessional statement given by the accused was contrary to the evidence of P.W.9; that apart from that, though number of items were alleged to have been recovered from him, bloodstains did not tally with the other material objects, and that would not in any way help the prosecution case.
7.The learned Counsel would further submit that no evidence was available to the prosecution pointing to the nexus of the crime, and thus the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, but the trial Judge has taken an erroneous view as if the prosecution has sufficient evidence and that too beyond reasonable doubt, and hence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside.
8.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
9.It is not in controversy that the dead body of Anitha, the daughter of P.W.1, was found in the house at about 7.00 P.M. on 8.5.2006. Pursuant to the complaint given by P.W.1 to P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, the case came to be registered originally under Sec.302 IPC, and following the inquest made, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.15, the Doctor, who has given an opinion as a witness before the Court and also through contents of the postmortem certificate marked as Ex.P12, to the effect that the deceased would appear to have died of cut throat injury. The cause of death as put forth by the prosecution was never disputed by the appellant before the trial Court. Under the circumstances, no impediment was felt by the trial Judge in recording so.
10.In order to substantiate that the appellant/accused entered into the house of P.W.1 between 6.00 P.M. and 7.00 P.M. when she was away, and after stealing the chain worn by Anitha, caused her death, and thereby he has committed murder for gain, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It is not this Court is unmindful of the caution made by the Apex Court and also by the settled principles of law, that in a given case like this, where the prosecution rests its case exclusively on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must constitute a chain and that too without a snap, and be pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused no one could have committed the offence. In the instant case, the following circumstances, in the considered opinion of the Court, are noticed by the Court which are clinchingly pointing to the complicity of the accused in the crime in question.
11.According to P.W.1, she left the house at about 6.00 P.M. leaving her daughter Anitha in the house, and she returned by 7.00 P.M. when she found Anitha in a pool of blood. She gave a complaint originally for murder, and thereafter, she has also given an additional complaint wherein she has clearly stated that the gold chain worn by Anitha, was found missing, and "Siluvai" dollar, was actually found in the house.
12.From the evidence of P.W.10, it would be quite clear that he knew the accused very well. On that day, just before occurrence, P.W.10 found the appellant/accused nearby the house of P.W.1, and when he enquired him as to what made him to go to the house, and he replied that his uncle was not doing well, and therefore he was to take the Doctor. After sometime, P.W.10 again found the appellant/accused nearby the house, and at that time, he did not give a proper answer, but he left the place hastily. Thus the evidence of P.W.10 was to the effect that just at or about the time of occurrence, he entered into the house, and thereafter he was found nearby the house. All would clearly indicate that he entered into the house at the time of occurrence. Apart from this, the evidence of P.W.10 would clearly indicate that he also knew the accused.
13.P.W.1 has clearly stated that he used to come to the house along with P.W.10. This would be pointing to the entry of the accused at the place and time of occurrence when Anitha was alone.
14.The other circumstance attendant, was that P.W.11 has categorically stated that the accused came forward to give a confessional statement pursuant to which number of items were recovered namely M.O.2, broken chain, M.O.11, bloodstained shirt, M.O.12, bloodstained black pant, M.O.13, bloodstained black colour banian, M.O.14, blue colour underwear, M.O.15, knife, and M.O.16, Rs.100/-. Now, at this juncture, the evidence of P.W.1 that an additional complaint was given by her and also the evidence before the Court have got to be taken into consideration. According to P.W.1, the broken chain was shown to her, and she identified that it was actually found stolen at the time of occurrence. Now, the learned Counsel brought to the notice of the Court that P.W.9 has stated that the gold chain was actually found along with the "Siluvai" dollar inside the house. Now, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that what was found in the house was actually "Siluvai" dollar and a broken chain. It would be quite clear that there was resistance at the time of occurrence, and at that time, he snatched the chain, and he was able to take the part what is marked as M.O.2. It is further to be added that P.W.9 has categorically stated that he was not present at the time when the recovery was made, but they were all shown to him later at the police station. Such evidence cannot be relied by the prosecution. True it is, it cannot also be relied by the accused.
15.The further strong circumstance, in the considered opinion of the Court, added with the above, is exactly the serologist's report. According to P.W.11, number of items were recovered including underwear, banian and other material objects from the accused. Along with these items, the filter paper in which bloodstains were taken by P.W.12, the forensic assistant, were sent for analysis. All were subjected to analysis along with the clothes worn by Anitha at the time of occurrence, and the filter paper which has been taken and also the underwear and banian which were worn by the accused at the time of occurrence, and which were recovered from him pursuant to the confessional statement, contained the same blood group. It would be clinchingly pointing to the fact that it was actually connected to the crime.
16.All the above circumstances, in the considered opinion of the Court, are suffice pointing to the guilt of the accused without any iota of doubt. Now, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant contra and narrated above, did not carry any merit at all. It is true that here is a case rested on circumstantial evidence. In a given case like this, when the circumstances placed and proved by the prosecution, are pointing to the guilt of the accused, there cannot be any hesitation for the Court to record a finding that the prosecution has brought home the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is a clear case of murder for gain. Thus, the trial Judge was perfectly correct in marshalling the evidence and entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced him to imprisonment as stated above. This Court is unable to notice anything to disturb the judgment of the trial Court either factually or legally.
17.In the result this criminal appeal fails, and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court.
nsv To:
1.The Magalir Neethimandram Chennai
2.The Inspector of Police J2 Adyar Police Station Chennai (Cr. No.905/2006)
3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras