Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Suman, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, for the murder of Periyasamy under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that on 09.05.2017 at 9:30 pm, the daughter of the deceased, Valliammal (PW1), and a neighbor, Padmarajan (PW2), saw the accused sitting on the chest of the deceased and pressing his neck. They shouted, and the accused fled. The deceased was taken to a hospital where he was declared dead. The FIR was lodged the next day. The trial court convicted the accused based on the testimony of PW1 and PW2. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that PW1 and PW2 were interested witnesses, being the daughter and a relative of the deceased. Their testimonies contained material inconsistencies and improvements. There was no independent witness to corroborate their version. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to establish the motive or the 'last seen' theory. The medical evidence did not conclusively prove that the death was homicidal. The court held that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Conviction based on interested witnesses - The prosecution relied solely on the testimony of the daughter of the deceased and a neighbor, who were related/interested witnesses, without any independent corroboration. The court held that such testimony, without corroboration, cannot form the basis for a conviction, especially when there were inconsistencies and improvements. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Last Seen Theory - Section 302 IPC - The prosecution failed to establish the 'last seen' theory as there was no evidence to show that the accused was last seen with the deceased shortly before the incident. The court noted that the witnesses did not see the accused with the deceased prior to the alleged occurrence. (Paras 12-14) C) Criminal Law - Motive - Section 302 IPC - The alleged motive of theft of money was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court observed that the prosecution did not produce any evidence to show that the accused had stolen money or that the deceased had accused him of theft. (Paras 8-9) D) Criminal Law - Benefit of Doubt - Section 302 IPC - The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses and the lack of corroborating evidence entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on the testimony of interested witnesses and lack of corroborating evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.149 of 2017 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, dated 28.09.2022, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC and is directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case.
Law Points
- Benefit of doubt
- Unreliable witnesses
- Lack of corroboration
- Circumstantial evidence
- Last seen theory
- Motive
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 374(2) CrPC
