Case: MURUGAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

findings and would not appreciate the evidence de novo unless it is prima facie shown that both the Courts below did not either consider the relevant piece of evidence or there exists any perversity or/and absurdity in the findings recorded by both the Courts below etc. 21. We, however, made endeavour to peruse the evidence with a view to find out as to whether the concurrent findings of both the Courts below have any kind of infirmity or/and whether the concurrent findings are capable of being legally and factually sustainable or need to be reversed. Having gone through the evidence, we are of the view that the findings are legally and factually sustainable in law.22. In our considered opinion, the two Courts below have rightly held that the appellants conviction was based on circumstantial evidence which, in this case, the prosecution was able to prove it by adducing evidence. In other words, we also find that the prosecution was able to prove the chain of circumstances/events appearing against the appellant without any break therein and hence the appellant?s conviction deserves to be upheld.23. On perusal of the evidence, we find that the prosecution examined three witnesses (PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3) to prove material circumstances and the chain of events against the appellant which first included the motive behind the commission of the crime followed by the manner in which the incident took place leading to the death of Murugan.24. The motive, according to the prosecution, was that Kumar had a grudge against the deceased because he was not agreeable to the Kumars proposal to marry his daughter-Geetha. This was proved with the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 3. It was believed by the two Courts below and, in our opinion, rightly. 25. The prosecution then proved that the appellant along with Kumar had gone to the house of the deceased for inviting him for dinner at Kumars house on the same night. The deceased accepted the invitation and went to Kumars house to have dinner with Kumar and the appellant. 26. It was then proved that Geetha (PW-1) had gone to Kumars house at around 11 P.M. to see why her father did not return to his house and on reaching there, she found all the three sitting on iron cot and were having dinner. As per post mortem report, it was proved that Murugan died between 11 P.M. and 12 P.M. the same night. 27. In our opinion, when the appellant was sitting in the company of the deceased (Murugan) till 11 P.M. along with Kumar in his house and had dinner with Murugan and Kumar and immediately thereafter Murugan died, the appellant in cross-examination of PWs-1,2 and 3 was not able to elicit anything to discredit the evidence of the abovesaid three witnesses and to disprove the circumstances deposed against him.28. That apart, in our opinion, it was necessary for the appellant to have explained the aforementioned circumstances appearing against him in the proceedings under Section 313 of the Code. The appellant, however, failed to explain any circumstances and denied his involvement in the crime.29. We find from the evidence eight circumstances appearing against the appellant. These circumstances are: First motive was against the deceased due to his not agreeing to the proposal of marriage of Kumar with his daughter; Second, the appellant and Kumar, both being the cousins, knew each other very well; Third, both went together to the house of the deceased to invite him for a dinner at Kumar?s house; Fourth, all the three had dinner together at Kumar?s house; Fifth, Murugan died immediately after dinner; Sixth, Kumar gave his confessional statement; Seventh, recovery of weapon and cloths at the instance of Kumar; and Eighth, the dead body was found lying near iron cot where Murugan(deceased) had last dinner with Kumar and the appellant.30. In our view, the aforementioned eight circumstances do constitute a chain of events against the appellant and lead to draw a strong conclusion against the appellant and Kumar for having committed the murder of Murugan.31. In our view, it clearly establishes that both (Kumar and the appellant) had a common intention to eliminate Murugan. In our view, there could be no other person other than the appellant and Kumar, who committed the crime in question.32. A theory of "accused last seen in the company of the deceased" is a strong circumstance against the accused while appreciating the circumstantial evidence. In such cases, unless the accused is able to explain properly the material circumstances appearing against him, he can be held guilty for commission of offence for which he is charged. In this case, it was rightly held by the two Courts below against the appellant and we find no good ground to disturb this finding.33. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant when she argued that Kumar (main accused) having died without facing the trial, the present appellant is entitled for a clean acquittal because nothing now survives against the appellant after Kumars death for appellant?s prosecution. We do not agree with this submission.34. In our view, death of Kumar was of no significance so far as the appellant?s prosecution is concerned. The reason being that this was a case of common intention of the two accused persons to eliminate Murugan and the appellant was one of the accused persons, who was found actively participating in the crime till last along with the other accused, who died.35. In our view, the two Courts below, therefore, were right in holding the appellant guilty of commission of the offences in question by properly appreciating the ocular evidence of the prosecution witness notwithstanding the death of the co-accused, which was of no relevance for deciding the involvement of the appellant in commission of crime.36. We, therefore, find no good ground to take a different view than what is taken by the two Courts below and concur with their reasoning and conclusion with our additional reasoning elaborated above.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal.We, however, made endeavour to peruse the evidence with a view to find out as to whether the concurrent findings of both the Courts below have any kind of infirmity or/and whether the concurrent findings are capable of being legally and factually sustainable or need to be reversed. Having gone through the evidence, we are of the view that the findings are legally and factually sustainable in law.22. In our considered opinion, the two Courts below have rightly held that theconviction was based on circumstantial evidence which, in this case, the prosecution was able to prove it by adducing evidence. In other words, we also find that the prosecution was able to prove the chain of circumstances/events appearing against the appellant without any break therein and hence the appellant?s conviction deserves to be upheld.23. On perusal of the evidence, we find that the prosecution examined three witnesses3) to prove material circumstances and the chain of events against the appellant which first included the motive behind the commission of the crime followed by the manner in which the incident took place leading to the death of Murugan.24. The motive, according to the prosecution, was that Kumar had a grudge against the deceased because he was not agreeable to theproposal to marry hisThis was proved with the evidence of2 and 3. It was believed by the two Courts below and, in our opinion, rightly.In our opinion, when the appellant was sitting in the company of the deceased (Murugan) till 11 P.M. along with Kumar in his house and had dinner with Murugan and Kumar and immediately thereafter Murugan died, the appellant in,2 and 3 was not able to elicit anything to discredit the evidence of the abovesaid three witnesses and to disprove the circumstances deposed against him.28. That apart, in our opinion, it was necessary for the appellant to have explained the aforementioned circumstances appearing against him in the proceedings under Section 313 of the Code. The appellant, however, failed to explain any circumstances and denied his involvement in the crime.29. We find from the evidence eight circumstances appearing against the appellant. These circumstances are: First motive was against the deceased due to his not agreeing to the proposal of marriage of Kumar with his daughter; Second, the appellant and Kumar, both being the cousins, knew each other very well; Third, both went together to the house of the deceased to invite him for a dinner at Kumar?s house; Fourth, all the three had dinner together at Kumar?s house; Fifth, Murugan died immediately after dinner; Sixth, Kumar gave his confessional statement; Seventh, recovery of weapon and cloths at the instance of Kumar; and Eighth, the dead body was found lying near iron cot where Murugan(deceased) had last dinner with Kumar and the appellant.30. In our view, the aforementioned eight circumstances do constitute a chain of events against the appellant and lead to draw a strong conclusion against the appellant and Kumar for having committed the murder of Murugan.31. In our view, it clearly establishes that both (Kumar and the appellant) had a common intention to eliminate Murugan. In our view, there could be no other person other than the appellant and Kumar, who committed the crime in question.32. A theory of "accused last seen in the company of the deceased" is a strong circumstance against the accused while appreciating the circumstantial evidence. In such cases, unless the accused is able to explain properly the material circumstances appearing against him, he can be held guilty for commission of offence for which he is charged. In this case, it was rightly held by the two Courts below against the appellant and we find no good ground to disturb this finding.33. We are not impressed by the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant when she argued that Kumar (main accused) having died without facing the trial, the present appellant is entitled for a clean acquittal because nothing now survives against the appellant afterdeath for appellant?s prosecution. We do not agree with this submission.34. In our view, death of Kumar was of no significance so far as the appellant?s prosecution is concerned. The reason being that this was a case of common intention of the two accused persons to eliminate Murugan and the appellant was one of the accused persons, who was found actively participating in the crime till last along with the other accused, who died.35. In our view, the two Courts below, therefore, were right in holding the appellant guilty of commission of the offences in question by properly appreciating the ocular evidence of the prosecution witness notwithstanding the death of thewhich was of no relevance for deciding the involvement of the appellant in commission of crime.36. We, therefore, find no good ground to take a different view than what is taken by the two Courts below and concur with their reasoning and conclusion with our additional reasoning elaborated above.