Case: Raju Vs. The State by Inspector of Police

PW-1 is the wife of Virupachi Gounder @ Palanichami Gounder (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased) and PWs 3 and 4 are the sons of the deceased. PWs 3 and 4 were living in Virupachi. PW-1 and the deceased were living in Balassamudhram. The deceased was doing money lending business and accused Nos. 1 and 2 were actually working as brokers for commission under the deceased and they were aggrieved that proper commission was not paid to them. The accused complained to P.Ws.3 and 4 about the conduct of the deceased and in turn P.Ws.3 and 4 have informed P.W.1 that their father should take care since both the accused might do mischief.While the matter stood thus, P.W.7, who had got financial transactions with the deceased, on the date of occurrence, i.e. 05.04.2005, went to Balasamudhram to get some amount from the deceased, got down from the bus, went to the nearby tea shop and enquired about the deceased. He was informed that the deceased, along with both the accused, was proceeding to his place and when P.W.7 went over there he found accused Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased were quarreling over the payment of commission and at that time P.W.7 was asked by the deceased what was the reason for his visit. P.W.7 answered that he had come to get some money and P.W.7 was informed by the deceased that he had no money and he was asked to come after four days and P.W.7 in turn returned leaving the deceased and accused 1 and 2 there.Till 9.00 p.m. on 05.04.2005 the deceased did not return home and hence at about 9.30 p.m. P.W.1 went in search of her husband and she found at the place of occurrence the dead body of her husband. Immediately she informed to P.W.2, who in turn informed to P.Ws.3 and 4 who, also came there and saw the dead body. Thereafter, P.W.1 proceeded to the Police Station, gave a complaint, (which is marked as Ex.P-1) to P.W.13, the Head Constable, at about 4.00 a.m. on 06.04.2005. On the strength of Ex.P-1, P.W.13 registered a case in Crime No.293/2005 under Section 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P-12, the First Information Report and the same was despatched to the Court through PW-11, the Head Constable.The Inspector of Police (PW-15) received the copy of the FIR, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an observation in the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P-5, the observation mahazar and also drew Ex.P-17, the rough sketch. He caused the place of occurrence to be photographed in different angles by P.W.8, the photographer and Ex.P-2 series are the photographs and their negatives. He recovered M.O.1, the torch light, M.O.2, the umbrella, M.O.3, the bloodstained dhoti, M.O.4, the bloodstained Shawl, M.O.5, the bloodstained earth and M.O.6, the sample earth from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar, attested by P.W.10 and another, marked as Ex.P-6. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 7.30 am. and 9.30 am. in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P-18, the inquest report.Thereafter, he sent the body for the purpose of autopsy through P.W.12, the Head Constable.The doctor (PW-9) attached to Government Hospital, Palani, on receipt of Ex.P-3, the requisition, from the Investigator conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and gave Ex.P-4, the postmortem certificate, opining that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury, 14 to 18 hours prior to autopsy. After postmortem, PW.12, the Head Constable, recovered M.Os. 10 to 13, the personal wearing apparels and ornaments of the deceased, from the dead body and handed them over to the Inspector of Police.Pending investigation, P.W.15, the Investigator, arrested both the accused on 07.04.2005 and at that time both the accused came forward to give voluntary confessional statements and the same were recorded in the presence of witnesses. Ex.P-7 is the admissible portion of the confessional statement given by accused No.1, pursuant to which accused No.1 produced M.O.7, the spade handle, which was recovered under Ex.P-9, the mahazar.Accused No.1 also produced M.O.9 the bloodstained full shirt and the same was recovered under Ex.P-11, the mahazar. Ex.P-8 is the admissible portion of the statement given by A-2 pursuant to which A-2 produced M.O.8 the bloodstained shirt and the same was recovered under Ex.P-10, the Mahazar attested by witnesses. Thereafter, both the accused were sent for judicial remand. P.W.15 continued the investigation, examined some witnesses and recorded their statements. He gave Ex.P-13, the requisition, to the Court to subject the material objects for chemical analysis.P.W.14 is the Magisterial Clerk and on receipt of Ex.P-13 requisition, the material objects were sent to Forensic Department for chemical analysis under Ex.P-14, the letter of the Court, which resulted in two reports, namely Ex.P-15, the Chemical Examiners report and Ex.P-16, the Serologists Report.On completion of the investigation, P.W. 15, the Investigator, filed the charge sheet against both the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC before the concerned Magistrates Court. As the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held.Fifteen witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version. The trial Court found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was substantial in nature. Placing reliance on the evidence of PW-1, the widow and PW-7 the trial Court held the appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The co-accused was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 341 IPC. In appeal, it was submitted that the circumstances highlighted do not form a complete chain of circumstances and in any event PW-7s evidence is not acceptable. The High Court did not find any substance in the appeal filed by the appellant and found him guilty but the conviction as noted above was altered.

Reasoning:
12. There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but it should be tested by the touch-stone of law relating to circumstantial evidence laid down by the this Court as far back as in 1952.PW-7s evidence is clear and cogent. His presence at the spot has been established. He used to have business transactions with the deceased. He stated about the present appellant holding a handle of soil cutter. Though the deceased and the present appellant were engaged in exchange of hot words, that could not have given an impression to PW-7 that accused would take the life of the deceased. Therefore, the fact that he left the place on being told by the deceased to do so cannot be a ground to dis-believe his evidence. According to him he had seen the deceased and the accused engaged in wordy tussle around 9.00 p.m. The wife of the deceased PW-1 found his dead body at about 9.30 p.m. The time gap when the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused and when his dead body was seen is not very large. Admittedly, the bone of contention between the deceased and the accused was non payment of the commission on account of which they were quarreling. The trial Court and the High Court have rightly held the appellant to be the author of the crime. We find no infirmity in the conclusion of the High Court to warrant interference.