Crux of the case
2. The above Criminal Appeal is preferred by P.W.1, who is the son of the deceased Lakshmi Devi. The case of the prosecution is that Lakshmi Devi, a resident of Arul Nagar, Kalyanasundaram Street, Pattukkottai was found dead on 25.07.2015 in her house by the nearby resident and on the information of her son who is the first informant, an FIR in Crime No.683 of 2015 came to be registered by the respondent Police. P.W.18 taken up the investigation and in the light of the fact that the jewels and wearing apparels of the deceased was found missing, investigation was intensified regarding regular visitors of Lakshmi Devi’s house.
3. A3-Malarkodi, being one of the regular visitor was arrested on 1.8.2015 and from her, some of the jewels of Lakshmi Devi was recovered based on her confession in the presence of witnesses, that was followed by 2 other accused. Note by Ilayaraja suspeced to be a suicide note written by him out of remorse, committing the crime, was also recovered along with cash of Rs.8,000/- which is the sale proceed of the jewels.
Charges framed by sessions court/Trial court for murder
4. The Court of Sessions framed charges under Section 120(b) against three accused and charge under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC against A3, charge under Section 449 of IPC against accused 1 and 2, charge under Section 302 r/w Section 109 against A1 and charge under Section 302 of IPC against A2 and charge under Section 392 r/w Section 34 of IPC against A1 to A3. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and marked 21 exhibits and 12 Material Objects. One Kesavan was examined as Court Witness and the Lodge Registers maintained were marked s Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. The trial Court, on appreciation of evidence, found that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. Prosecution case primarily centers around the confession statement and recovery of material objects from the accused persons, whereas, there is no conclusive evidence to believe the case of prosecution in respect of recovery, since the witnesses for recovery are highly doubtful. The evidence of son and daughter of the victim was not of much help for the prosecution case, since they were not living with the deceased, particularly, yet another son of the deceased was not even examined by the prosecution, who had left his mother few months before her death due to misunderstanding with her mother. Apparently, there is no needle of suspicion against the missing son and the prosecution did not care of examining the son of the deceased by name Suresh. Hence for want of evidence, the trial Court had acquitted all the three accused from the charges. Being aggrieved, P.W. 1, son of the deceased had preferred the above Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal.
Analysis
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents and also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent/State.
Prosecution has to prove to whom A1 has sold the stolen article and obtained sale proceeds of rs. 8000
9.The incriminating materials against the respondents/accused which need to be reappreciated. Firstly, the alleged handwritten statement of A1 marked as Ex.B9. P.W.11-Vijayalakshmi, Village Administrative Office of that area had deposed that on 12.8.2015 at abot 11.10. hours she was called to the Police Station. In the Police Station, she saw A1/Illayaraja. In her presence, the statement of Illayaraja was reduced into writing with the help of computer and based on his concession, they went to the workshop of Ilaayaraja/A1 and recovered Rs.8,000/- and Ex.B1.(It is also to be noted that Rs.8000/- alleged to have been recovered from A1 is the sale proceeds of the stolen article, not been linked to any article and the prosecution has not proved to whom A1 sold the article and got Rs.8000/-. This is a very serious lacunae in the prosecution case to disbelieve the alleged recovery from the accused persons). In the cross examination, the said witness was not identified about what is found in the workshop and the incriminating material that was recovered. She could not recollect whether the workshop was locked or opened and when they visit the place. He also admits that he did not went inside the house. They did not enquire who is the owner of workshop and not aware that who had wrote the suicide note marked as Ex.A9. It is pertinent to note that the prosecution was not able to establish the author of Ex.A1 and who is the author of Ex.B9 and the category of suicide note, is not permissible. It is in the nature of confession given to the Police and no fact was discovered to save the statement from the vigour of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, is available. Further, as pointed out by the trial Court, the signature found in the suicide note has not been tested and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to substantiate the fact that Ex.B9 was written by A1. The testimony of Ex.B11 been demolished in the cross examination leading to the fact that she could not have been the witness for the recovery. A8. Thandapani who is the witness for recovery of Mos.1 to 3 marked as Ex.A3 also could not sustain the cross examination and his embellishment besides the improbability of keeping the stolen article inside the blouse by the accused for 12 days after occurrence, appears to be unbelievable. This Court also taking note of the fact that the character of the deceased person as well as the non-examination of her son by name Suresh creates wide gap in the chain of circumstances as projected by the prosecution. When the view of the Court is not plausible and does not suffer from any perversity, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the trial Court in acquitting the accused persons.
10.Hence the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed confirming the judgment made in S.C.No.552 of 2016, dated 13.12.2019, on the file of learned IV Additional District Court, Madurai.
Party
Ragurajan ... Appellant vs. 1.The State, represented through The Inspector of Police, C3, S.S.Colony Police Station (Crime), Madurai. (In Crime NO.683 of 2015) ....Respondent/Complainant 2.Ilayaraja 3.Muthu @ Muthu Kumar 4.Malarkodi ... Respondents No.2 to 4 /Respondents 1 to 3 - Dated 18th March 2025 - Cited CRL.A(MD)No.79 of 2021 - Coram:- Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras High Court The Honourable Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran And The Hon'ble Ms. Justice R.Poornima
