CRL A/129/2023 of SASI @ SASIKUMAR Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 30 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.) Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 15.12.2022 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry in S.C.No.15 of 2019, the appellant/accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal. By the said judgment, the appellant/accused was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1. Both the accused and the deceased are from Orissa. That on 19.11.2018, one Madhavan (PW4) requested the deceased to get kerosene and at that time, the accused informed him that he is having kerosene. The accused gave the deceased kerosene and demanded Rs.20/- from him. As there was no money with the deceased, a quarrel arose and the accused took the deceased to the canal in the sugarcane field, Periyapet, Thirubuvanai, Puducherry and brutally cut the deceased and burnt him by pouring kerosene. PW1 came to know about the incident through one Boopalan and went to the place of occurrence where he found the dead body resulting in lodging of the complaint by PW1 under Ex.P1.

2.2. PW2 has stated that he went to the police station along with PW1 to give a complaint regarding the incident and as PW1 does not know Tamil, he wrote the complaint. PW3, who is working in Thirubuvanai also saw the dead body. PW4 has stated that on 19.11.2018 at about 10.30 a.m, he asked the deceased to purchase kerosene and at that time, the accused told him that he has the kerosene and hence, the deceased took Coco-cola bottle from one Gopal's house and went to purchase the kerosene. PW20, the Sub Inspector of Police, received the complaint (Ex.P.1) and registered an FIR in Crime No.126 of 2018 for an offence under section 302 IPC under Ex.P21. She forwarded the FIR to the Court and a copy was sent to the investigating officer.

2.3. The Investigating Officer (PW21) took up the investigation and went to the place of occurrence and took the photographs with the help of PW11. According to him, PW12, Junior Analyst at Forensic Science Laboratory, Puducherry, developed chance print from the place of occurrence and had given to him. That on 20.11.2018, PW21 arrested the accused in the presence of PW7 and recorded his confession and seized MOs 1 to 3 under seizure mahazar (Ex.P7). The admissible portion of the confession is marked as Ex.P23.

2.4. PW15, the Medical Officer attached to Indira Gandhi Medical College & Research Institute · Vazhudavur Road, Kathirkamam, Puducherry conducted autopsy and found the following injuries: "(1) Incised wound on the front of the neck, 8 cm below the chin, 7 cm above the supra-sternal notch, 10 cm from the left mastoid process, 7 cm from the right mastoid process measuring 14 cm x 4 cm x 3.5 cm. The wound involves the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles of the neck, left jugular vein, trachea, oesophagus, reaching upto the cervical bone. The margins of the wound are clean cut and red.

(2) Linear abrasion on the front of the neck, 2 cm right to midline, 7 cm left midline measuring 9.5 cm x 0.2 cm. Red.

(3) Stab wound on the right side front of abdomen, wedge- shaped, 1.5 cm right to midline vertically placed, 5.5 cm below the right subcostal margin, measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity. Thickness of the abdomen is 3.5 cm. The track of the wound is directed backwards and outwards (laterally) and involves the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles of the abdomen, peritoneum, omentum, mesentery and the intestines. The margins of the wound are clean cut and red.

(4) Stab wound on the right side of the abdomen, vertically placed, wedge-shaped, 1.5 cm right to midline, 0.5 cm below injury no.3, measuring 0.5 x 0.3 cm x 1.3 cm. The track of the wound is directed backwards and involves the skin and the subcutaneous tissues. The margins of the wound are clean cut and red.

(5) Stab wound on the right side front of abdomen, vertically placed, wedge-shaped, 2.5 cm right to midline. 10 cm below the right sub-costal margin, measuring 2.5 cm x 0.8 cm x cavity. Thickness of the abdomen is 3.5 cm. The track of the wound is directed backwards and slightly inwards (medially) and involves the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles of the abdomen, peritoneum, omentum, mesentery and the intestines. The margins of the wound are clean-cut and red.

(6) Stab wound on the front of abdomen, in the midline, vertically placed, wedge shaped, 1.5 cm above the umbilicus, 13 cm below the xiphi-sternum, measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity. Thickness of the abdomen is 3.5 cm. The track of the wound is directed backwards and involves the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles of the abdomen, peritoneum, omentum, mesentery and the intestines. The margins of the wound are clean-cut and red.

(7) Stab wound on the left side front of the abdomen, vertically placed, wedge-shaped, 1 cm left to midline, 6.5 cm below the left sub-costal margins, measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity. Thickness of the abdomen is 3.5 cm. The track of the wound is directed backwards and involves the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles of the abdomen, peritoneum, omentum, mesentery and the intestines. The margins of the wound are clean-cut and red.

(8) Stab wound on the left side front of the abdomen, vertically placed, wedge-shaped, 1 cm left to midline, at the level of the umbilicus. 15 cm above the pubic symphysis, measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 1.5 cm. The track of the wound is directed backwards, and in wards (medially) and involves the skin and the subcutaneous tissues. The margins of the wound are clean-cut and red.

(9) Stab wound on the left side front of the abdomen, vertically placed, wedge-shaped,2.5cm let to midline, 7 cm below the left sub-costal margin, measuring 3.5 cm x 1 cm x cavity. Thickness of the abdomen is 3.5 cm. The track of the wound is directed backwards and inwards (medially).

(10) Stab wound on the left side front of abdomen, vertically placed, wedge-shaped, 0.5 cm below injury no.9, 1 cm left to midline, 11.5 cm below the left sub-costal margin, measuring 2.5 cm x 2.8 cm x cavity. Thickness of the abdomen is 3.5 cm. The track of the wound is directed backwards and inwards (medially), and involves the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles of the abdomen, peritoneum, omentum, mesentery and the intestines. The margins of the wound is clean-cut and red.

(11) Stab wound on the left side of abdomen, 0.4 cm below injury no.9, 4 cm left to midline, 3.5 cm below left sub-costal margin, measuring 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity. Thickness of the abdomen in 3.5 cm. the track of the wound is directed backwards and inwards (medially) and involves the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles of the abdomen, peritoneum, omentum, mesentery and the intestines. The margins of the wound is clean-curt and red.

(12) Stab wound on the left side front of abdomen, 4.5 cm left to midline obliquely placed, wedge-shaped, 7.5 cm below the left sub-costal margin, measuring 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity. Thickness of the abdomen is 3.5 cm. The track of the wound is directed backwards and outwards (laterally), and involves the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles of the abdomen, peritoneum, omentum, mesentery and the intestines. The margins of the wound is clean-curt and red.

(13) Stab wound on the left side front of abdomen. 7 cm left to midline, obliquely placed, wedge-shaped, 5.5 cm below the left sub-costal margin, measuring 2.5 cm x 2.5 cm x cavity. Thickness of the abdomen is 3.5 cm. The track of the wound is directed backwards and outwards (laterally) and involves the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles of the abdomen, peritoneum, omentum, mesentery and the intestines. The margins of the wound is clean-curt and red.

(14) Stab wound on the left side front of abdomen, 4 cm left to midline, obliquely placed, wedge-shaped, 10.5 cm below the left sub-costal margin, measuring 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x cavity. Thickness of the abdomen is 3.5 cm. The track of the wound is directed backwards and outwards (laterally), and involves the skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles of the abdomen, peritoneum, omentum, mesentery and the intestines. The margins of the wound is clean-cut and red." and issued Ex.P16 opining that the deceased died due to haemorrhagic shock resulting from sharp force injury to the neck and abdomen caused by a sharp single edged weapon having a pointed tip and that deceased would have died 12 hours prior to the keeping the dead body in the cold storage. 2.5 PW14, the finger print expert, lifted two chance prints from the Coco- cola bottle and developed them and sent the same to the Court on 20.11.2018 and later, the specimen finger print of the accused was also taken in the Court on 04.12.2018. The same was compared with the chance prints and the chance prints were found to tally with the finger print in the middle finger of the accused. In this regard, he issued Ex.P15. Finally PW24 completed the investigation and laid the final report.

3. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. He denied all the incriminating circumstances as false.

4. Before the Trial Court, to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW21, Exs.P1 to P28 were marked and 6 Material Objects were marked as MO1 to MO6. On the side of the defence, no evidence

was recorded and no documents were marked.

5. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, by judgment dated 15.12.2022, found the accused guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated above. Challenging the same, the present criminal appeal has been preferred.

6. The entire prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has relied upon the following circumstances:

i) the evidence of PW4, who allegedly saw the accused and deceased together at 10.30 hours on 19.11.2018;

ii) Development of the chance print from the Coco-cola bottle found near the dead body by PW14 and specimen finger print obtained from the accused tallied with the chance print developed from the scene of occurrence;

iii) Arrest of the accused and recovery.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution has not been established and that the trial Court has mechanically relied upon the prosecution case. There is no evidence to show that chance prints were lifted from the coco-cola bottle at the place of occurrence and the evidence of PW12 and P14 in this regard creates serious doubt and the so called developed chance prints have also not been sent to the Court. Therefore, the very theory of lifting the chance print from the place of occurrence is doubtful.

8. On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of PW12, P14 and the Investigating Officer clearly shows that not only the seizure of coco cola bottle and the lifting of chance print by PW14, but the same was also found to tally with the specimen finger print of the accused. This is one of the circumstances pointing towards the accused.

9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed before this Court.

10. As far as the circumstantial evidence is concerned, the prosecution has to prove all the circumstances relied upon by it unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the same should lead to no other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. As far as the evidence of PW4, who has allegedly seen the accused with the deceased on that particular day at 10.30 am is concerned, it is relevant to note that according to PW4 on 19.11.2018 at about 10.30 hours when he requested the deceased to purchase kerosene, the accused appears to have told him that he has kerosene and both of them have taken coco cola bottle from Gopal’s house, but the said Gopal has not been examined.

11. Be that as it may, admittedly the point of time when deceased and the accused were seen alive together on 19.11.2018 and when the dead body was recovered is not small and there is a huge gap between the two and therefore, that itself cannot be taken as one of the circumstances. Except PW4, no other witnesses have seen the accused and deceased together. The dead body was found only in the evening. The other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is that from the coco cola bottle recovered from the place of occurrence, two chance prints were developed by PW14 and those chance prints tallied with the finger print in the middle finger of the accused.

12. It is relevant to note that no other witnesses have spoken about the presence of PW14 at the place of occurrence. PW10 is witness to the Observation Mahazar prepared at the place of occurrence. He has not spoken anything about the presence of PW14 and lifting of chance prints by PW14 and the evidence of PW10 indicate that only the investigating officer seized all the materials and obtained his signature in Ex.P10. PW11 in his evidence has stated that he took photograph at the place of occurrence on 19.11.2018 and on the next day also, he went to the place of occurrence.

13. PW12 is the junior analyst at Forensic Science Laboratory, Puducherry and her evidence is also to the effect that only the Inspector of Police seized the blood stained earth and Coco-cola plastic empty bottle from the place of occurrence. She has also signed in the mahazar, Her evidence does not show that chance print has been lifted by PW14 at the relevant point of time.

14. The witnesses to the mahazar never stated about the presence of PW14 at the place of occurrence. PW14, in his evidence, has stated for the first time that he developed the chance print in the place of occurrence and sent the same to the Court on 20.11.2018. Absolutely, there is no evidence whatsoever on the side of the prosecution as to whether the developed finger print was sent to the Court. A perusal of the materials placed before this Court indicates that all the material objects said to have been collected by the Investigating Officer were belatedly sent to the Court. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that chance print was developed at the place of occurrence, the theory of chance print taken from the coco cola bottle cannot be believed.

15. It is further to be noted that PW14 has stated in his evidence that he lifted the chance prints from a two litre Coco-cola bottle, whereas the seizure mahazar clearly shows that only a 1.25 litre Coco-cola bottle was seized. This also creates serious doubt about the prosecution theory.

16. The other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are arrest and recovery. According to the Investigating Officer, the accused was arrested on 20.11.2018 at 03.30 am and he gave a confession. Pursuant to the same, a knife and blood stained dresses were seized from his house. It is relevant to note that the seizure of the blood stained shirt from the house of the accused also creates serious doubt. If any person commits a heinous offence, he would not ordinarily keep the blood stained clothes safely in the house. Therefore, the alleged seizure is also doubtful.

17. It is the specific evidence of PW21 that the accused was arrested on 20.11.2018 and his confession was recorded, but PW7, the Village Administrative Officer in his cross-examination has stated that the seizure was effected on 21.08.2026 at about 10.00-11.00 am i.e., on the next day. Therefore, the very arrest and seizure projected by the prosecution is highly doubtful and the so called seizure mahazer and other documents relied upon by the prosecution is also sent to the Court only on 22.11.2018 under the mahazars. The delay in sending the material objects to the Court also creates serious doubt about the prosecution.

18. Considering the all these aspects, we are of the view that the accused cannot be convicted merely on the basis of circumstances which has not been established by the prosecution.

19. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused vide judgment of III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry in S.C.No.15 of 2019 on 15.12.2022 are set aside. The appellant/accused, is acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand discharged. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gpa

To

1. III Additional Sessions Judge Puducherry

2. The Inspector of Police Thirubuvanai Police Station Puducherry District

3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Kalapet Puducherry

4. The Public Prosecutor Pondicherry

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J., gpa CRL A No. 129 of 2023 30-09-2026