LexSANGILI @ SANGANATHAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A [2014] 7 S.C.R. 788 SANGILI @ SANGANATHAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2011) B SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Circumstantial C evidence - Prosecution case that appellant guilty of killing the deceased; resting the case on circumstantial evidence - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment uls. 302 by courts below - On appeal held: Suspicion however strong cannot be a substitute for proof - In a case resting completely on the circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances D mµst be so complete to lead to the guilt of the accused - On facts, chain of events incomplete, thus not safe to convict the appellant - Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt - Order of conviction and sentence set aside - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136. E F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 There cannot be any second opinion that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution does not re-appreciate evidence. But when the submission J.s that it is a case of no evidence at all, the Court is bound to examine .the matter. [Para 11] [792-G] 1.2. The instant case is of blind murder. There were G no eyewitnesses. Motive was not proved. The evidence of last seen was also not established . .The deceased was not seen by anybody after he left the house. Looking into all these facts in entirety, it is found that not only the chain of events is incomplete, it becomes somewhat difficult to H 788 SANGILI @ SANGANATHAN v. STATE OF TAMIL 789 NADU convict the appellant only on the basis of the recoveries A made. [Para 14, 20, 22] [795-E-H] 1.3 Suspicion however strong cannot be a substitute for proof. In a case resting completely on the circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances must 8 be so complete that they lead only to one conclusion, that is, the guilt of the accused, without any doubt. It is not safe to record a finding of guilt of the appellant and the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. [Para 25] [797-H; 798-A-B] Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu 2008 (1) SCR 228:(2009) 17 SCC 273; Manthuri Laxmi Narsaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 14 SCC 117; Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan 2011 (9) SCR 101:(2011) 11 SCC 724 - c referred to. D Case Law Reference: 2008 (1) SCR 228 (2011) 14 sec 111. 2011 (9) SCR 101 Referred to Referred to Referred to Para 23 Para 24 Para 25 CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.639 of 2011 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.01.201 O of the High Court of Madras at Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 506 of 2004. R. BalasLibramanian, B. Karunakaran, S. Gowthaman for the Appellant. E F G M. Yogesh Kanna, A. Santha Kumaran for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHELAMESWAR, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the H 790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 7 S.C.F\. A judgment dated 6th January 2010 of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.506 of 2004. 2. By the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life B and a fine of Rs.10000/- under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") awarded by the Sessions Court, Madurai in Sessions Case No.490 of 2003. 3. The deceased Muthuramaligam was a high school going child studying Plus-Two. PWs 1 and 2 are his parents. C PW-5 Ramathilaga another young girl was also a student of the same school where the deceased was studying. The appellant herein was working for the father of PW-5. 4. According to the case of the prosecution, on 12.6.2002 0 at about 5.15 p.m., there was a phone call from the appellant herein to the deceased which was initially picked up by PW-1. According to PW-1 the caller identified himself by his name (same as the appellant). After some conversation with the caller the deceased went out by bicycle informing his parents that he would return soon. Unfortunately, he never returned. On E 14.06.2002 at about 10 a.m., PW-1 went to the Oomachikulam Police Station and lodged a complaint Ex.P1 to the effect that Muthuramaligam was missing. 5. PW-12 Head Constable received the complaint and F registered a Crime No.204 of 2003. PW-15 Tr. Ponnuchamy is the Inspector of Police of the abovementioned police station. 6. On the same day, the appellant was arrested at about 8 p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.