2014 (7) TMI 1256 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction and sentence passed against the appellants for the offence under Section 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC - murder of Manikandan - Held that - In the FIR, Valarmathi (PW-1) had not disclosed the presence of Amirthavalli (PW-2) and Murugan (PW-4) at the scene of occurrence at Mariyamman Temple. Nothing was stated with regard to Amirthavalli (PW-2) and Murugan (PW-4). Valarmathi (PW-1) did not disclose the presence of Amirthavalli (PW-2) at the scene of occurrence. The deceased was last seen with accused Nos.1 and 4 by Village headman by name, super supparayan, who said to had been present at the place where the deceased was last seen in the company of accused, was neither named as prosecution witness nor examined. There was inordinate delay of more than six days in filing the complaint about the missing of Manikandan but Valarmathi (PW-1) has not explained the delay in lodging such complaint. In the present case as noticed above, the Sessions Judge convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3 on the basis of last seen evidence, the correctness of last seen version emanating from eye witness Valarmathi (PW-1), Amirthavalli (PW-3) and Murugan (PW-4) and as per the prosecution case is also doubtful, there being contradiction about place where the accused were last seen with the deceased Manikandan. The High Court had failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact and erred in affirming the order of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras and impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge. The appeal is allowed. The appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
2. Reliability of witness testimonies.
3. Validity of the "last seen" theory.
4. Delay in lodging the FIR.
5. Consistency in the prosecution's narrative.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the conviction based on circumstantial evidence:
The prosecution's case was primarily based on circumstantial evidence. The Sessions Court convicted the accused based on the circumstantial evidence presented, which included the testimony of Valarmathi (PW-1), the confession of accused No.3, and the postmortem report. The High Court upheld this conviction. However, the Supreme Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish a continuous chain of circumstances without any breakage of link, which is essential for a conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence.

2. Reliability of witness testimonies:
Valarmathi (PW-1), the mother of the deceased, provided detailed accounts of the events leading up to and following the abduction and murder of her son, Manikandan. Her testimony included seeing the accused beat Manikandan and take him away in an autorickshaw. However, during cross-examination, inconsistencies and delays in her statements were highlighted. Amirthavalli (PW-2), the elder sister of Valarmathi, and Murugan (PW-4), a friend of the deceased, also provided testimonies, but their presence and accounts were inconsistent and not corroborated by other evidence. The Supreme Court found these inconsistencies and the lack of corroboration to undermine the reliability of their testimonies.

3. Validity of the "last seen" theory:
The "last seen" theory was a critical component of the prosecution's case. According to Valarmathi (PW-1), the deceased was last seen with the accused at the Mariyamman Temple. However, Amirthavalli (PW-2) stated that the deceased was last seen at the Police Station. The Supreme Court noted that the time gap between the deceased being last seen and the discovery of his body was too long (seven days) to conclusively attribute the crime to the accused based solely on this theory. The Court cited precedents, including Arjun Marik vs. State of Bihar and Bodhraj vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, to emphasize that the "last seen" theory alone is insufficient for conviction without corroborative evidence.

4. Delay in lodging the FIR:
There was a significant delay of six days in lodging the FIR, which was not adequately explained by Valarmathi (PW-1). This delay raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's case and the sequence of events as narrated by the witnesses. The Supreme Court found this unexplained delay to be a critical flaw in the prosecution's case.

5. Consistency in the prosecution's narrative:
The prosecution's narrative contained several inconsistencies, particularly regarding the location where the deceased was last seen and the actions of the accused. The Supreme Court highlighted these contradictions and noted that the prosecution failed to provide a consistent and coherent account of the events. The Court also pointed out that the benefit of doubt given to accused No.4 was not extended to accused Nos.1 to 3, despite similar circumstances.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Judge. The appeal was allowed, and the appellants were directed to be released forthwith, as the prosecution failed to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence, unreliable witness testimonies, the invalidity of the "last seen" theory, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, and the inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative.