18 March 2024 Evidence >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

A man convicted of murdering four members of a family in their home has appealed his case, arguing that circumstantial evidence used against him is inconclusive.

The case centers around the deaths of Latha, Ramachandran, Chitra, and Karthiayani Amma. The sole suspect, whose identity has not been disclosed, allegedly had a past romantic relationship with Latha that turned sour.

Prosecutors believe the accused entered the victims' home the night of the murders, killed them with knives and an iron rod, and then attempted to take his own life, though unsuccessfully.

Several pieces of evidence support the prosecution's narrative. A witness reportedly saw the accused near the victims' house the night before the crime. Furthermore, investigators found a hole in the house wall, believed to be the entry point, along with the accused's fingerprints at the scene. Additionally, hair samples recovered matched the suspect's, and soil particles from his clothing matched soil near the entry hole.

The most intriguing piece of evidence might be writings found on the wall, suggesting a suicide pact with Latha. However, the prosecution could not verify this claim.

The defense maintains the accused's innocence and insists he found the victims already dead upon entering the house. He upholds the claim of a suicide pact as his sole reason for being present.

The crux of the appeal hinges on circumstantial evidence. Indian law requires that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence to hold, five principles must be met:

1. The circumstances surrounding the crime must be firmly established.

2. The circumstances must exclusively point towards the guilt of the accused.

3. The circumstances must be conclusive in nature.

4. There must be no other plausible explanation for the events.

5. The evidence trail must be unbroken, leaving no room for doubt about the accused's guilt.

Conclusion:

The court has upheld the conviction of the appellant on charges of murder (Section 302), house trespass (Section 449), and causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty (Section 309) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The sentences for the latter two charges remain unchanged.

In determining the sentence for murder, the court applied the principle established in the case of Swamy Shraddananda (supra). This principle guides courts in striking a balance between achieving justice for the crime and ensuring the sentence isn't excessively harsh.

While the court agreed with the application of this principle, it did modify the sentence for murder. The original sentence of 30 years imprisonment without remission was reduced to 25 years with the same restriction, taking into account the time already served. This adjustment was deemed to achieve a just outcome.

The appeal was thus partially allowed, with the aforementioned modification to the sentence for murder.

  Indian Evidence Act, 1872