2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:(a) P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased Selvi.On 14.6.2002, P.W.1 accompanied by his wife, was returning to Titan Quarters in Hosur to Mathigiri Road in a TVS 50 after purchasing the household articles.When they were so coming, both A-1 and A-2 came in their Yamaha two wheeler and were chasing.The accused came towards them, and suddenly, A-1 snatched the chain which was worn by the deceased, and immediately A-1 drove the vehicle fast.Then, both of them escaped from the place.(b) P.W.1 and the deceased were searching for the accused, and they were going.At that time, on the way, they found both the accused.The deceased shouted pointing to A-2 that it was he who snatched the chain.Immediately, P.W.1 stopped the vehicle and intercepted the other vehicle in which the accused were travelling, and both A-1 and A-2 fell down.Immediately, A-1 stabbed Selvi on her left side chest and neck with a pitchuva knife. A-2 also stabbed her on her shoulder with a pitchuva knife.At that time, P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 went to the rescue.So causing injuries to them, they left the place immediately.(c) It was P.W.1 who took his severely injured wife to the Government Hospital, Hosur, where the Doctors examined and declared her dead.Then, further intimation was given to Hosur Police Station which was in turn forwarded to Mathigiri Police Station.P.W.12, the Doctor, has examined P.W.4 at about 8.40 P.M. On 14.6.2002, and has given a wound certificate, Ex.She also examined P.W.3 and issued a wound certificate, Ex.Equally, P.W.2 was examined by her, and Ex.P12 is the wound certificate in that regard.On the strength of Ex.P1, the report, a case came to be registered in Crime No.99 of 2002 under Sections 379, 324, 307 and 302 of IPC.The printed FIR, Ex.P27, was despatched to the Court.(e) P.W.16 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection of the first place where the incident of robbery has taken place and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P5, and a rough sketch, Ex.Then, he went to the second occurrence place where the murder has taken place, and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P6, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P33 is the admissible part.Pursuant to the confession, he produced M.O.2, gold ingot, and he has further produced M.O.1, motorbike, a cell phone, a country made gun and a Titan Watch.For Appellants : Mr.V.Vibhishanan for Mr.P.Subba Reddy in CA 324/2008 Mr.V.Gopinath Senior Counsel for Mr.L.Mahendran in CA 757/2008 For Respondent : Mr.They challenged the judgment of the I Additional Sessions Division, Krishnagiri, made in S.C.No.207 of 2005 whereby the appellants stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded punishment as follows:Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Selvi in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.Then, a requisition, Ex.P15, was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of postmortem.(f) P.W.13, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Hosur, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Selvi and has noticed four external injuries.She has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P16, with her opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs heart and lungs about 14 to 16 hours before autopsy.(g) The further investigation was taken up by P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, who caused the arrest of A-1 on 19.7.2002, and he gave a confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses.They were all recovered under a cover of mahazar.(h) A requisition was given for conduct of the test identification parade.The same was conducted by P.W.14, the Judicial Magistrate.As far as A-1 was concerned, it was conducted at Central Prison, Salem, and P.Ws.1 to 4 were taken for identifying him.The identification parade proceedings are marked as Ex.Equally, as regards A-2, the identification parade took place at Central Prison, Bangalore, where P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 have participated in the parade.The identification parade proceedings are marked as Ex.On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and also relied on 34 exhibits and 14 material objects.On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, found them guilty and awarded the punishment as referred to above.Hence these appeals at the instance of the appellants.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant in C.A.No.324/2008, the learned Counsel Mr.V.Vibhishanan would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution came out with two parts; that firstly, there was a robbery in which A-1 and A-2 were involved, and secondly, A-1 and A-2 attacked the deceased and also in that transaction, A-1 attacked P.Ws.2 and 3, and A-2 attacked P.W.4; that the earliest document was Ex.P1, the report, given by P.W.1, the husband of the deceased; that a perusal of Ex.P1 would clearly indicate that nowhere he has pointed out any role of A-1 in Ex.P1 or Ex.P15, the requisition, given by P.W.16, the Investigating Officer, for the conduct of postmortem or the evidence before the Court; that nowhere it is found that A-1 had any role in the commission of robbery, and it was also attributed to A-2; and that under the circumstances, the lower Court was not correct in finding A-1 guilty as far as that particular charge was concerned.5.Added further the learned Counsel that the prosecution relied on the confession alleged to have been given by A-1 and also the consequent recovery of the material objects; that it is pertinent to point out that all these material objects were not connected to Crime No.99 of 2002; but, they were all connected to some other crime number, and thus, the prosecution cannot rely on the recovery of those material objects; that as far as the recovery of the gold ingot marked as M.O.2, was concerned, there was no evidence to show that the gold chain alleged to have been stolen, was actually melted into gold and made as ingot; that in the absence of the same, it cannot be taken or presumed that it was the gold chain which was the subject matter of robbery; and that under the circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that part of the case.6.As far as the second incident was concerned, the learned Counsel would submit that the case of the prosecution was that at the time of occurrence, A-1 not only stabbed the deceased, but also attacked P.Ws.2 and 3; but, the lower Court was not prepared to accept the case of the prosecution insofar as the overt acts attributed that he attacked P.Ws.2 and 3 with knife and has acquitted him; that the same would mean that the lower Court was not ready to believe the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3; and that the same reasons are all equally applicable to the entire episode.7.The learned Counsel would further add that in the instant case, A-1 was arrested on 19.7.2002; that as far as the identification parade in respect of A-1 was concerned, it was in no way helpful to the prosecution; that there is evidence to show that A-1 was actually in the police station and was shown to the witnesses; and that under the circumstances, it was of no consequence at all.8.Added further the learned Counsel that even from Ex.P1, the report, and also the evidence of P.W.1 it would be quite clear that the entire act of attacking the deceased was done only by A-2, and nowhere, A-1 is indicated; but, the trial Court has taken an erroneous view and found A-1 guilty of both the offences without any evidence whatsoever, and hence he is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.9.Advancing arguments on behalf of A-2 in C.A.No.757/2008, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.11.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.12.It is not in controversy that an incident has taken place on 14.6.2002 at about 8.15 P.M. at which the chain of the deceased Selvi was snatched by two persons, and they have actually escaped from the place.Following that incident, both the persons were intercepted by P.W.1, the husband of the deceased, and also the deceased, and in that process, Selvi was stabbed to death.This homicidal death was never disputed by the appellants, and hence it has got to be recorded so.As could be seen from the available materials, the incidents were two in number.The first part is as to robbery, and the second part is as to murder in which P.Ws.2 to 4 were also injured.According to P.W.1, he accompanied his wife, and he took his wife in the two wheeler, and she was sitting as a pillion rider, and when they were going, the incident has taken place, and it was the pillion rider namely wife, who has identified A-2 as person who snatched the chain.It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that it was A-1 who drove the bike, and both of them have escaped from the place.Thus, it was only P.W.1, who was actually the witness in respect of the incident of robbery.From the evidence of P.W.1, it could be seen that he has identified that it was A-1 who drove the bike, and A-2 was a pillion rider who snatched the chain.It is true that the occurrence has taken place in night hours and that too, within a minute or two.Now, the occurrence projected by the prosecution did not stop there.According to P.W.1, he and the deceased were in further search of the assailants in their vehicle, and at that time, when they found both the accused near the bus stop, P.Ws.2 to 4 were also there, and on seeing A-2, the deceased Selvi shouted pointing to A-2 that it was he who snatched the chain.The evidence would further go to show that immediately they were intercepted by P.W.1 by parking the vehicle across, and then both of them fell down; and that at that time, the incident has taken place.From the evidence of P.W.1, it could be well seen that it was the deceased who caught hold of the shirt of A-2 who snatched the chain; that at that time, it was A-1 who intervened by stabbing her; that on seeing this, P.W.1 caught hold of him; that immediately, A-2 attacked the deceased also; and that when P.Ws.2 to 4 went to the rescue, they were also attacked by the appellants.P.W.1 has not only seen them at the place of first occurrence of robbery, but also at the time when the second occurrence has taken place.It has also taken place in a public place.It is pertinent to point out that in a given case like this, when two incidents have taken place and that too, the first part is a robbery, and the second part is a murder and when they were intercepted, they attacked not only the deceased, but also some others, naturally such incidents would cause a dent in the memory of a human being.But, originally, there was snatching of chain, and thereafter, the second incident has taken place in which not only the deceased was attacked, but also P.Ws.2 to 4 were attacked by both.It is true that the lower Court has acquitted A-1 in respect of charge under Sec.324 (two counts) of IPC for attacking P.Ws.2 and 3 since there was some inconsistency in evidence.Hence the benefit was available to him.In this case, A-1 was arrested on 19.7.2002 within a month of the occurrence.Immediately after his arrest, he has given a confessional statement leading to the recovery of some of the material objects.It is true that except M.O.2, all other material objects produced by him, were not connected to this case, and hence that part of the evidence could not be relied.As far as A-2 was concerned, the prosecution came forward to state that it was the gold ingot which came into existence by melting the chain which was worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence.The accused cannot expect the prosecution to explain how the chain was melted into ingot.16.Apart from the above, much comment was made by the appellants' side on the identification parade conducted.As far as A-1 was concerned, within a short span of time, P.W.1 and the other witnesses have identified him properly.As regards A-2, the evidence would go to show that when the deceased and P.W.1 were in search of the assailants, the deceased shouted pointing to A-2 that it was he who robbed the chain, and when she caught hold of the shirt of A-2, it was A-1 who attacked her, and when P.W.1 caught hold of the shirt of A-1, A-2 attacked her.The lower Court was perfectly correct in marshaling the evidence, considering the same and finding them guilty for robbery and also for murder.1.The I Additional District Judge Krishnagiri2.The Inspector of Police Mathigiri Police Station (Crime No.99 of 2002)3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras

Relevant sections: Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code