[a] The accused 1 and 2 are brothers.They are residents of Lakshimayur Village in Omalur Taluk.The first accused had a son by name Selvam and another son by name Venkatesan.The first accused was living with his family members, including his sons.Mr.Selvam (since deceased) was involving in petty thefts.Despite the warning and advice given by the first accused, he had not stopped the same.It is further alleged that because of the said bad conduct of the deceased Selvam, the first accused decided to do away with him.[b] On 24.10.2010 at about 10.00 p.m. the first accused had gone to Thuvaraikadu and he was waiting there.He had asked his another son Venkatesan to bring Selvam to Thuvaraikadu.Accordingly, Venkatesan [juvenile accused] took the deceased to Thuvaraikadu.By about 12 midnight, the first accused pushed the deceased down and Venkatesan killed him.Then, the first accused cut the deceased with koduval on his head.The deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously.Then, the accused 1 and 2 returned to their house.After concealing the koduval at his house, the first accused met his brother the second accused and informed him about the same.Then the accused 1 and 2 decided to cause disappearance of the body.Therefore, together they went to Thuvaraikadu with a gunny bag, put the dead body into the gunny bag, hid the same with stones and pushed it into a well.This occurrence was not noticed by anyone.[c] On 25.10.2010, at about 8.00 a.m., the first accused went to P.W.1, the then Village Administrative Officer of Taramangalam and wanted to confess about the above occurrence.P.W.1 agreed to record the same.The first accused then gave a voluntary confession narrating the above events and admitting his guilt as well as the guilt of his son Venkatesan and the second accused.The first accused subscribed his Left Thumb Impression to the same.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.213 of 2012 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.He stood charged for offences under Sections 364 r/w 34, 302 and 201 IPC.Including the appellant, there were two accused.By judgment dated 27.03.2013, the trial Court convicted both the accused.The trial Court, however, acquitted the accused from the charge under Section 364 r/w 34 IPC.So far as the first accused/appellant is concerned, he was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and for the offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal.He took the first accused along with Exs.P.W.11, the Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of Exs.P1 and P2, registered a case in Cr.No.460 of 2010 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against all the three accused, including the juvenile.P16 is the FIR.Then, he forwarded Exs.P.W.15 arrested the first accused in the presence of P.W.1 and another witness.On such arrest, at 10.00 a.m., he made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had thrown the dead body of the deceased.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the well and identified the same.P.W.15 prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch showing the place of occurrence [Exs.P25 and 26] in the presence of the same witnesses.Then he gave intimation to the Fire and Rescue Service for help.When his men climbed down the well, they found a gunny bag immersed in water.They brought it out.When it was opened, the dead body of the deceased was found inside.P.W.15 then conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for post-mortem.[e] P.W.5 conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased on 26.10.2010 at 1.00 p.m. He found the following injuries:"An oblique wide open chopped injury involving front and right side of neck M- 20 x 10 x bone deep with exposing of trachea and oesophagus with underlying pre and para vertebral muscle contused.O/D Underlying blood vessels, soft tissue, nerves, right side carotid, vertebral artery, external and internal jugular vein severed, with sternomastoid muscle severed.The cut fracture of cervical spine C2 with severance of underlying spinal cord served.This injury is situated at the level of 8 cms above supra sternal notch and 5 cms below mid chin on right side."He opined that the death of the deceased was due to effects of shock and haemorrhage due to neck injury.According to him, the death would have occurred 36 hours prior to the autopsy.[f] P.W.15 continued the investigation.On the disclosure statement made by the first accused, he produced a blood stained shirt and a blood stained pant from his house.At 6.15 p.m., on 25.10.2010, P.W.15 recovered the same.On the same day, at 5.00 p.m., he arrested the juvenile accused Venkatesan and the second accused Raja.On such arrest, the juvenile accused Venkatesan gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden M.Os.4 and 5 [multiple colour full hand shirt and grey colour pant].On returning to the police station, P.W.15 forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over all the material objects to the Court, with a request to send the same for chemical examination.The Chemical Analysis Report reveals that these material objects, including the aruval which was recovered at the instance of the first accused contained human blood.On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused.[g] Since Mr.Venkatesan was found to be a juvenile in conflict of law, he was proceeded against before the appropriate Juvenile Justice Board.These two accused alone faced the trial before the trial Court.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the above charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined and 29 documents were exhibited, besides 11 material objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has spoken about the extra judicial confession given by the first accused.P.Ws.2, 6, 7 and 8 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.3 is the owner of the well.He has stated that the gunny bag was found in the well.P.W.4 also has stated that the dead body was taken from the well.P.W.5 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and the Final Report regarding the cause of death.P.W.9 - Fire service man has stated that he lifted the dead body from the well with the help of his men.P.W.10 has spoken about the photographs taken at the place of occurrence.P.W.11 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.W.12 has stated that he handed over the FIR registered by the Sub Inspector of Police on 25.10.2010 at about 10.00 a.m., to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Omalur.He has not stated anything about the time at which he handed over.He has also not stated as to the mode of his transport.P.W.13 has stated that he took the dead body from the place of occurrence to the hospital and handed over the blood stained cloth found on the body of the deceased to the Inspector of Police.P.W.14 the Head Clerk of the Magistrate Court has stated that he forwarded the material objects for chemical analysis on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate.P.W.15 has spoken about the investigation done and his Final Report.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor he did marked any documents in his favour.His defence was a total denial.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.This is a case based on circumstantial evidence.The prosecution relies only on the extra-judicial confession said to have been given by the appellant to P.W.1 and consequential recovery of the dead body from the well.He would further submit that the appellant is an illiterate person and the Inspector of Police, using his authority, had obtained the thumb impression of the appellant in Ex.P1 and forwarded the same to the Court.The learned counsel would further submit that there is absolutely no explanation as to why the FIR along with Ex.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however, oppose the appeal.According to him, the appellant, for his own reason had gone to P.W.1 to confess.P.W.12 - the Constable who took the FIR from the Sub Inspector of Police and has handed over the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate has not offered any explanation for the delay.P1 a doubtful document.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code