IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 13.10.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.486 OF 2007 AND 701 OF 2008 Mani @ Manimaran .. Appellant/ Accused-1 in C.A.No.486 of 2007 Senthil @ Senthilkumar .. Appellant/ Accused-2 in C.A.No.701 of 2008 Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur (Crime No.301/2002) .. Respondent/Complainant in both the appeals These criminal appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore at Tiruppur made in S.C.No.33 of 2006, dated 4.11.2006. For Appellants : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan in C.A.No.486/2007 Mr.N.Arunkumar in C.A.No.701/2008 For Respondent : Mr.P.Kumaresan, APP COMMON JUDGMENT (The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This judgment shall govern the above two appeals. These appeals challenge the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore at Tiruppur made in S.C.No.33 of 2006, whereby these appellants stood charged under Sections 302, 379 and 201 IPC, tried and found guilty as per the charges and awarded 3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ years R.I each under Section 379 IPC, life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each under Section 302 IPC and for the offence under Section 201 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo 3 months R.I. each and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated thus: a)Both the accused before the trial court belonged to Thanjavur. They were residing at Annupparpalayam Anaipudur and were doing some job at Tiruppur. They were actually residing in a part of the house of P.W.6, who is the sister of P.W.7. They were also taking food by making payment of Rs.150/- per week. The deceased Mayilathal was also the resident nearby. P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased. b)On 5.7.2002, P.W.2 went to the house of her mother and gave her food. The deceased Mayilathal informed her that she was to go to see her son, who was not doing well that time. Then, P.W.2 left the place. At about 3.00 p.m. on that day, P.W.2 again came to the house of the deceased, but found that the house was locked. At that time, A-1 and A-2 were sitting in the pial situated outside the house of the deceased. P.W.2 enquired them and they informed that Mayilathal has gone to the house of Iyer. P.W.2 immediately proceeded to the house of Iyer, where she was informed that Mayilathal did not come there. Hence she stayed in the house of her younger brother P.W.4 that night. c)On 6.7.2002, when P.W.1, V.A.O of Rakkiyapalayam, was in his office, he was informed by P.W.3, the member of panchayat, that a dead body of a person aged 65 to 70 years was found near Nallaru Canal. On hearing this, accompanied by P.W.3 and his assistant P.W.5, P.W.1 went to that place and found the partly burnt dead body. P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P.1, the complaint to P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police. On the strength of Ex.P.1, the complaint, P.W.12 registered a case in Crime No.301 of 2002 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.15, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. d)P.W.13, the Inspector of the said circle, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.3, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.17, the rough sketch. He recovered material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.18, the inquest report. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy. e)P.W.11, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Tiruppur, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found that there was a cut injury on the neck and has also opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ about 36 to 48 hours prior to autopsy. She has issued Ex.P.13, the post-mortem certificate and Ex.P.14, the final opinion. f)On 7.7.2002 at about 9.00 a.m., when P.W.1 was in his office, both the accused appeared before him and gave confessional statement in respect of the crime. The same was recorded by P.W.1 and both the accused were produced before the respondent police. At the time of enquiry, both the accused gave confessional statements to the Inspector of Police, which were recorded in the presence of the witnesses. The admissible part of the confessional statement of A-1 was marked as Ex.P.5, pursuant to which, A-1 produced M.O.5, Rs.70/-, which was recovered under Ex.P.6, mahazar. The admissible part of the confessional statement of A-2 was marked as Ex.P.7, pursuant to which he produced M.O.6, Rs.50/-, which was recovered under Ex.P.8, mahazar. A-1 also produced M.O.7, Rs.7000/- and M.O.8, knife, which were recovered under Ex.P.9, mahazar. A-2 produced M.O.4, plastic can, which was recovered under Ex.P.10, mahazar. Thereafter, A-1 identified P.W.9, from whom M.O.9 and M.O.10, jewels were recovered under Ex.P.11, mahazar. Thereafter, A-2 identified P.W.10, from whom M.Os.11 and 12, jewels were recovered under Ex.P.12, mahazar. The accused were sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were identified by P.W.2 and others. The material objects were sent for chemical analysis. g)P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. Ex.P.19, the report was received. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report. 3.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and relied on 19 exhibits and also 12 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. procedurally as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced and on scrutiny of the materials available, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and has found both the accused guilty as per the charges and awarded punishments as referred to above. Hence these appeals at the instance of the appellants. 4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer, but it rested its entire case on circumstantial evidence; that even the earliest document is the report given by P.W.1, V.A.O. to the Sub Inspector of Police; that a perusal of the same did not indicate the implications of either A-1 or A-2 with the crime; that the prosecution relied upon the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given to P.W.6 at the earliest, but P.W.6 was not examined by the Investigator in that regard; that when both the accused appeared before P.W.1, V.A.O., according to the prosecution, they gave confessional statement; that it is pertinent to point out that this document has come into https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ existence, even as per the prosecution case, pending investigation and hence it loses its significance in law and the evidentiary value; that so far as the recovery is concerned, even assuming to be true, only on the basis of the recovery of M.Os, the conviction cannot be sustained and thus, the prosecution had no evidence worth mentioning at all and that no one of the facts was considered by the trial court and hence the appellants are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this court and they have got to be acquitted. 5.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6.It is not in controversy that the mother of P.W.2 was done to death and following the same, the dead body was partly burnt. Following the inquest made by the Investigating Officer, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.11, the Doctor, who has given her categorical opinion in the post-mortem certificate and also as a witness before the court that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. P.W.2 and others have categorically spoken to the fact that they were able to identify the dead body in view of the marks found on the body of Mayilathal and hence so far as identity of Mayilathal was concerned, even though an attempt was made to doubt the same, it has got to be rejected and therefore, the identity of the dead body leaves no doubt. 7.It is true, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer, but it has rested its entire case on circumstantial evidence. The court is mindful of caution made by the settled principles of law and also by the decisions of the Apex Court that in a given case like this the prosecution has to place and prove necessary circumstances, which should constitute a chain without a snap pointing to the hypotheses that except the accused no one else could have committed the offence. Even if this test is applied, the court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 8.Concededly, A-1 and A-2, who belonged to Thanjavur, at the time of occurrence, were residing at Annuparpalayam Anaipudur, within the jurisdiction of the respondent police. They were actually staying in the house of P.W.6, who is the sister of P.W.7 and were also taking food in the house of P.W.6 by paying each Rs.150/- per week and thus, both the accused are well acquainted to P.Ws.6 and 7. P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased Mayilathal. It is an admitted position that the house of the deceased is situated next to the house of P.W.6. According to P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased, on 5.7.2002, she went to the house of her mother and gave food and she returned. Thereafter, again P.W.2 went to the house of her mother at about 3.00 p.m. and found that the house was kept locked. At that time, both A-1 and A-2 were sitting in the pial situated outside the house of the deceased. P.W.2 enquired about her mother and she was informed by both the accused that Mayilathal has gone to the house of Iyer. Immediately, P.W.2 went to the house of Iyer, where she was informed that Mayilathal did not come. At this juncture, it is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pertinent to point out that the occurrence has taken place on 5.7.2002. Thus, it would be quite clear that both the accused persons were found sitting outside the house of the deceased and the house was kept locked. Further, they misled P.W.2 as if her mother has gone to the house of Iyer, but not so. 9.In the instant case, it is true, according to P.W.1, both the accused appeared before him and gave confessional statement and they were produced before the respondent police station, where they have given confessional statements and the admissible part of the same were also marked. The Investigating Officer recovered M.O.8, knife from A-1 in the presence of the witnesses. A-1 identified P.W.9, from whom M.O.9 and M.O.10, jewels of Mayilathal were recovered. The second accused also identified P.W.10, from whom M.Os.11 and 12, jewels were recovered. The jewels were identified by P.W.2 and others that they belonged to Mayilathal. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that pending investigation, the arrest was made and the accused have given confessional statements voluntarily and they produced the weapon of crime and also the jewels M.Os.9 to 12, which belonged to Mayilathal. At this juncture, it remains to be stated that the occurrence has taken place on 5.7.2002, the report was given on 6.7.2002 and the arrest and recovery of jewels were taken place on 7.7.2002 and thus, within a short span of time, the jewels have been recovered. Under these circumstances, it would be quite clear that both these accused were found sitting in the pial situated outside the house of the deceased and when P.W.2 enquired them, they misled her and thereafter, on 7.7.2002, they went to the office of P.W.1, V.A.O and gave confessional statements and they were produced before the police and following the same, the jewels belonged to Mayilathal have been recovered, which were identified by the witnesses. All would clearly indicate that except the accused persons, none else could have committed the offence. Hence the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants and narrated above do not merit acceptance at all. 10.It is a case where they have committed murder for gain and they robbed the jewels of Mayilathal. The prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused, leaving no doubt in the mind of the court. Under these circumstances, the trial court was perfectly correct in recording the finding that they were found guilty and accordingly, the trial court has awarded punishments as referred to above. 11.In the result, these criminal appeals fail and the same are dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial court. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vvk To 1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Coimbatore at Tiruppur. 2.The Inspector of Police, Anupparpalayam Police Station, Tiruppur. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. +1 cc To Mr.E.J.Ayyappan , Advocate, SR.57238 CRL.A.NOS.486/2007 AND 701/2008 ssn [co] gkg/21.10 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/