IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.01.2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.503 OF 2008 Natarajan .. Appellant/Accised Vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, D-1, Triplicane Police Station, Chennai-600 005. .. Respondent/Respondent This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court II, Chennai made in S.C.No.154 of 2006, dated 13.07.2007. For Appellant : Mr.C.H.Vinobha Gandhi For Respondent : Mr.P.Kumaresan, APP JUDGMENT (The judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Division, Fast Track Court-II, Chennai made in S.C.No.154 of 2006, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo 2 years R.I. under Section 302 IPC and 3 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo 6 months R.I. under Section 201 IPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: a)P.W.1 is the Manager employed in Capital Guest House, No.2, Owliya Sahib Street, 3rd Lane, Anna Salai, Chennai within the jurisdiction of the respondent police station. P.Ws.6,10 and 18 are the staff members of the said guest house. P.W.11 is the owner of the said guest house. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ b)On 30.12.2005 at 9.30 p.m., the accused and the deceased approached P.W.1 when he was in duty and asked him to let out a room. The accused also paid Rs.300/- as advance. At that time, P.Ws.6,10 and 18 were sitting on shofa near the reception. The accused wrote his address at page 1550 of the ledger, which was marked as Ex.P.3. The accused was allotted room No.204 and he was staying with the deceased. c)On 31.12.2005 at about 6.00 a.m., P.W.1 was coming from the upstairs. At that time, the accused took tea. P.W.18 also supplied tiffin. On the same day evening, both the accused and the deceased went out and at about 7.30 p.m., they came back to the room. Both of them were staying over there on the very night. On 01.01.2006, the accused asked P.W.10 to supply tiffin. Accordingly, it was supplied. At about 3.15 p.m., the accused went out telling P.W.10 that sister was sleeping in the room. At 6.00 p.m., P.W.10 took a tea to room No.204 and he found that the room was kept open and the T.V. was switched on and apart from that, the tube light was also burning. But, he could not find the deceased and he thought that the deceased was in the bathroom. After 5 minutes, P.W.10 took another tea, but the room was in the same position and even at that time, he could not find her. After raising sound, he went to the bathroom and found the deceased lying dead in the bathroom. Immediately, it was informed to P.W.11. d)P.W.11 asked P.W.1 to go to the police station and to lodge a complaint. P.W.1 went to the respondent police station and gave the complaint to P.W.13, which was marked as Ex.P.1. P.W.13 also registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2006 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.28, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. e)P.W.24, the Inspector of Police, 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.22, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.23, the rough sketch. He also recovered the 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.29, the inquest report. f)Thereafter, the Finer Print Expert was called for and he also took the finger prints from the materials available there. The finger prints of the accused were also taken after his arrest. After verification, the Finger print expert filed the reports, namely Ex.P.5 and P.6. Thereafter, the photographs were also taken. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Royapettah for the purpose of autopsy. g)P.W.23, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Royapettah, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.26, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia due to traumatic compression of the neck with obstruction of the airways. h)Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 10.01.2006 by the Investigator and the accused came forward to give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex.P.30. Following the same, M.O.2, gold chain was recovered from P.W.7, Pawn broker. P.W.9 was also examined. According to him, he is the friend of the accused and M.O.2 was handed over to him and it was he who pledged the same with P.W.7, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from whom M.O.2 was recovered. Further, M.Os.8 and 23, gold ear ring and one pair of mattal respectively were also recovered from the accused. Apart from that, the handwriting expert was called for. The admitted signature of the accused was taken and it was compared with the ledger that was recovered by the Investigating Officer during investigation and they were found tallying. After the opinion of the Doctor, the case was altered to Section 302 IPC and the alteration report was sent to the court. 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 24 witnesses and also relied on 32 exhibits and 23 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial court, on hearing the submissions made on either side and looking into the materials available, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused/appellant guilty as per the charges and awarded punishments as referred to above. Hence this appeal has arisen at the instance of the appellant. 4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel made the following submissions: a)The prosecution had no direct evidence to offer, but it has rested its entire case on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance relied on by the prosecution is actually the handwriting of the accused, which was sought to be proved through P.Ws.15 and 16. According to the Investigator, the ledger from the Capital Guest House was recovered and it was the accused who has actually written his address and also put his signature in the ledger at the time of allotment of the room and it was actually compared by the Handwriting Expert with the admitted signature. According to the prosecution, the reports were marked as Exs.P.8 and P.9. As per the opinion, they were found tallying. In this regard, the prosecution examined P.Ws.15 and 16, but both the witnesses have turned hostile. Hence those reports could not be accepted at all and they should have been rejected. b)So far as the Finer Print expert was concerned, the occurrence has taken place, according to the prosecution, on 1.1.2006 and the accused was arrested on 10.01.2006. The reports would show that the Investigator has taken the finger prints of the accused on the very day, namely on 10.01.2006. The finger print expert's report should have been rejected for the simple reason that the finger print report would clearly indicate that proper procedures have not been followed at all. Apart from that, it was a public lodge and according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at about 3.30 p.m. and the dead body was found at about 6.00 p.m. and for a period of nearly 3 hours, the room was kept open and somebody could have entered into the room in between these hours and even as per the prosecution case, jewels were stolen. According to the prosecution, the accused was arrested and his confessional statement was recorded and the jewels were recovered from him. The prosecution has marched two witnesses in this regard, who are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.Ws.15 and 16, but they have turned hostile. Apart from that, there is nobody to identify M.Os.2,8 and 23 and there is no evidence to show that it belonged to the deceased or they were worn by the deceased. The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 9. Their evidence would clearly indicate that the accused was the customer and also was known for a long time. The accused could not have committed the offence at all. Further, the medical opinion canvassed by the prosecution also did not support the case of the prosecution for the simple reason that the Doctor, who has conducted post-mortem, has not indicated anywhere the time of death. All would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case and all these aspects were not considered by the trial court. Hence the appellant is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this court. 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 dead body of Neela @ Neelavathi was found in the Capital Guest House on 1.1.2006 at about 6.00 p.m. and a case came to be registered by the respondent police under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Following the inquest, the dead body was subjected to post- mortem by P.W.23, the Doctor, who has given his opinion after conducting post-mortem that she would appear to have died of Asphyxia due to traumatic compression of the neck with obstruction of the airways. The above fact was never disputed by the appellant before the trial court. Hence, no impediment is felt by this court in recording so. 7.In order to substantiate that it was the accused who caused the death of the deceased at the time and place of occurrence, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. Hence it has rested its entire case on circumstantial evidence. It is not that the court is unmindful of caution made by the settled principles of law that in a given case like this when the prosecution rested its case on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be cogent and should constitute a chain without a snap, pointing to the hypotheses that except the accused, no one else could have committed the offence. The court, even after applying the said test, is thoroughly satisfied that it was the accused who has committed the crime. 8.The occurrence has taken place in a lodge belonged to P.W.11, where P.W.1 was the Manager. According to P.W.1, on 30.12.2005, the accused came over there along with the deceased and asked a room and room No.204 was allotted to him and it was the accused who wrote the address and put his signature in the ledger, which was marked as Ex.P.3 and he has also given an advance. According to P.W.1, he has also seen the accused on a few occasions when he has come out from the room. Apart from that, P.Ws.10 and 18 are the room boys and they have supplied not only tea, but also tiffin to the accused from 30.12.2005 to 01.01.2006 for nearly a period of about 2 days and on all these occasions, they had seen the accused in the company of the deceased. It is true, identification parade has not been conducted and it is a public lodge. But, at the same time, P.Ws.10 and 18, the room boys had seen the accused on number of occasions when they went to room to supply tea and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ tiffin also. It is quite natural that it would cause dent in their memory. In a given case like this, an identification parade need not be conducted. The identification parade is not must in every case and it should not be forgotten that the identification parade is a supportive piece of evidence and it is only to corroborate with the main piece of evidence. In the instant case, the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 18 that they had seen the accused in the company of the deceased in the room for a period of 2 days, in the considered opinion of the court, would suffice. 9.Further, there are two other circumstances and one was the Finger Print Expert's opinion, which are marked as Exs.P.5 and P.6. The Investigating Officer has invited the Finger Print Expert to take the finger prints that were available inside the bathroom on the very day. Further, the finger prints of the accused were also taken on 10.01.2006, namely on the date of his arrest. They were compared by the Finger Print Expert, who has given his reports that the finger prints taken from the bathroom were found tallying with the finger prints that were taken from the accused by the Investigator. It is true, P.Ws.15 and 16 have turned hostile, but on that ground, the evidence put forth by the prosecution cannot be rejected. 10.Apart from the Finger Print Expert opinion, the handwriting of the accused was taken and it was compared with the ledger. P.W.1 was the Manager of the lodge and he has not only identified him, but also has given the ledger, in which the accused has written his address and put his signature. The handwriting was also found to be tallying and hence it would also corroborate with the other piece of evidence available. 11.In the instant case, it is true, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the recovery of jewels from the accused and they were not identified that it belonged to the deceased or they were worn by the deceased. Even assuming that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove this part, the court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the circumstances narrated above, namely P.Ws.1,10 and 18 had seen the accused in the company of the deceased in room No.204 and the accused left the room on 1.1.2006 at 3.15 p.m. and the dead body was found at 6.00 p.m. and immediately, it was brought to the notice of the police and the investigation was taken up. The added circumstances are the opinions of the finger print expert and the handwriting expert. Thus, the scientific evidence was in favour of the prosecution. Therefore, in the instant case, the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant do not carry any merit whatsoever and they are liable to be rejected and accordingly, they were rightly rejected by the trial court. It is a case where the accused has taken the deceased from Pudukkottai to Madras and was staying with her in the lodge and has caused her death and fled away from the place of occurrence. Thus, the circumstances were placed and proved by the prosecution and it has brought home the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court has got to be sustained on both the charges of murder and screening of evidence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12.In the result, this criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar vvk To 1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Chennai. 2.Inspector of Police, D-1, Triplicane Police Station, Chennai-600 005. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichirapalli. 1 cc To Mr.C.H.Vinobha Gandhi, Advocate, SR.2698. CRL.A.NO.503 OF 2008 KA(CO) RVL 30.01.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/