Case: K.T. Palanisamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Appellant was an astrologer. The deceased was passing through tough times. His son had also remained ill for long time. He allegedly was advised by the appellant to perform some poojas on the bed of the river Bhavani situated at Nanjaipuliyampatti on or about 29.4.1996. He went to the place for the said purpose along with the accused persons. The deceased at that time was said to be wearing a gold chain (M.O.1) and two gold rings (M.Os.2 & 3) engraved with the letters ‘P.The deceased was allegedly last seen by PW-3 and PW-4 namely, Nallasamy and K.Devaraj respectively and his brother-in-law PW-5, Muthusamy. He, however, did not come back. On inquiries having been made from the appellant, the family members of the deceased were informed that he had gone away after performing the said pooja for attending some function. He was even thereafter not heard of for a long time. An advertisement was issued in a local newspaper on 12.5.1996. Poongodi (PW-1), the wife of the deceased, in order to search out her husband, in turn, sought for the assistance of the appellant, who advised them to perform a pooja at Bannavi Amman Temple. However, when the parents of the deceased and his grand-mother left for Bannavi Amman Temple for performing the pooja in the company of the appellant, they also did not return home. From a report which appeared in a local newspaper on 3.6.1996 PW-1 came to learn that the said three persons have been found murdered at Erode. He went to Erode and lodged first information report before the Erode, South Police Station, which was recorded by Manoharan (PW16). A first information report was registered being crime No.415/96 under the caption man missing. On 4.7.1996 the statement of PW-1 was recorded by the Investigating Officer PW-18. The Banglaputhur police station which had the jurisdiction to investigate into the said matter received the said first information report on 2.9.1996, on the basis whereof PW-17 the Head Constable of the said police station registered a case as Crime No.406/96 against the accused under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short theAccused Nos.1 & 2 were arrested on 6.7.1996 at a bus stop at Erode in the presence of Abdulhasan Ansari (PW-11). Allegedly, on the basis of a purported confessional statement made by the appellant, the Investigating Officer and others went to Coimbatore for recovery of a gold chain which is said to have been sold to one Dhanasekaran. The said gold chain and some bangles, however, were seized in connection with the murder of theparents and grand-mother. He also took the police party to a jewellery shop belonging to one Dhanasekaran who produced a long golden chain. The same was seized and marked as M.O.Accused No.2 allegedly was having a gold ring in his finger which was seized and marked before the learned Trial Judge as M.O.3.Accused No.3 was arrested near a municipal guest house at Erode on 7th July, 1996. Two Criminal cases were instituted against the appellants;one for commission of murder of Somasundaram; and the other for murder of his parents and grand-mother.

Reasoning:
In a situation of this nature, it is difficult to hold that a judgment of conviction can be founded on the sole circumstance of the deceaseds having been last seen with the appellant by the prosecution witnesses who are all interested and partisan witnesses. More significant is the conduct of the prosecution witnesses. On the day of the alleged crime, they did not suspect the appellant in any manner whatsoever. They did not even go to the place of the occurrence. Despite the fact that he was missing, the purported explanation of the appellant was taken for granted. Even no missing report was lodged. It was expected that such missing report should have been lodged immediately and that details of his wearing apparels as also the fact that he had two rings on his finger and one gold chain would have been mentioned.The fact that the deceased was last seen with the appellant should have been specifically disclosed in the first information report. Suspicion was raised about the involvement of the appellant only because three other dead bodies were recovered. We do not know the nature of evidence that has been adduced in that case. We need not enter into any surmise in thisany event, the circumstancial evidence which formed part of the records of SC 100 of 1997 could not be relied upon for arriving at the conclusion that the appellant herein is guilty of commission of the saidonly other circumstance is recovery of the golden chain. It was allegedly sold to PW8. He, however, has denied his involvement. Even assuming that golden chain was recovered at the instance of the appellant herein, the same by itself, in our considered view, would be sufficient for upholding the judgment and conviction under Section 302 of thetherefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is in jail. He is directed to be set at liberty unless wanted in connection with any other case