AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Chockalingam, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Court, Sivagangai made in S.C. No. 53 of 2003 whereby these two appellants stood charged under Sections 392, 302 and 201 read with 34 I.P.C, found guilty u/s 392 I.P.C and awarded seven years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and default sentence of six months simple imprisonment and further found guilty u/s 302 I.P.C and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and default sentence of six months simple imprisonment and also found guilty u/s 201 read with Section 34 I.P.C and awarded three years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and default sentence of six months simple imprisonment and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.
2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:
a) The deceased Udaiyarsamy was a native of Melapoongudi village and both the appellants/accused were natives of Aranmanai Siruvayal village. The deceased Udaiyarsamy was doing agricultural operations and also money lending business. P.W.1 is the daughter of the said Udaiyarsamy. P.W.2 is the son of P.W.1. Both the accused were in the habit of borrowing money from the deceased and they had financial transactions with him. On 07.12.2000 at about 09.00 a.m., when the deceased was accompanied by P.W.1 and P.W.2, both the accused came there and informed that there is a Panchayat at Kollampatti and for that purpose, he should accompany him. Accordingly, to be a party in the Panchayat, the deceased Udaiyarsamy was prepared to go with them. At that time, the first and the second accused informed him that they pledged the jewels with a third party and that they required money to redeem it, and after selling the said jewels to the third parties, they would pay back the amounts. Accordingly, the deceased Udaiyarsamy got Rs. 16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand only) from his daughter P.W.1 and took along with him in M.O.2 bag and from there, both the accused along with the deceased proceeded to Aranmanai Siruvayal village where they met P.W.3 who was employed in a wine shop, and took him along with them and they were proceeding to Kallal bus stand and engaged a taxi of P.W.4 and in that taxi, they proceeded towards Kollampatti and Rs. 110/- was only paid out of the fare of Rs. 150/- and they informed that they would pay the balance later and on receiving a sum of Rs. 110/- P.W.4 left the place with his taxi.
b) At Kollampatti, both the accused, P.W.3 and the deceased Udaiyarsamy bought water, soda and eatables from the shop of P.W.5 and after they took brandy, they proceeded towards Kokkarampatti. When they were talking in flighty language, P.W.3 left the place and both the accused took the deceased to the nearby garden namely A.V.R Thope. At that time, the first accused attacked the deceased Udaiyarsamy with a wooden log on the backside of the head and robbed the money from the deceased Udaiyarsamy and the first accused along with the second accused threw the dead body of the said Udaiyarsamy into the nearby well and when they were returning, P.W.6 questioned about the deceased Udaiyarsamy. But, both the accused informed that the deceased left the place earlier and from the place of occurrence, they engaged a taxi of P.W.7 and they reached Kallal at 06.30 p.m. A.1 met P.W.4 at Kallal bus stand and gave the balance of the fare and then they left.
c) P.W.1 could not see her father returned for two days, got little bit worried and gave a complaint at Kallal Police Station which is marked as Ex.P.1, on the basis of which a case came to be registered by one Muthumari who was the then Sub Inspector of Police in Cr. No. 117 of 2000 for ''man missing'' and the F.I.R, Ex.P.13 was despatched to the Court on the next day and the investigation was taken up.
d) On 10.02.2000 at about 09.00 p.m., the first accused appeared before P.W.10, the Village Administrative Officer, and made an extra-judicial confession which was recorded by him and the admissible portion of the statement was marked as Ex.P.7. The Village Administrative Officer took the first accused to Kallal Police Station along with the confessional statement, following which, P.W.14, the Inspector of Police arrested him and recorded the confessional statement and pursuant to the confessional statement, the first accused took the police officials to the well where the dead body was thrown and the dead body of the deceased Udaiyarsamy was taken out and identified that it was that of the deceased Udaiyarsamy and when it was within the limits of Madagupatti Police Station, a report was submitted to Sivagangai Taluk Police Station and the Inspector of Police, P.W.15, assigned Cr. No. 284 of 2000 and took up the further investigation and the F.I.R was marked as Ex.P.16.
e) The Investigating Officer pursuant to the confessional statement, recovered M.O.3 wooden log on 14.12.2000 and also recovered M.O.4 series, Rs. 6,200/-, under Ex.P.10 mahazar. The Investigating Officer arrested the second accused and recovered a sum of Rs. 1,200/-. The Investigating Officer conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased Udaiyarsamy and prepared an inquest report. Then, he sent the dead body for post-mortem and the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, conducted autopsy and gave the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P.18, wherein the Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to drowning in water.
f) On completion of investigation, final report was filed by the Investigating Officer before the committal court. The case was committed to Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution has marched 15 witnesses and relied on 23 exhibits and 9 M.Os.
g) After the evidence on the side of prosecution was over, the Court questioned the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied them as false. No defence witness was examined and no documents were marked.
h) After completion of trial, the trial court heard both sides, perused the materials available, found the accused guilty as per the charges and awarded punishment as referred to above.
i) Hence, the appeal at the instance of both the appellants/accused.
Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Counsel made the following submissions:
(i) In the instant case, there was no direct evidence and the prosecution rested its case only on circumstantial evidence. But the circumstances were neither complete nor sufficient pointing to the guilt of the accused and there was no circumstance at all indicating the guilt of the accused. In the instant case, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were the close relatives. According to P.W.1, the deceased Udaiyarsamy was taken from the house on 07.12.2000 and after a period of two days, she gave a complaint on 09.12.2000 and it would cast a doubt whether the accused would have taken him on 07.12.2000 itself.
(ii) Added further, the learned Counsel for the appellants that in the instant case, the Investigating Officer pursuant to the confession made by the accused, recovered the currencies and other material objects, but whether such theory by the prosecution was true. According to the prosecution, the Investigating Officer arrested the first accused on 11.12.2000, but according to P.W.2 and P.W.3, he was found in the police station on the previous day. If the arrest was shown to be false, the alleged recovery should have been rejected.
(iii) Added further, the learned Counsel for the appellants/accused that in the instant case, according to P.W.1, all the currency notes of Rs. 16,000/- were of Rs. 50/- denominations, but as per the prosecution case, the currency notes were of different denominations and that even P.W.1 gave Rs. 16,000/- to her father, who took the money along with A.1 and A.2. Under such circumstances, that part of the case also could not be believed and apart from that, in the instant case, the trial Court has relied on the alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused and according to the first accused, he beat the deceased with the wooden log; but the medical opinion was otherwise and the Doctor opined that no external injuries could be found on the back of the skull and the entire case of the prosecution that the mode of attack used for causing the death also have to be rejected and the circumstances which were entirely different, were failed to be considered by the trial Court.
Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.
In the instant case, it is not the fact in controversy that the dead body of the deceased Udaiyarsamy was found in a well which is situated in A.V.R Thope within the jurisdiction of Madagupatti Police Station. The inquest was conducted on the dead body of the deceased Udaiyarsamy by the Investigating Officer and the dead body was subjected to post-mortem. The post-mortem Doctor categorically opined that the death was due to drowning in the water and no injuries could be found on the skull due to the decomposition. Now, at this juncture, it has to be pointed out that the prosecution proved that the deceased Udaiyarsamy died due to homicidal violence. The accused never questioned the said fact at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, without difficulty it could be recorded so.
True, it is, in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to prove the guilt of the accused; but it rested its case only on the circumstantial evidence. The Honourable Apex Court has held that in a case, where the prosecution case is rested on the circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be completed and must make a chain and prove that except the accused no one else could have committed the offence. In the instant case, if this test is applied, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
The first circumstance is the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 according to whom on the date of occurrence i.e., on 07.12.2000 at about 09.00 a.m., both the accused came to the house and informed the deceased Udaiyarsamy that there is a Panchayat at Kollampatti for which purpose, he should come with them and further informed that they pledged some jewels and they wanted to redeem it for which they had no money and if the deceased redeems the jewels with his money, the accused would sell the jewels and pay back the money and hence, the deceased Udaiyarsamy got Rs. 16,000/- from his daughter P.W.1 and accompanied A.1 and A.2.
The second circumstance is the evidence of P.W.3 who was employed in a wine shop at Aranmanai Siruvayal village and who was also accompanied by both the accused and the deceased Udaiyarsamy to some extent and they had brandy and subsequently, when certain flighty language was spoken out, he left the place. P.W.3 was the next person who found the deceased in the company of the accused. Thirdly, P.W.4 was the person who was the driver of the taxi engaged to go to Kollampatti in which both the accused and the deceased Udaiyarsamy travelled. Fourthly, P.W.6 found both the accused and the deceased proceeding towards A.V.R Thope. But, after some time, both the accused returned without the deceased Udaiyarsamy and when P.W.6 asked about the deceased Udaiyarsamy, the accused replied that he already left the place. The occurrence took place in the meanwhile and a careful scrutiny of all these circumstances, would clearly show that the deceased was taken out from his house by both the accused along with them and particularly, to A.V.R Thope and both the accused robbed the money from the deceased Udaiyarsamy, attacked him with wooden log and threw the dead body into the nearby well.
At this juncture, it is a case where a part of the robbed property has also been recovered from A.1 and A.2. Now, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants, in the opinion of the Court, do not carry any merit whatsoever. It is true that the complaint was given by P.W.1 only on 10.12.2000 i.e., after two days and according to her, she thought that her father would come, but since he did not come, she gave a complaint to the Police Station and on that score alone, the prosecution case, while it has come with proper evidence, cannot be rejected. In the instant case, it is pertinent to point out that the police originally registered a case for man missing and nothing more and the investigation was on. But, the case came to be altered to Section 302 I.P.C only after the extra-judicial confession made by A.1 to P.W.10 Village Administrative Officer of Aranmanai Siruvayal. Pursuant to the same, it was the first accused who took the police along with the witnesses to A.V.R Thope and identified the place namely the well where the dead body of the deceased Udaiyarsamy was found and the different denominations of money were recovered. The further contention is that there is a discrepancy as to the alleged date of arrest. In the instant case, according to P.W.10, the Village Administrative Officer of the said place, A.1 appeared before him and gave a confessional statement and it was P.W.10 who produced A.1 before Kallal Police Station. Under such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.10 is convincing and acceptable and minor discrepancy need not be given importance. Only on the basis of the evidence of P.W.10 and the production of A.1 before the police, the entire case was unearthed. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case has got to be brushed aside. The Doctor would say that the external injuries on the backside of the skull could not be seen and he opined that they were not found, because of the decomposition of the dead body of the deceased Udaiyarsamy. The Doctor further opined that the death would have occurred due to drowning in a well. Under such circumstances, it was the accused who with an intention took the deceased from his house, attacked him, robbed the money and threw the dead body into the well.
Hence, the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the judgment of the trial Court dated 28.10.2003 made in S.C. No. 53 of 2003 by the learned Sessions Court, Sivagangai, does not require any interference either factually or legally and the sentences awarded are reasonable and nothing to be interfered with.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.