AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sasidharan Nambiar, J.—Appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offences u/s 377, 201 and 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in S.C.No.202 of 2004 by Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court (Adhoc) No.IV, Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution case was that appellant, in furtherance of the common intention with deceased second accused, kidnapped deceased Arun Kumar aged 14 years, son of PW7, Mohanan Asari and elder brother of PW8, Ajith on the evening of 2.8.2002 from his house under the guise that he was being taken to the temple and thereafter committed carnal intercourse from, the railway gate room at Kannankuzhi railway gate and inflicted injuries on the deceased Arun Kumar with Mo17 scissors and caused his death and thereafter to destroy the evidence of murder, dumped the body at the railway track more than 1 km away from Kannankuzhy railway gate and thereby committed the offences. The dead body of deceased Arun Kumar was found in the railway track in the morning of 3.8.2002 and PW1 President of Kollayil Grama Panchayat furnished Ext.P1 F.I.Statement based on which Crime No.514 of 2002 of Neyyattinkara Police Station was registered for the offence u/s 174 of Indian Penal Code. PW41, Investigating Officer went to the site where the dead body was lying, along with PW19, the Assistant Director of Biology, Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram who prepared Ext.P5 report. PW19 collected the cellophane tape pressings (Mos 21 and 22) from the palms of the hands of the dead body and entrusted to PW41. After conducting the inquest and preparing Ext.P2 inquest report, body was sent for post mortem examination. PW28, the Doctor conducted the autopsy and prepared Ext.P14 certificate of post mortem. At the time of autopsy, nail clippings of the deceased from both the hands (Mos 26 and 27) were collected by PW28 the Assistant Police Surgeon and Lecturer in Forensic Medicine of Medical College and enclosed them in sealed covers and handed over to PW41. Accused No.2 committed suicide on 3.8.2002 at about 11.30 and 11.45 am in railway track near Nagarkovil Railway Station. PW41 during the investigation prepared Ext.P11 mahazar and recovered MO17 scissors, Mo18 and 19 pants and shirt of the appellant and got the railway gate room examined by PW20, the Joint Director of Forensic Science Laboratory and collected the blood stained soil from underneath the bricks on preparing Ext.P6 report. The Mos were got examined from the laboratory by PW20, Parameswaran Nair, the Joint Director (Research) of Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram who prepared Ext.P7 report. As second accused committed suicide, the charge against him abated and a report was filed. After completing the investigation, charge was laid before the committal Magistrate against the appellant for the offences u/s 364, 371, 201 and 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. On committal, when charge for the offences were framed by the Sessions Judge, appellant pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined 41 witnesses and marked 57 exhibits and identified 28 material objects. When the appellant was called upon to enter on his defence and adduce evidence, appellant examined Dws 1 to 4 and marked Exts.D1 to D7. On the evidence, learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offences u/s 377, 201 and 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence u/s 377 of Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence u/s 201 of Indian Penal Code. It is challenged in the appeal. Learned counsel appearing for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that there is absolutely no acceptable legal evidence to connect the appellant with the offence. It was argued that as the case is based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain of circumstances should be complete and should unerringly point out the guilt of the accused and the circumstances should be incompatible with the hypothesis of innocence of the appellant and on the evidence, it cannot be conclusively found that appellant committed the offence. Learned counsel argued that it was the specific case of the appellant that he was in no way connected with the incident and the death of deceased Arun Kumar would have been the act of a Sorcerer, who is indulged in such acts under the guise of poojas for getting children to those who did not begot child and the evidence would establish that second accused, though married, PW9 Sindhu did not begot a child and was spending major part of his income for poojas to get a child born to his wife and he might have taken the deceased Arun Kumar to the Sorsever, who might have committed the unnatural offence and also inflicted the injuries and therefore, in the absence of clinching evidence against the appellant, his conviction is not sustainable. Learned counsel also argued that the only witnesses who deposed against the appellant are PW14, PW26 and PW39 and their evidence cannot be believed. It was argued that PW14, who admitted that he used to cross Kannankuzhi railway gate on several occasions disclosed that he had no acquaintance with any other employee of that railway gate and therefore his evidence that he found appellant and another and the deceased at about 9.15 pm near the gate should not have been accepted. It was also argued that though PW15, 16 and 17 were examined to prove the presence of PW26 near the railway gate, the learned Sessions Judge should not have relied on their evidence at all. It was pointed out that the evidence of PW15 and 26 is to the effect that PW26 got down from the autorickshaw as the railway gate was closed and to shield the fact that PW26 had consumed liquor, from his mother, PW26 got down there and slept on a slab/bench immediately to the north of the railway gate room and Ext.P11, the mahazar of the room prepared by PW41, does not show the existence of any slab/bench on the northern side of the railway gate room and therefore their very case is to be disbelieved. It was also pointed out that as they were proceeding towards the north, the railway gate was closed and if so, PW26 could reach the north of the railway gate room only by crossing the railway line beneath the gate and as there is no case that he crossed the closed railway gate, the evidence of PW15 and PW26 is to be disbelieved. Learned counsel also argued that the evidence of PW26 is artificial and there is no possibility for PW26 to witness the incident, even if he was sleeping on a bench/slab to the north of the railway gate room. It was argued that if PW26 was sleeping and the accused wanted to take the body out of the gate room, he will not call PW26 as deposed by him so as to provide an opportunity to witness the incident and for that reason alone, his evidence is not believable. It was also argued that if PW26 had witnessed removal of the body of a boy from the railway gate room on that night as claimed by him and the appellant PW26 had admitted that he committed a mistake, when on the morning of the next day, he found the body of deceased Arun Kumar on the railway track, he would have definitely disclosed it to others and in any case to PW15 and PW16 who were with him on the previous night and would not have kept it as a secret till it was disclosed to the Investigating Officer. It was therefore argued that evidence of PW26 should not have been believed. Learned counsel then argued that PW39, autorickshaw driver though claimed that his assistance was sought by the appellant to take the boy from the railway gate room was on that night and hence he saw the body of the boy is artificial and unnatural. It was pointed out that even if appellant had sought the help of PW39, the autorickshaw driver, to remove the body and was refused, he found the body inside the gate room and drops of blood on the floor, in the ordinary course of human behaviour, he would have disclosed to at least his friends especially when on the next day body of the boy was found on the railway track and appellant will not write the number of the autorickshaw in Mo23 calender and that is most artificially created by the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel also argued that evidence of PW39 cannot be believed as he did not disclose the factum of witnessing the boy lying on the slab inside the gate room on that night, though he was aware that the dead body was found in the railway track on the next day morning and in such circumstances, the evidence of PW39 also cannot be used to connect the appellant with the offence. The learned counsel also submitted that the scientific evidence also should not have been relied on. It was pointed out that though the cellophane tape pressings collected by PW22 from the palms of the deceased showed similar fibre found in Mo19 shirt of the appellant, as there is no evidence to prove that the cellophane tape pressings collected by PW22, by placing them on the palms of the hands of the deceased, were sealed, possibility of creating the evidence later cannot be ruled out, especially when the cellophane tape pressings were produced before the court more than 9 days thereafter and in such circumstances, presence of similar fibre to the one in Mo19 shirt of the appellant should not have been used as an item of evidence to connect the appellant with the incident. It was argued that when there is no evidence as to who inflicted the injury, which caused the death of Arun Kumar, in any case, appellant should not have been convicted for the offence u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that learned Sessions Judge elaborately discussed the entire evidence and relied on the evidence of PW14, 26 and 39 to hold that appellant was found along with the deceased at about 9.15 pm on the night near the railway gate and thereafter at about 12.30 pm, the body of the deceased was found lying on a slab inside the railway gate room by PW39, when his assistance was sought by the appellant to remove the body and the evidence of PW26 establish that appellant along with the second accused removed the body of the boy from the railway gate room and placed it on the railway track and in such circumstances, though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances proved unerringly point out the guilt of the appellant and rule out every other possibility, except that appellant along with the second accused committed unnatural offence and caused the death of deceased Arun Kumar and thereafter removed the body from the railway gate room to the railway track to destroy the evidence of commission of murder and in such circumstances, the conviction is perfectly sustainable.
As the case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The case when depends upon the conclusion drawn, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring the offences home beyond reasonable doubt. As declared by the Apex Court in Padala Veera Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, , the evidence must satisfy the following tests:-
The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and
the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
The evidence is to be appreciated in the light of these settled legal principles.
The fact that the dead body of the deceased Arun Kumar was found on the railway track in the morning of 3.8.2002, with the injuries noted in Ext.P14, by PW28, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy and prepared Ext.P14 post mortem certificate, is not disputed. PW1 furnished Ext.P1 First information based on which crime was registered as unnatural death. PW41 reached the scene, where the body was found, prepared Ext.P2 inquest and with the assistance of PW19, the Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory examined the site and prepared Ext.P5 report. Near the dead body, a rubber chappal and Mo11 Tamil newspaper and Mo10 white full sleeve shirt were found and PW41 seized them. When the dead body was examined for inquest, Mo6 pocket diary, Mo4 and Mo5 tickets, Mo3 comb and Mo7 ground nuts and Mo8 coins for Rs.3.50 were found and seized. PW28 conducted the post mortem examination and at that time, he removed Mo26 and Mo27 nail clippings from the right and left hands of the deceased and also Mo28 scalp hair. These nail clippings and scalp hair were collected at a time when the Investigating Officer was unaware whether it is a case of homicide or suicide, much less there was any suspicion against the appellant. PW20, Joint Director of Forensic Science Laboratory examined them at the Forensic Science Laboratory and prepared Ext.P7 report. PW7 also examined Mos 18 and 19, kakhi pants and the kakhi shirts of the appellant, which were seized from railway gate room by PW41 on 31.8.2002 as well as Mo17 scissors, which was also seized from that room along with Mo18 and Mo19. It was found that Mo26 and Mo27 nail clippings contain similar fibres found in Mo19 shirt of the appellant. Similarly, when Mo21 and 22 cellophane tape pressings of the right and left palms of the deceased collected at the time of autopsy by PW28 were examined, PW20 found that they also contain the similar fibre as found in Mo19 shirt. PW20 also found that Mo17 scissors were having traces of blood, of "A" group. Ext.P15, the result of the examination of blood taken from body of the deceased and got examined at the blood bank establish that the blood group of the deceased was ''A positive''. Similarly, the soil collected beneath the bricks from the gate room shows traces of human blood. Its group was also ''A''. The question is whether the presence of the fibres in the nail clippings and cellophane tape pressings collected by PW28 at the time of autopsy of similar fibre of Mo19 shirt, could be relied on and if relied on, it could be explained in any other manner than it was the accused who inflicted the injuries on the deceased. Even though at the time of questioning u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, appellant has filed a statement explaining his version as to the cause of the death as caused by the Sorcerer and it was contended that the dead body was placed on the railway track after removing it from the house of the Sorsever in the autorickshaw of PW39, there is no explanation for the presence of the similar fibre to the one in Mo19 shirt, found in Mo26 and Mo27 nail clippings of the deceased.
The evidence of PW28 with Ext.P14 post mortem certificate establish that death of Arun Kumar was due to the penetrating injuries to the chest and abdomen and they could be caused with a weapon like Mo17 scissors. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the evidence and found the cause of death as deposed by PW28. That factual finding was not challenged and is perfectly in accordance with the evidence. Evidence of PW20 with Ext.P7 report of Chemical Analysis establish the presence of human spermatozoa on the anal swab collected from the body of the deceased at the time of autopsy and also in Mo18 pants of the deceased and also on the back seat portion of Mo2 pants found on the body of the deceased. It establish that the deceased was subjected carnal intercourse before his death.
We have carefully scanned each and every piece of evidence on record to find out the existence of evidence against the appellant. Based on the conclusive scientific evidence revealed by the evidence of PW20 and Ext.P7 report, with the evidence of PW28, we have no hesitation to hold that presence of similar fibre found in Mo19 shirt of the appellant on Mo26 and Mo27 nail clippings of the deceased and Mo21 and Mo22 cellophane tape pressings is a strong circumstance to hold that appellant was with the deceased at the time when he sustained the fatal injuries. Though it was argued that the cellophane tape pressings were not sealed, Ext.P7 report and the evidence of PW14 with Ext.P14 prove that the nail clippings of the deceased were removed and entrusted to the Investigating Officer in a sealed cover which was found in tact when they were examined at the laboratory. They were collected at a time when there was no idea about the offenders. Hence the scientific evidence could definitely be acted upon. This circumstance is not possible to be explained by any other hypothesis.
Though it is possible that PW14 and PW26 may not depose the truth, as they did not disclose the incident to anybody before the disclosure to the police at a later stage, we find the evidence of PW39 is standing on a different and sound footing. The evidence of PW39 is that after carrying passengers, he was driving the autorickshaw and passing through Kannankuzhy railway gate on that night after 1 am. The railway gate was found closed. The evidence of PW33, the Junior Engineer, who produced Ext.P27 register showing the time of trains which passed along the route on that night establishes that the trains had passed at 9.15 pm, 12.05 pm, 1.23 am, 2.23 am, 5.40 am, 5.58 am, 6.40 am and 7.35 am on the night of 2.8.2002 and morning of 3.8.2002. Therefore, there is intrinsic evidence in support of the evidence of PW39 that the railway gate was closed, round about the time he claimed to have reached the railway gate. As per the evidence of PW39, when the autorickshaw was stopped, appellant approached him with a request to carry a boy in that autorickshaw. Agreeing it, PW39 proceeded along with the appellant to the railway gate room. PW39 claimed that he found the body of the boy lying on a slab inside the room and drops of blood on the floor. Therefore apprehending that something had happened, he refused to take the boy and went away. Though learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that as PW39 was a suspect and he was in police custody and his statement was recorded u/s 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he falsely deposed that fact, because of the threat that he will be implicated for the murder and also argued that it was in that autorickshaw, the body of the deceased was taken from the house of the Sorcerer to the railway track, on scanning the evidence, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW39. The evidence of PW39 would therefore establish that appellant was found on that night round about 1 am and he requested PW39 to take the body of a boy in that vehicle and PW39 found the body of the boy lying on a slab inside the gate room and drops of blood on the floor. Though PW39 did not disclose this fact to others, we do not find that on that ground, his evidence is to be disbelieved. The said evidence of PW39 fortifies the prosecution case that appellant was there along with the deceased on that night. Added to this, the evidence of PW20 with Ext.P7 report and evidence of PW28 establish that injuries found on the deceased, which caused his death, were inflicted with Mo17 scissors which was supplied by the railway department to the appellant and was admittedly inside the gate room. Though learned counsel argued that the scissors was available in the room when the Investigating Officer inspected the room earlier and stains of blood on Mo17 was not noted in the recovery mahazar and PW18 and PW23 were also there later in that gate room and they also could use the scissors, we find that on scientific examination, it is proved that Mo17 scissors contain blood of the same group of the deceased. Though it is true that the blood group of the appellant is also the same, appellant even at the time of his examination u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure has a case that his blood happened to be there on Mo17. The evidence of PW28 establish that the injuries which caused the death of Arun Kumar could be inflicted with Mo17 scissors. The evidence of PW20 also establish that Mo17 contain the blood of the same group of the deceased. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that appellant to whom Mo17 scissors was supplied, had inflicted the injury with Mo17 on the deceased, after committing unnatural offence. The presence of spermatozoa in the anus of the deceased was proved by the evidence of PW20 with Ext.P7 report. Item No.9 examined is Mo18 pants of the appellant. When PW20 examined Mo18 pants of the deceased at the laboratory, human spermatozoa were found. These unimpeachable evidence establish that deceased Arun Kumar was subjected to unnatural offence. The appreciation of the entire evidence would conclusively establish that the second accused took the deceased from his house making PW7 the father to believe that the boy is being taken to the temple. The evidence of PW9, the wife of the second accused establishes that the deceased was being taken by the second accused even earlier and some times the deceased boy used to stay in the same room of that house with the second accused. The evidence of PW10 establishes that the deceased was found with the second accused at Nettayam between 6 and 6.30 pm on that day and they got into ''Priyadarsini'' bus and proceeded to Neyyattinkara. The evidence of PW11, the conductor of ''Priyadarsini'' bus and evidence of PW12 establish that the second accused along with the deceased had been to Neyyattinkara by about 8.40 or 8.50 pm. The evidence of PW13 establishes that the second accused with the deceased was found at about 9 pm. The evidence of PW39 establishes that the appellant was found along with another person in the night in the railway gate room and appellant sought the service of PW39, autorickshaw driver to take the body of the boy from there, though PW39 refused to take it getting suspicious. It is thus conclusively proved that the deceased boy was there in that railway gate room with the appellant on that night and the boy was found lying on the slab inside the room with drops of blood on the floor. Hence it is clear that the deceased boy was inflicted with the injuries and the injuries found on the body at the time of autopsy were inflicted from that room. Presence of appellant in that room on that night as he was on duty is admitted. Presence of blood of the same group of the deceased was found on floor of the room, as proved by the evidence of PW20 who collected it and examined at the Laboratory. Mo17 scissors proved to be used for inflicting the injuries was supplied by the Railways for use in that room and was in the custody of the appellant on that night. The presence of the same fibre found in Mo19 shirt worn by the appellant as well as Mos 21 and 22 cellophane tape pressings of the two palms of the deceased as well as Mo26 and 27 nail clippings of the deceased unclinchingly establish that appellant was there when the deceased sustained the fatal injuries. It is thus proved that appellant inflicted those injuries on the deceased and caused his death. In such circumstances, learned Sessions Judge rightly found the appellant guilty for the offences u/s 377, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The conviction is therefore perfectly legal and correct and warrants no interference. Learned Sessions Judge awarded imprisonment for life with fine for the offence u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code. Though appellant was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years for the offence u/s 377 and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence u/s 201 of Indian Penal Code, as the sentences are concurrent, we do not find any reason to interfere with the sentence also. Appeal is therefore dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence.