RAMUTHAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Nallan is stated to have died during the pendency of this appeal in this Court while undergoing his sentence. We, accordingly, dispose of the appeal as having abated.

(2.) It will be seen that the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the IPC. The basis of her conviction lies in the evidence of four eye witnesses Pws. 1 to 4. The High Court has found that P.Ws. 2 and 4 who were close relatives of the complainant party could not be relied upon and the entire case therefore hinged on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3, the father and the uncle of the deceased.

(3.) Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, the learned counsel for the appellant has, accordingly, argued that in the light of this uncertain evidence and in the background of the fact that the appellant had been charged for exhorting her co- accused to kill the deceased and no weapon had been recovered from her, it could not be said that she had abetted the murder. He has further pointed out that some emphasis had been laid by the High Court on the statement of P.W. 3 who could be said to be an independent witness as he had deposed that he and his brother P.W. 1 had not been on speaking terms for 25 years and as such his evidence could be relied upon. Mr. Muth Raj has, however, pointed out that from the statement of P.W. 18, the Investigating Officer, it was not clear as to whether the statement of P.W. 3 had been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or not and as such his evidence had to be looked upon with suspicion. He has finally submitted that the fact that P.W. 18, the Investigating Officer, bore deep animosity with A1 and A2 was clear from the record inasmuch that Palani Kumar aforesaid had died in police custody and on a complaint made by the appellant, an inquiry had been conducted not only by the National Human Rights Commission but also by senior police officers against him.