STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. SUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent herein was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri Division at Krishnagiri for an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and was awarded the extreme penalty of death. In a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge for confirmation of the said sentence and also in an appeal filed by the respondent against the said conviction and sentence, the High Court of Judicature at Madras by the impugned judgment while dismissing the reference for confirmation of the sentence, allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The State of Tamil Nadu is in appeal against the said common judgment of the High Court.

(2.) The allegation against the respondent in this case is that he committed the murder of one D. Rathinam who was the Incharge Sub-Post Master of K.R.P. Dam Post Office on 16-3-1984 with a view to wreak vengeance against him for having accused him of stealing Rs. 10 and also with a view to rob the Post Office. It is the case of the prosecution that at the relevant time the respondent was working temporarily as an extra departmental mail carrier in place of his father who was on leave. The prosecution alleged that since the Post Office was found locked on a woking day namely on 16-3-1984, PW-4 who was also working in the said Post Office, informed PW-1 who was then the Sub-Divisional Post Inspector about this locking of the Post Office who, in turn, informed PW-6, the Deputy Superintendent of Post Office over the phone as to this unsual incident of finding the Post Office locked on a working day. On instructions from PW-6, PW-1 made necessary arrangements to safeguard and protect the properties of the said Post Office and on the morning of 17-3-1984 said PW-1 went to the Post Office and broke open the lock in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer and other office personnel and on taking an inventory of the said office, they found certain cash, postal stamps, postal orders and cash cerficates etc. valued at Rs. 850.55 missing. They also found Rathinam who was the Incharge of the office on 16-3-1984 missing but found his shoes in the Post Office, hence on a suspicion they searched for him during which process they found the body of said Rathinam inside the septic tank situated in the backyard of the said Post Office. On lodging a complaint in this regard, a case was registered in Taluk Police Station, Krishnagiri being Crime No. 142 of 1984 under Secitons 302 and 380, IPC. PW-12 who took up the investigation, came to the spot on 17-3-1984 and inspected the scene of occurrence and drew up the inquest Panchnama Ex. 19. He made inquiries during the said inquest proceedings and recorded the statements of PWs-1, 3, 6 and one Rajan. He made arrangement to send the dead body for autopsy. As per the medical report it was found that the deceased died due to injuries suffered by him on his head also due to asphyxia. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 18-3-1984 at about 5 a.m. PW-2 arrested the respondent near the river-bed adjacent to Kaveripattinam Travellers's bungalow and on a disclosure statement made by the accused in the presence PW-8, he recovered MO-28, a blood-stained shirt belonging to respondent kept concealed in the river-bed. He also recovered a bunch of keys belonging to the Post Office at the instance of the respondent, kept in a post-box kept in front of a textile shop. On a further statement made by the respondent the I.O. recovered MO-13 a yellow bag from a cycle shop of one Pattu (not examined) in which he found various properties like the inland letters, postcards, postal stamps, revenue stamps etc. allegedly stolen by the respondent. On a further statement made by the respondent he also recovered certain sums of money kept concealed under a hill as also a blood-stained towel kept concealed under a tree in the backyard of the Post Office. From the statement of PW-3, the I.O. found out that on 16-3-1984 in the afternoon the respondent was seen coming out of the Post Office locking the same, carrying a yellow bag like MO-13 and on an inquiry by PW-3 she was told by respondent that he was locking the office since it was a holiday for the Post Office. From the evidence of PW-11 he came to know that the respondent had kept the yellow bag MO-13 in the shop of Pattu of which PW-11 was the owner of the building. Based on this a chargesheet was filed before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Krishnagiri against the respondent for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 381, IPC and on committal and after trial the learned Sessions Judge found the respondent guilty of all the 3 offenes but punished him only for the offence under Section 302 and imposed the sentence of extreme penalty of death which as stated above was not confirmed by the High Court and the appellant's appeal against his conviction was also allowed.

(3.) In the absence of any direct evidence the prosecution case depended on various circumstances which were accepted by the trial Court but were held not proved by the High Court. The High Court after noticing the law in regard to basing a conviction on circumstantial evidence enumerated the various circumstances placed by the prosecution in this case. They are :