(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and sentence of imprisonment for life as awarded by learned Sessions Judge, Trichi.
(2.) Prosecution version as unfolded during trial was as follows : Allegation was that between 10 p.m. on 10.8.1989 and 4 a.m. on 11.8.1989, the appellants murdered one Mugamuni (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) by strangling him to death and threw the dead body into a well to screen themselves from the offence. The appellants hereinafter referred to as A1 to A5 for the sake of convenience. The deceased is the son of PW 4. PW 5 is the younger sister of the deceased and PW 8 is the paternal uncle of PW 4. PW 11 is the cousin of the deceased. PWs. 3 and 10 are also related to the deceased. P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.12. A.2 and A.3 are cousins and A.4 is the son of maternal aunt of A.2 andA.3. A.1 is related to A.5. The witnesses, the deceased Magamuni and accused 1 to 5 were residing at Mathagiri village. The deceased married one Nallangal about four months prior to the date of inci dent. Said Nallangal was in illicit relationship with A.1 and continued to have the said relationship with A. 1 even after the marriage. A. 1 questioned the deceased as to why he has married Nallangal and he was also beaten by A. 1. The other accused also quarrelled with the deceased for marrying Nallangal. This is said to be the motive for the incident which took place. When P.W.4 was at the shandy along with his son, Magamuni, the deceased in the case and his daughter P.W.5, accused 1 to 4 went there and asked deceased to ac company them. P.W.4 questioned them as to why they are taking the deceased. The accused told him that they wanted to go for hunting. The deceased in the company of A.1 to A.4 was seen by P.Ws. 4 and 5 at 6 p.m. At about 10 p.m., when PW.7 alighted at Gorimedu from a bus, saw A.1 to A.5 and the deceased proceeding to wards south from north and an electric lamp was burning at that place. P.W.7 ques tioned them as to where they were going, for which A.1 to A.5 replied that they were going for hunting and they were in possession of sticks. The deceased was not seen alive thereafter. At about 4 a.m. on 11.6.1989, P.W.8 was at the bus stop for boarding a bus and he saw A.1 to A.5 coming towards north. When he questioned them, they told him that they are returning after hunting. PW.2, a resident of Gorimedu went to a well in the village to drink water and to his utter dismay found a body of a male floating in the well. Immediately, he went to the house of his elder brother and informed him who advised him to lay a complaint with the village Administrative Officer. PW.2 went to the house of PW 1 the village Administrative Officer, Mathagril village and gave a statement which was reduced into writing which stands marked as Ex. P.1 in the case. P.W.1 prepared Ex. P.2, his report and handed over the same to his servant with a direction to hand over both the documents at the police station. Exs. P.1 and P.2 were handed over to P.W. 16, the writer of Balaviduthi Police Station, who registered a case in crime No. 193 of 1989 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) by preparing express reports. Ex. P.2 is the copy of the printed First Information Report. The investigation was taken up by PW. 18, the Sub Inspector of Police. On taking up the investigation, PW. 18 reached the scene of occurrence and prepared an observa tion mahazar Ex. P.3. He drew a rough sketch Ex. P.25. The body was taken out of the well and in the presence of panchayatdars, he conducted inquest and during the inquest he questioned and recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 12. From the statements, he realised that it is not a case of suspicious death, but it is a case of murder and therefore, altered the crime from one under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to Sec tions 302 and 201 IPC by sending his express reports, Ex. P.27. After the inquest, the body was handed over to the Inspector of Police, with a requisition to conduct au topsy.
(3.) After the investigation was completed charge sheet was filed, the accused persons abjured guilt and therefore, they were put on trial.