INSPECTOR OF POLICE Vs. BALAPRASANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of Madras High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the accused). The accused was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprison ment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation by Principal District Judge, Madurai. He was also convicted for offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison ment for 10 years and to pay a fine.

(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : The deceased is one Mayurani, a Sri Lankan student, who was residing in the first floor of the house belonging to one Solsimalai (P.W.1). The Accused is also a Sri Lankan student studying in a different college, but staying in the second floor of the same premises. The occurrence allegedly took place in the afternoon of 22-4-2003. The First Information Report was lodged by P.W. 1 on 24-4-2003 at about 9.30 A.M. It was indicated in the First Information Report that on 24-4-2003 at 9.00 A.M., while the informant had gone to perform pooja in the first floor of the house, he got foul smell in the last room of the first floor and found blood seeping through the front door. On opening the window he noticed that Mayurani was lying in a pool of blood with her face covered with a bag. On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., investi gation was taken up initially by P.W.40. Subsequently on the basis of the order of the High Court, such investigation was completed by P.W.42. The accused is stated to have been arrested on suspicion on 26-4-2003. On the basis of the statement of the accused, prosecution discovered many materials in cluding a knife and a log allegedly used for killing. Initially, P.W.40 suspected the role of P.W.1, his wife P.W.2, P.W.3, from whose house certain incriminating material were recovered allegedly on the basis of state ment of the accused as well as P.W.4, who was working as a cleaner in the vehicle of P.W.1. Subsequently, however, P.W.42, who took over investigation from P.W.40 filed charge-sheet only against the present appellant on the footing that P.Ws. 1 to 4 had no role to play in the crime.