SIVARAMAKRISHNA IYER Vs. CHELLA KUMARA KOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, three in number, have challenged the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode Division made in s. C. No. 40 of 2001, in which they stood charged, tried and found guilty under section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 201 IPC. THEy were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and for the offence under Section 201 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous imprisonment and that the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: a) P. W. 1 is the father and P. W. 2 is the brother of the deceased, Nagaraj. P. Ws. 3,7,8, the accused and the deceased were all working in star Dying Factory at Erode. THE accused and the deceased were staying together in a rented house at Vairapalayam. P. W. 4 was the employer of the accused and the deceased. P. Ws. 5 and 6 were working at Raja Chamber, nearby. b) THE second and the third accused used to borrow money from the deceased, which resulted in a quarrel often. P. W. 4 used to intervene and pacify them. THE second and the third accused left the company of the deceased and they were living separately. THEreafter, the deceased began to visit their house and demanded money back, which they are unable to pay. Hence, the accused decided to do away with him. In pursuance of their plan, on 28. 9. 2000, they took the deceased to a Brandy shop of P. W. 12 at about 10. 00 p. m. THEreafter, they went to a theatre to see a movie. THEy informed P. W. 12 that they are going to see a movie. P. Ws. 7 and 8 found the deceased with the company of the accused in the theatre. Afterwards, the accused took the deceased again to a liquor shop and purchased a bottle of liquor and informed the deceased that they can have the company of a lady in the banks of Cauvery and on that pretext, they took the deceased there. THEy severely beat him and tied him with a stone and thrown the body in the river and the dead body was washed away in the river. c) P. W. 2, the brother of the deceased, could not find his brother for a week and he informed the same to P. W. 1, his father. Both of them took 10 persons of their place, came to Erode and searched for the deceased, but they could not. In the meanwhile, P. W. 3 informed P. Ws. 1 and 2 about the incident. d) On 4. 10. 2000 at about 18. 00 hours, P. W. 1 went to karungalpalayam Police station and gave Ex. P. 1, complaint and also M. O. 1, photo of the deceased. P. W. 15, Special Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty at that time, registered the case, on the strength of Ex. P. 1, in Crime No. 787 of 2000 under Section 302 IPC. Ex. P. 10 is the First Information Report. He immediately sent Exs. P. 1 and P. 10 to the Court. P. W. 16, Inspector of Police, took up investigation on the same day and with the assistance of P. Ws. 10 and 11, he made a search for the dead body in the banks of Cauvery, but he could not locate the same. e) On 5. 10. 2000 at about 6. 00 a. m. , he visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex. P. 4, observation mahazar and drew a rough sketch, ex. P. 11. He examined witnesses and recorded their statements. On 6. 10. 2000, he examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 7. 10. 2000 also, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 9. 10. 2000, he arrested the first accused in the presence of P. Ws. 4 and 9. He volunteered to give a confessional statement, which was recorded, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex. P. 5. Pursuant to the confessional statement, the first accused took them to his house and produced M. O. 2, wrist watch, which belonged to the deceased and the same was recovered under a cover of mahazar, Ex. P. 6. f) During further investigation, the Investigating officer came to know that there was full flow of water in the Cauvery between 29. 9. 2000 and 10. 10. 2000 and he has also received Ex. P. 7, report, to that effect from the concerned Engineer. On 17. 10. 2000, P. W. 16 came to know about the surrender of the second and the third accused before the Judicial magistrate No. I, Thanjavur and Judicial Magistrate, Pattukkottai respectively. On application, police custody was ordered and he took both the accused. THE confessional statement of A-2 was recorded, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex. P. 8. Pursuant to the confessional statement, he took the police party to the banks of Cauvery and produced a piece of cloth, which is marked as m. O. 3 and the same was recovered under a cover of mahazar, Ex. P. 9. Both the accused were sent for judicial remand. On completion of investigation, the final report was filed. THE case was committed to Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. g) In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution marched 16 witnesses and recorded 11 exhibits and 3 M. Os. THE accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. After hearing the arguments of either side, the trial court found all the accused guilty and awarded punishment, as referred to above. Hence, this appeal is filed at the instance of all the accused.

(3.) IN the instant case, the prosecution came out with a specific allegation that the son of P. W. 1 and the brother of P. W. 2, one Nagaraj was murdered, pursuant to the plan hatched up by A-1 to A-3, following the money transaction between the deceased and A-2 and A-3. IN the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence and the dead body was also not secured. It is not necessary that in a case of murder, the dead body should be recovered and produced. Even in a case, where the dead body is not recovered, through the attendant circumstances, pointing to the crime, the Court can believe and sustain the conviction. IN the instant case, the prosecution had to rely only on circumstantial evidence. It is a well-settled proposition of law that when the prosecution rests the case only on circumstantial evidence exclusively, it must prove the circumstances, which constitutes a complete chain and show the hypothesis that it was only the accused and none else has committed the crime.