I RAMAMOORTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges the judgment of the Principle Sessions Division Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur made in S.C.No.147 of 2007, whereby the accused/appellants shown as A1 and A2 respectively, along with others ranked as A3 to A7, stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows; A1 and A2 were convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and awarded life imprisonment for each along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, with a default sentence of one year simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and awarded three years rigorous imprisonment for each along with a fine of Rs.500/- each, with a default sentence of six months simple imprisonment.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:-

(3.) Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel would submit that the occurrence, according to the prosecution, has taken place on 28.06.2006. The gist of the case of the prosecution is that the father of P.W.1, who is also the father of A1, A2, A6 and A7, when returning from Coonoor, as per the earlier plan, the accused/A1, A2, A6 and A7 caused the death of the deceased by throttling, and they took the dead body to the residence of A5 and A6, and they placed the dead body in the trunk box and took to Courtlam and threw away the body in the Children Park. The prosecution has no direct evidence to offer, and it relied upon only circumstantial evidence, namely the recovery of the dead body by the investigating agency in the presence of P.W.13, the Village Administrative Officer, and others and the same was being identified by A2 on 11.07.2006. Equally, in so far as A1 is concerned, they relied on the recovery of MOs-3 and 2, shirt and dhoti respectively, which according to the witnesses, were worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence. In so far as the recovery of the dead body is concerned P.Ws.1, 7, 8 and 13 are examined. P.W.1 is admittedly the son of the deceased and P.Ws.7 and 8 are closely related to the deceased and thus, P.W.13 is the only independent witness. From the evidence of P.Ws.1, 7 and 8, it would be quite clear that on coming to know about the fact that the dead body was found at the Children Park, Courtalam, they went to the spot. But, according to P.W.13, when he went to the Children park, Courtalam along with the Police officer, P.Ws.1 and 7 were actually present and the presence of P.W.8 is silent in that regard. From the evidence of P.W.13, it could be seen that though they were taken by the accused to the Spot, already P.Ws.1 and 7 were present which would be indicative of the fact that P.Ws.1 and 7 knew about the fact that the dead body was at Children park, Courtalam. Under such circumstance, it cannot be said to be recovery of material facts or material objects, for which the prosecution cannot have the benefit under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. If this part of evidence is rejected, the prosecution has no evidence as against A2.