SIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No.52 of 2011, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 392 I.P.C. By Judgment, dated 19.06.2012, the Trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 392 I.P.C. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(3.) OUT of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased, who has stated that the accused left the house at 08.30 p.m. on 04.03.2010 and the dead body was found on the next day at 08.30 a.m. at L.I.C. Colony, Jai Nagar. She has further stated that a gold chain, a gold ring and a gold bracelet, which were worn by the deceased were found missing. She has identified M.O.1 as the gold chain worn by the deceased lastly. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. She has also stated the same facts. P.W.3 is yet another daughter of the deceased and she has also stated that the deceased was lastly seen alive at 08.30 p.m. on 04.03.2010 and on the next day, the dead body was found. She has also identified M.O.1 as the gold chain belonging to the deceased. P.W.4 is the grandson of the deceased, who was also residing with the deceased. He has also stated about the same facts. P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of the Observation Mahazer and the Rough Sketch from the place of occurrence. P.W.6 is the medical shop owner, where the deceased is said to have gone to purchase medicines. According to him, on 04.03.2010, between 08.00 p.m. to 08.30 p.m., the deceased came to his shop to purchase medicines. Since the drugs, which he wanted to purchase, were not available in the shop, the deceased returned. He has further stated that on the next day, he came to know that the deceased was dead. P.W.7 is a neighbour of the deceased, who has stated that he found the dead body at Jai Nagar. P.W.8 is the Doctor, to whom, the deceased had taken his wife for treatment, on the previous day. He has stated about the said facts. P.W.9 is the Doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased, has spoken about the same and also has spoken about the opinion given, regarding the cause of death. P.W.10 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.11 is yet another neighbour of the deceased, who has stated that he went in search of the deceased along with P.W.1 and their family members. He has stated that the accused also joined with him, when he was searching for the deceased. P.W.12 and P.W.13 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.14 is the Village Administrative Officer, who has stated that on 19.04.2010, at 01.30 p.m., the accused was arrested near Vadugapatti lake. He has further stated that after such arrest, the accused was taken to K.K. Nagar quarters, where, in a Marriage Hall, the accused was interrogated and at that time, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the jewels. He has further stated that in pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to his house and produced M.O.1. P.W.15 is the financier, from whom, the accused had taken loan for purchasing the auto. He has stated that the loan was reimbursed by him after the demise of the deceased. P.W.16 has turned hostile. He is the brother of the accused, who has stated that the accused had purchased auto by raising loan from P.W.15. P.W.17 is the Constable, who carried the body for postmortem. P.W.18 has also spoken about the same. P.W.19 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.20 and P.W.21 have spoken about the investigation done by them.