VALARMATHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the conviction and sentence, the accused in S.C.No.227 of 2003, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, have preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE respondent police, brought the accused before the trial Court, to face the offences under Sections 302, 302 r/w 34 and 302 r/w 201 I.P.C. on the grounds that the first accused had committed female infanticide on 14.12.2000 at about 1.00 a.m. by administering Euphorbious that for the commission of the offence by the first accused, accused 2 & 3 contributed their common intention, that in order to escape from the legal punishment, they have caused disappearance of evidence by burying the dead body of the female child and therefore, they should be dealt with according to law.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants would submit, that practically there is nil evidence, against the accused and therefore, the conviction and sentence slapped upon them are unwarranted, illegal, liable to be set aside, that the extra judicial confession said to have been given by the 2nd accused cannot be used against the other accused as per the settled law and this being the position, the learned trial Judge committed an error in convicting all the accused on the basis of the extra judicial confession, which is inadmissible, that the circumstantial evidence relied on by the prosecution is not worthy of credence, since it fails to rope in the accused as the culprits, ruling out the possibility of their innocence or the involvement of others and that in the absence of any legal evidence as required under criminal jurisprudence, the conviction and sentence slapped upon the accused/appellants are liable to be set aside. On the basis of the above points, elaborating the same to some extent, based upon evidence and taking us through the materials, available on record, an argument was advanced for the acquittal of the accused.