MURUGESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Dharmapuri made in S. C. No. 303 of 2002, whereby these three appellants stood charged as follows: table

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated thus: a) The second accused is the wife of the deceased Nehru. The first accused and the second accused developed illicit intimacy. On coming to know about the same, the deceased warned both of them and this was not liked by them. The first and second accused hatched up a plan to finish him off. Accordingly, on 6. 7. 1993 at about 10. 00 p. m. , A-1 and A-3 took the deceased to a nearby tank bund and A-1 stabbed the deceased with knife and caused his death and in order to screen the evidence, they buried the body. b) When P. W. 1, V. A. O. , was in his office on 7. 8. 1993 at about 7. 00 a. m. , A-1 appeared before him and confessed the offence orally, which was reduced into writing. The statement of the first accused was marked as Ex. P. 1. Along with Ex. P. 1, P. W. 1 produced the first accused before the respondent police station. P. W. 12, the Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent police station, on receipt of Ex. P. 1, the report, registered a case in Crime No. 519 of 1993 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Ex. P. 16, the F. I. R. along with Ex. P. 1 was sent to the court. c) P. W. 15, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F. I. R. , took up the investigation and he enquired the first accused. An intimation was given to P. W. 13, the Tahsildar of the said place. It was the first accused who identified the place where the dead body was buried. The body was exhumed in the presence of the witnesses. After exhumation of the body, P. W. 13, the Tahsildar conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex. P. 17, the inquest report. d) Following the same, P. W. 8, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem at the place of occurrence itself and has issued Ex. P. 9, the post-mortem certificate. In Ex. P. 18, the final opinion, it has been stated that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple punctured (stab) wounds. e) Following the same, P. W. 15 arrested the third accused on 7. 8. 1993 in the presence of the witnesses and he voluntarily came forward to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the same was marked as Ex. P. 4. Pursuant to the same, he produced a spade and a crowbar, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. On 8. 8. 1993, the second accused was arrested. All the accused were sent for judicial remand. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the M. Os recovered from the accused were sent for chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in three reports, namely Ex. P. 12, the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex. P. 13 and Ex. P. 14, the Serologist's reports. Further investigation was done by P. W. 16, the Inspector of Police. P. W. 17, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation and he examined the witnesses. On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report.

(3.) THE case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and relied on 18 exhibits and 6 M. Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial court, after hearings the arguments advanced and looking into the materials available, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and entered into the judgment of conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal has arisen at the instance of the appellants.