MANI ALIAS MANIMARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the above two appeals. These appeals challenge the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Coimbatore at Tiruppur made in S. C. No. 33 of 2006, whereby these appellants stood charged under Sections 302, 379 and 201 IPC, tried and found guilty as per the charges and awarded 3 years R. I each under Section 379 IPC, life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 302 IPC and for the offence under Section 201 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo 3 years R. I. each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default to undergo 3 months R. I. each and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated thus: a) Both the accused before the trial court belonged to Thanjavur. They were residing at Annupparpalayam Anaipudur and were doing some job at Tiruppur. They were actually residing in a part of the house of P. W. 6, who is the sister of P. W. 7. They were also taking food by making payment of Rs. 150/- per week. The deceased Mayilathal was also the resident nearby. P. W. 2 is the daughter of the deceased. b) On 5. 7. 2002, P. W. 2 went to the house of her mother and gave her food. The deceased Mayilathal informed her that she was to go to see her son, who was not doing well that time. Then, P. W. 2 left the place. At about 3. 00 p. m. on that day, P. W. 2 again came to the house of the deceased, but found that the house was locked. At that time, A-1 and A-2 were sitting in the pial situated outside the house of the deceased. P. W. 2 enquired them and they informed that Mayilathal has gone to the house of Iyer. P. W. 2 immediately proceeded to the house of Iyer, where she was informed that Mayilathal did not come there. Hence she stayed in the house of her younger brother P. W. 4 that night. c) On 6. 7. 2002, when P. W. 1, V. A. O of Rakkiyapalayam, was in his office, he was informed by P. W. 3, the member of panchayat, that a dead body of a person aged 65 to 70 years was found near Nallaru Canal. On hearing this, accompanied by P. W. 3 and his assistant P. W. 5, P. W. 1 went to that place and found the partly burnt dead body. P. W. 1 proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex. P. 1, the complaint to P. W. 12, the Sub Inspector of Police. On the strength of Ex. P. 1, the complaint, P. W. 12 registered a case in Crime No. 301 of 2002 under Section 302 IPC. Ex. P. 15, the F. I. R. was despatched to the Court. d) P. W. 13, the Inspector of the said circle, on receipt of the copy of the F. I. R. , took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex. P. 3, the observation mahazar and Ex. P. 17, the rough sketch. He recovered material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex. P. 18, the inquest report. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy. e) P. W. 11, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Tiruppur, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and found that there was a cut injury on the neck and has also opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained about 36 to 48 hours prior to autopsy. She has issued Ex. P. 13, the post-mortem certificate and Ex. P. 14, the final opinion. f) On 7. 7. 2002 at about 9. 00 a. m. , when P. W. 1 was in his office, both the accused appeared before him and gave confessional statement in respect of the crime. The same was recorded by P. W. 1 and both the accused were produced before the respondent police. At the time of enquiry, both the accused gave confessional statements to the Inspector of Police, which were recorded in the presence of the witnesses. The admissible part of the confessional statement of A-1 was marked as Ex. P. 5, pursuant to which, A-1 produced M. O. 5, Rs. 70/-, which was recovered under Ex. P. 6, mahazar. The admissible part of the confessional statement of A-2 was marked as Ex. P. 7, pursuant to which he produced M. O. 6, Rs. 50/-, which was recovered under Ex. P. 8, mahazar. A-1 also produced M. O. 7, Rs. 7000/- and M. O. 8, knife, which were recovered under Ex. P. 9, mahazar. A-2 produced M. O. 4, plastic can, which was recovered under Ex. P. 10, mahazar. Thereafter, A-1 identified P. W. 9, from whom M. O. 9 and M. O. 10, jewels were recovered under Ex. P. 11, mahazar. Thereafter, A-2 identified P. W. 10, from whom M. Os. 11 and 12, jewels were recovered under Ex. P. 12, mahazar. The accused were sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were identified by P. W. 2 and others. The material objects were sent for chemical analysis. g) P. W. 14, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. Ex. P. 19, the report was received. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has 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 15 witnesses and relied on 19 exhibits and also 12 M. Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C. procedurally 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 hearing the arguments advanced and on scrutiny of the materials available, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and has found both the accused guilty as per the charges and awarded punishments as referred to above. Hence these appeals at the instance of the appellants.