SANKAR ALIAS KRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri made in S.C. 339 of 2004 dated 30.03.2005. By the above said judgment the appellant who was the sole accused in Sessions Case was found guilty of offence under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 404 of IPC

(2.) THE brief case of the prosecution as put forth before the trial court is as follows:- P.W.2 is the grand daughter of the deceased Periyakka. THE deceased was living in the house of one Raji Gounder at Thonganur Village separately. On 05.05.2004, at about 12.00 noons, P.W.2 visited the house of Periyakka and as she could not find her at the house and the door was locked, she with the help of P.W.4 removed two tiles from the roof and found the deceased Periyakkal lying dead and her body was in a decomposed state. She found that the studs with links and chain from the person of the deceased were missing. P.W.2 informed P.W.1 about the fact. P.W.1 in turn rushed to Morappur Police Station along with P.W.2. On a complaint from P.W.2 along with the report Ex.P.2 of P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, Morapur Police Station registered a case in Cr.No. 136 of 2004 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. He prepared the printed FIR Ex.P.23. On the next day at about 6.00 a.m. He visited the scene of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.11, drew rough sketch Ex.P.26, recovered lock M.O.3, which was hanging on the latches of the door under the cover of the seizure mahazar Ex.P.3 in the presence of the attesting witnesses. THEreafter, he held inquest on the body of the deceased, prepared the inquest report Ex.P.24. THEn, he sent the body of Periyakkal for post-mortem through the Head Constable along with a request Ex.P.15. THE Doctor, P.W.17 upon identification and at the request of the Inspector of Police performed autopsy on the body of the deceased. At the time of post-mortem the body was highly decomposed, blebs were present all over the body, skin peeled off, hairs fallen and maggots were present. THE doctor found the following features on the body of the deceased:- Internal examination:-

(3.) MR. N. Sudharsan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit in his argument that the conviction and sentenced based on the circumstantial evidence is against law. The date of occurrence as spoken to by P.W.2, the grand daughter of the deceased Periyakka is contrary to the evidence of other witnesses and she did not speak about the fact that the deceased Periyakka used to wear gold jewels on her person. In fact, P.W.2 has admitted in her evidence that she did not mention anything about the missing jewels in the complaint when spoken to P.W.1, the Village Administrate Officer. The other witnesses who spoke about the wearing of jewels by the deceased were not flinchingly spoken to about the jeweler worn by the deceased. Therefore, he would submit that the police against the accused has wrongly prosecuted the crime committed by some other person and the appellant/ accused is innocent.