(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Additional District Sessions Division, Fast Track Court-I, Salem, made in S.C.No.152 of 2009, whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: -TABLE- The sentences imposed on the accused were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) SHORT facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the son and P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased Santhi @ Selvamary. The deceased was the drama actress and she stopped acting before five years when her husband died. P.W.1, during the relevant time, was doing the carpentary work at Vivekananda College in Tiruchengode. Both daughters of the deceased were acting in dramas. During the relevant time, i.e. on 27.05.2008, one of the daughters of the deceased, viz., Valarmathi, went to participate in a drama at Vedasandhur while, another daughter, viz., Sathya, who was examiend as P.W.2, went to Andhiyur for acting in a drama. P.W.1 accompanied P.W.2 at the night hours of 27.05.2008, leaving the mother as the only inhabitant in the house. On the next day morning at about 7.00 AM, they returned and found the door closed. They knocked the door and they were under the impression that their mother went to buy milk. When they tried to contact her, they found that her mobile phone was switched off. Then they broke open the lock and got inside, where they found the dead body of their mother with bleeding injuries. Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint. (b) On the strength of which, a case came to be registered by P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kitchipalayam, in Crime No.1017 of 2008 under section 302 IPC. Ex.P-8 is the first information report and the same was despatched to the Court. (c) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, prepared an observation mahazar Ex. P-2 and rough sketch Ex.P-21 and he conducted inquest on the dead body of Santhi in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P-22 inquest report. A finger print expert was also called upon and he did not find any finger print available. Then, P.W.15 caused the photographs to be taken through a photographer and the photos and negatives are marked as M.O.25 series. Thereafter, a requisition was forwarded to the Government Hospital, Salem for the conduct of autopsy on the dead body. (d) P.W.14, doctor attached to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, conducted autopsy on the dead body and gave the post mortem certificate, where he opined that the deceased would appear to have died 24-30 hours prior to autopsy due to the head injuries. The post mortem certificate is marked as Ex.P-20. (e) Pending investigation, on 06.06.2008, the accused was arrested and he came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses and the admissible part is marked as Ex.P-4 and pursuant to which, he produced M.Os.2 to 19, 23 and 24, which are the jewels, cash, petticoat and a suitcase and the same were recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex. P-5 in the presence of witnesses. Further, the accused took the police party to a vacant site and produced M.Os.20 and 21, 'Kuthu vilakku' and 'Koduval' from the bushes nearby and they were recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P-6 in the presence of witnesses and thereafter, the accused was sent for judicial remand. All the M.Os.were subjected to chemical analysis and after getting Ex.P-15 chemical analysis report and connected documents and on completion of investigation, P.W.15 filed the final report against the accused under sections 302, 457 and 380 I.P.C. (f) The case was committed to the Court of Additional District Sessions Division, Fast Track Court-I, Salem and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and also relied on 26 exhibits and 25 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and scrutinized the materials. On doing so, the trial Judge took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond the reasonable doubt and found the appellant guilty and awarded the punishments as referred to above, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
(3.) THE learned counsel would further submit that so far as the recovery of M.Os.20 and 21, namely 'Kuthu Vilakku' and 'Koduval' is concerned, it is alleged that they have been found in an open place, which was nothing but false and it did not help the prosecution case and all the so-called circumstances relied on by the prosecution were put together, it would show that they were not proved to indicate the culpability of the accused/appellant and hence, he is entitled for acquittal in the hands of the court and the judgment of the trial court has got to be set aside.