PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these six appeals namely C. A. Nos. 1071 of 2006, 36, 67, 157, 160 and 237 of 2007, concentrate in challenging a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No. V, Thiruvallur, made in S. C. No. 242 of 2005 whereby the appellants six in number stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: TABLE:

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated thus: (a) THE deceased Sundaram was the husband of A-1. P. W. 1 is the elder brother, and P. W. 2 is the father of the deceased. A-2 and A-1 developed illicit intimacy which was not only disliked by the deceased, but also A-1 and A-2 felt him a hurdle. THEy were residents of Thangal village. On 1. 5. 2002 at about 8. 00 P. M. , the deceased and A-1 went to the field. But, after sometime, A-1 alone returned. She did not whisper anything about his absence. On the next morning at about 5. 00 A. M. , P. W. 1 went in search of the deceased and found the dead body near Ravana Lake. He brought the dead body along with the villagers to the house. THEn, he proceeded to the respondent police station and lodged Ex. P1, the complaint, on the strength of which P. W. 17, the Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No. 57 of 2002 under Sec. 174 of Cr. P. C. for suspicious death. THE printed FIR, Ex. P31, along with Ex. P1 were sent to the Court. (b) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P. W. 18, the Inspector of Police of the concerned Circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex. P2, and a rough sketch, Ex. P32. THEn, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex. P34. THEreafter, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition for the purpose of autopsy. (c) P. W. 16, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Tiruvallur, on receipt of the said requisition conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sundaram and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex. P29. He has opined under Ex. P30 that the cause of death was due to cyanide poisoning. (d) On 28. 5. 2002, at the time of investigation, the Investigator came to know that a letter written by A-2 to A-1 was in the custody of one Valli. THEn he proceeded on that and secured the letter under a cover of mahazar, Ex. P35. Based on the said letter, at about 5. 30 P. M. , he arrested A-1. A-1 came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded. THE admissible part is marked as Ex. P36. THEreafter, the case was altered to Sec. 302 IPC. THE amended report, Ex. P38, was despatched to the Court. On 3. 6. 2002 at about 3. 00 P. M. , near Venkatapuram Ellaiamman Temple, P. W. 18 arrested A-2 and recorded the confessional statement given by him voluntarily. THE admissible part is marked as Ex. P39. Based on the same, he seized a lodge receipt under a seizure mahazar, Ex. P40. At about 10. 00 P. M. , he arrested A-3 and recorded the confessional statement. (e) On 7. 7. 2002 at about 4. 00 P. M. , the Investigator arrested A-4 near Thangal bus stand, and his confessional statement was recorded. THE admissible part is marked as Ex. P41. Based on the same, he seized a syringe under a mahazar Ex. P42. On the same day A-5 was also arrested. His confessional statement was recorded. THE admissible part is Ex. P43, following which a cyanide packet, M. O. 4, was also recovered under a mahazar, Ex. P44. THEn, A-6 was also arrested on the very day. His confessional statement was recorded. THE admissible part is Ex. P45. Based on the same, a gold chain of the deceased was recovered under a mahazar, Ex. P46. He sent the accused for judicial remand. THEn, the syringe needles were sent to the Forensic Sciences Department through the Court for the purpose of analysis. (f) On 4. 9. 2002, P. W. 19 took up further investigation, and on 28. 1. 2003, he examined P. W. 16, the postmortem Doctor and recorded his statement. He also examined P. W. 11 and also the other witnesses. On 28. 4. 2003, P. W. 20 took up further investigation. On 31. 3. 2003, he examined the other witnesses and on completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused under Sections 120(b), 341, 302, 404 read with 109 of IPC.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Senior Counsel that in the instant case, the prosecution in order to substantiate the other charges levelled against the appellants/accused, had no direct evidence to offer; that it rested upon two circumstances; that firstly, pending the investigation, the Investigating Officer recovered Ex. P11, letter, alleged to have been written by A-2 to A-1; that the prosecution placed much reliance on this letter and the trial Court has also accepted the same; but, this evidence should have been rejected outright for the reason that Ex. P11 letter was alleged to have been recovered from one Valli; that the said Valli was not examined as a witness before the Court; that no explanation was tendered by the prosecution why she was not examined; that apart from this, the letter which was alleged to have been recovered by the Investigator at the time of investigation, was sent to the handwriting expert; and that the handwriting expert was examined as P. W. 11; that according to him, he compared the writings in Ex. P11 along with Ex. P12 which, according to the prosecution, was the specimen handwriting of A-2.