STATE Vs. TANGAMALAI RAMASWAMAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REFERENCE under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made by the Learned ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Malkangiri for confirmation of sentence of death imposed by him on accused Tangamalai Ramaswamy in Criminal Trial No. 51 of Criminal Appeal has been filed by both the accused persons against the order of conviction passed against the Appellant No. 1 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to death and further convicting him for commission of offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000. Appellant No. 2 has been convicted for commission of offence under Sections 201/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000.

(2.) CASE of the prosecution os revealed from the F.I.R. is that O. Jairai (P.W.13) is the brother of the deceased and resident of Tamil Nadu. He lodged an information before the O.I.C. Kalimela Police Station on 4.4.2006 alleging therein that her sister Suryakanti (deceased) had married to one T. Ramaswamy (Appellant No. 1) about 16 years back. After marriage they were staying in Telugusahi at Kalimela town in their own house. Appellant No. 1 was running a business in preparation and sale of mixture. On 30.3.2006 Appellant No. 1 came to Uthapanyakanoor and reported him that the deceased was missing. The informant entertained a doubt and came to Kalimela and ascertained from the labourers working under the Appellant No. 1 specifically Appellant No. 2 that on 23.3.2006 the Appellant No. 1 with the help of a Tantrik, by name Daibam had killed the deceased by pressing her face with a pillow at about 12 O' clock in the night and thereafter with the help of labourers working in his factory cut body of the deceased into pieces and burnt them to ashes in the oven meant for preparing mixture and thereafter threw away the ash and bones under a hill. On these allegations, investigation was taken up and on completion of investigation charge -sheet was submitted for commission of offences under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against nine accused persons. Six accused persons were juvenile and accordingly they are facing trial in the Court of C.J.M. -cum -Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Malkangiri. Out of rest three accused persons, the two Appellants faced trial but accused Daibam who is also alleged to have helped the Appellant No. 1 in killing the deceased absconding and has not faced trial.

(3.) IN order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses, and one witness was examined on behalf of the defence. P.W.1, a grocery shop owner, is a witness to seizure of pillow, coconut, flowers, etc. P.W.2 is a contractor by profession and is also a witness to seizure of photographs (M.Os. I to VI). P.W.3 is also a contractor and is witness to seizure. P.W.4 is an interpreter. P.W.7 is a witness to recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. P.W.8 is a lady constable and immediate neighbour of the deceased who said about the strained relationship between the deceased and the Appellant No. 1. P.W. 9 is a witness to seizure of incriminating items given on recovery by the Appellant No. 1 and P.W.10 is the person who had supplied a black colour cat to the Appellant No. 1. P.W.11 is the witness who had taken photographs and P.W.12 is the doctor who examined the weapon of offence namely Kati on police requisition. P.W.13 is the informant and brother of the deceased, who speaks about extra -judicial confession and P.W. 14 is the I.O. who conducted investigation. Admittedly, this is a case where there is no eye -witness to the occurrence. Learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge found the Appellant No. 1 guilty of the charges solely on the circumstantial evidence which are as follows: