Madras High Court
Murugesan vs State on 13 December, 2017
Bench: R.Subbiah, A.D.Jagadish Chandira
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.12.2017 Date of Reserving the Judgment Date of Pronouncing the Judgment 16.11.2017 13.12.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.A.(MD) No.423 of 2016 Murugesan ... Appellant / Accused -vs- State, rep.by The Inspector of Police Velliyanai Police Station Karur District (Crime No.34 of 2013) ... Respondent / Complainant Criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., to set aside the Judgment and conviction, dated 07.07.2015, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Karur, in S.C.No.75 of 2014. !For Appellant : Mr.M.Karunanithi ^For Respondent : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran Addl. Public Prosecutor :JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been directed against the Judgment, dated 07.07.2015, passed in S.C.No.75 of 2014, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Karur, convicting and sentencing the appellant / accused as follows:
Conviction Sentence U/S. 302 I.P.C.
Life Imprisonment + Fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d 3 Months S.I. U/S. 201 I.P.C.
3 Years R.I. + Fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d 3 Months S.I. U/S. 379 I.P.C.
3 Years R.I. U/S. 309 I.P.C.
1 Year S.I. Further, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant / accused was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22.02.2013, at about 07.30 p.m., when the deceased, namely, Patchaiammal @ Thenmozhi was standing at Chettinad Cement Factory Bus Stop to board Bus to go to her house, the appellant / accused, with an intention to kill, took her in a Two Wheeler bearing registration No.TN47 C6991 to Kulathupalayam Pond, wherein he murdered her by strangulating, stolen her gold jewels and silver anklet, mutilated her face by smashing with stone and also attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison and thereby, the appellant / accused had committed the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 379 and 309 I.P.C.
3. On the next day i.e., 23.02.2013, P.W.1 / Village Administrative Officer, who received information about the dead body lying in Kulathupalayam Pond, through P.W.3 / Village Assistant, who got information from P.W.2 / Ramasamy, went to the place of occurrence, found the dead body and immediately, went to the respondent ? Police Station and lodged a complaint and the respondent -
Police, based on the said complaint, had registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2013 and thereafter during investigation arrested the appellant / accused and after completion of investigation filed final report and the same had been taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur, in P.R.C.No.18 of 2014, who in turn committed the same to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karur, as the said case is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions and thereafter, the said case was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Karur.
4. Subsequently, charges were framed under Sections 302, 201, 379 and 309 I.P.C., against the appellant / accused and when the appellant / accused was questioned about the charges framed against him, he pleaded not guilty and sought for trial to prove his case and accordingly, trial was conducted.
5. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 33 were examined, Exs.P1 to P29 were marked, M.Os.1 to 26 were produced and also Ex.C1 was marked.
6. P.W.1 ? Sampath, in his evidence, had deposed that he is a retired Village Administrative Officer of Uppidamangalam East Village. At the time of occurrence, he was in-charge of Uppidamangalam West Village also. On 23.02.2013, at about 10.00 a.m., while he was in duty along with the Village Assistants, namely, Malaiyappan ? P.W.3 and Pugalendhi, the Councilor Ramasamy ? P.W.2 called P.W.3 ? Malaiyappan over phone and had informed that unidentifiable dead body of a woman, aged about 25 to 30 years, was found lying in Kulathupalayam Pond with bleeding injuries. Thereafter, at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.1 and the Village Assistants went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of a woman with mutilated face, with bleeding injuries, and with the hands found in a tied position. Furthermore, near the dead body, inner-wears of male and female, a blood stained stone, an unscrewed covering ear-stud and its screw and a pair of lady's chappals were available. When P.W.1 had enquired the neighbours, they told that they did not know the deceased. Immediately, P.W.1 came to his Office, prepared a complaint / Ex.P1 and at about 01.00 p.m., gave it to the respondent ? Police. P.W.2 ? Ramasamy, Councilor of Ward-1 of Uppidamangalam Town Panchyat, in his evidence had deposed about finding of dead body and informing the same to P.W.3 ? Malaiyappan. P.W.3 ? Malaiyappan, Village Assistant of Uppidamangalam West Village, in his evidence had deposed about receiving of information from P.W.2 with regard to finding of a dead body, went to the place of occurrence along with the Village Assistant of Uppidamangalam East Village, namely, Pugalendhi and P.W.1 and signing as a witness in the observation mahazar / Ex.P2 and seizure mahazar / Ex.P3. P.W.4 ? Arumugam / father of the deceased in his evidence had deposed about the deceased being identified by him as his daughter Pachaiyammal. P.W.5 ? Krishnamoorthy / brother of the deceased in his evidence had corroborated the evidence of his father ? P.W.4. P.W.6 ? Mahalingam / Owner of the Company manufacturing Mosquito Net in his evidence had deposed about the identity of M.Os.6, 17 to 19, namely, Ladies Chappals, Thali, gold chain and silver anklet by him in the Police Station as well as in the Court.
7. P.W.7 ? Dr.G.Aravind / Assistant Surgeon in his evidence had deposed about the autopsy conducted by him along with P.W.8 ? Dr.Sumathi on the body of the deceased and issuance of postmortem report / Ex.P5, in which he had recorded the following findings:
?A female body lies on her back with arms close to the sides. External injuries - (I) crush injury involving the whole of face with laceration about 10x2x3cms horizontally over the forehead. Nose crushed, unable to make out the nostrils. A deep laceration over the chin 4x3x2cm., horizontally. Exposing the mandible, Tongue protruded, eyes closed and sunken: A strangulation mark over the front of neck 2 cms broad extending from left ear lobe to the right ear lobe neck, skin preserved. Hair totally absent in the mons pubis. Two nail marks one on each side present over the Mons Pubis. 4 nail marks present all measuring 1 cms approximately over the front side of left thigh. The nail marks were skin deep. All these marks were in the upper 1/3rd of the left thigh. An abrasion 1 cm diameter was present in the front of left thigh 2 cms., above the knee. Vaginal discharge white in colour about 0.5ml., was present. Vaginal smear taken and torn for analysis. Labia minora not exposed. No vatorn injury could be made out. O/D fracture of Frontal bone in the midline separately into 2halves. Stellate frature of both maxillary bones. A linear fracture involving mandible dissecting if into 2 halves Hyond bone preserved. Haematoma present over Larynx. Brain-partially decomposed. Basal skull fracture present. Lungs-pale, Heart-empty, Liver-pale, stomach contains 50 ml partially digested food particles. Bladder empty, Uterus normal in size, C/s cavity empty. All the other internal organs are pale Visera preserved and sent for chemical Analysis.?
8. P.W.8 ? Dr.Sumathi / Assistant Surgeon in her evidence had corroborated the evidence of P.W.7 ? Dr.G.Aravind / Assistant Surgeon. P.W.9 ? Dr.Piramila / Professor, Pathology Department, in her evidence had deposed about pathological analysis and issuance of pathology report / Ex.P7. P.W.10 ? Dr.Saravanan / Assistant Professor, Forensic Science Department, in his evidence had deposed about the examination conducted by him with regard to hyoid-bone and issuance of report regarding the hyoid-bone / Ex.P9. P.W.11 ? Dr.Vijayakumar in his evidence had deposed about the recording of statement / Ex.P10 from the appellant / accused on 28.02.2013 and forwarding it to the Sub-Inspector of Police along with the requisition letter / Ex.P11. P.W.12 ? V.Arunagiri / Scientific Officer in Forensic Science Lab, Trichy, in his evidence had deposed about the analysis of viscera of the deceased, material objects and issuance of Viscera Report / Ex.P13, Biological Report / Ex.P15 and Serological Report / Ex.P16. P.W.13 ? Varadharajan @ Manikandan, in his evidence, had deposed about seeing the appellant / accused and the deceased before the occurrence and about the appellant / accused confiding about pulling the hand of the deceased and enquiring whether his fingerprints would be there on the hands of the deceased. P.Ws.14 and 15, namely, Karuppusamy @ Kumar and Agaramuthu respectively in their evidence had deposed about having seen the accused / appellant and the deceased travelling in a two-wheeler on 22.02.2013 at 07.30 p.m., and about having come to know about the murder of the deceased.
9. P.Ws.16 / Mathivanan and P.Ws17 and 18, namely, Vasanthi and Pachanachi / wife and elder sister of the accused had not supported the case of the prosecution in the witness box and therefore, they were treated as hostile witnesses.
10. P.W.19 ? Sivanandhan, Village Administrative Officer, in his evidence had deposed about the recording of confession statement of the appellant/ accused by Investigation Officer and attesting as a witness in the seizure mahazar/ Ex.P19 for the seizure of M.Os.20 to 23 and also in the seizure mahazar/ Ex.P21 for the seizure of M.Os.17 to 19. P.W.20 ? Manikandan in his evidence had deposed about the disposal / selling of M.Os.17 to 19 to him by the appellant / accused for a sum of Rs.52,000/- and attesting as a witness in the seizure mahazar/ Ex.P21. P.W.21 ? Manikrishnan / Photographer in his evidence had deposed about taking photograph of the dead body, furnishing of photographs / M.O.24 series ( 8 Nos.) and its Compact Disc / M.O.25 to the Inspector of Police. P.W.22 ? Balasubramanian / Tahsildar in his evidence had deposed about permitting Sivanandam, Village Administrative Officer and Subramani, Village Assistant with oral instruction to be the witnesses for the arrest of the appellant / accused in the Government Hospital, Karur. P.W.23 ? Alageswari/ Head Constable in her evidence had deposed about the handing over of the dead body to the Postmortem Doctor for the conducting postmortem, handing over the body of the deceased to the relatives after conclusion of the postmortem, handing over the material objects, namely, dress worn by the deceased, blood stained chudidar etc., to the Inspector of Police under Ex.P22 and handing over the Viscera of the deceased to the forensic science Lab, Trichy and handing over the result of the same before the Court.
11. P.W.24 ? Vellaisamy / Special Sub-Inspector of Police in his evidence had deposed about forwarding the first information report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karur and forwarding the copies of the relevant materials to his higher authorities. P.W.25 ? Chellappan / Special Sub- Inspector of Police, Maayanur Police Station in his evidence had deposed about his visiting to the Karur Government Hospital for receiving the accident register of the appellant / accused, further, he had deposed that since the appellant / accused was in I.C.U., he could not get the statement from him on 25.02.2013 and that he had obtained statement from him on 28.02.2013 which was marked as Court Document Ex.C1. P.W.26 ? Ganesan / Special Sub-Inspector of Police in his evidence had deposed about the receiving of information from the Duty Doctor, Government Hospital, Karur and forwarding the same to Pasupathipalayam Police Station, through Fax. P.W.27 ? Vallimuthu / Head Constable in his evidence had deposed about the furnishing of letter received from M.M.Ward, Karur Government Hospital, to the Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station. P.W.28 ? Dhanalakshmi / Head Constable in her evidence had deposed about furnishing the letter given by the Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station to the Tahsildar, Karur. P.W.29 ? Mohanram / Special Sub-Inspector of Police in his evidence had deposed about the registering of the first information report / Ex.P23, based on the complaint given by G.K.Sampath, Village Administrative Officer, in Crime No.34 of 2013, under Section 302 and 201 I.P.C., and forwarding the said F.I.R., to the learned Judicial Magistrate and also other higher officials. P.W.30 ? Gowthaman / Police Constable in his evidence had deposed about the typing of the statement of witnesses and the statement of the appellant / accused in the Computer as per the requisition of the Investigation Officer.
12. P.W.31 ? Dr.S.S.Rajendran / Doctor in his evidence had deposed about admitting the appellant / accused who was brought to the hospital stated to have consumed poison, as inpatient and about the issuance of accident register / Ex.P24. P.W.32 ? Shetric Manuel / Inspector of Police in his evidence had deposed about the investigation conducted by him, recording of statement of witnesses and the appellant / accused, preparation of observation mahazar, seizure mahazars, obtaining postmortem report and the final report filed by him after completion of investigation. P.W.33 ? Arulmozhi Arasu / Inspector of Police in his evidence had deposed about the filing of final report after completion of investigation.
13. After completing the examination of witnesses, when the incriminating materials and circumstances were put to the appellant / accused, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the evidence of the prosecution side as false. However, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the defence.
14. After hearing both sides and perusing the oral and documentary evidence adduced, the learned Trial Judge, by Judgment dated 07.07.2015, found the appellant / accused guilty for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 379 and 309 I.P.C., and sentenced him as stated above. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant / accused has preferred the present criminal appeal.
15. Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused contended that as per the prosecution case, nobody has seen the commission of the offence and thereby, the case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the alleged extra-judicial confession stated to have been made by the appellant / accused to the Doctor and submitted that extra-judicial confession being a weak piece of evidence, a bounden duty is cast on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that there were lapses on the investigation and missing links in the theory propounded (expounded) by the prosecution thereby creating serious doubts in the prosecution case and hence, the appellant / accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.
16. The learned counsel for the appellant / accused further contended that the Trial Court had failed to consider that the extra-judicial confession said to have been given by the appellant / accused before P.W.11 / Dr.Vijayakumar has not been proved and it is quite unnatural and that there was no reason for the appellant / accused to go to P.W.11 / Dr.Vijayakumar, who is totally a stranger to repose confidence and confess to him about the offence committed by him. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant / accused placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Kumar vs. The Inspector of Police, reported in 2017 (1) MWN (Cr.) 175 and submitted that the extra-judicial confession being a weak piece of evidence, the appellant / accused cannot be convicted in the absence of corroboration from independent sources.
17. The learned counsel for the appellant / accused further contended that P.Ws.14 and 15 are hearsay witnesses and are strangers and in this case, when no test identification parade has been conducted to identify the appellant / accused, their evidence with regard to fixing identity of the appellant / accused cannot be accepted and believed. Further, the last seen theory has not been proved by the prosecution and in such circumstances, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant / accused, when the prosecution has failed to prove its case by cogent and convincing evidence.
18. The learned counsel for the appellant / accused further contended that the motive for the offence has not been proved and when the case being based on circumstantial evidence, the aspect of proving the motive is must and in failure to prove the same, the last seen theory projected by the prosecution cannot be accepted and further, there are number of doubts and loopholes in the prosecution theory and thereby, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellant / accused and thereby, the appeal to be allowed and conviction to be set aside.
19. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it is a case, wherein the appellant / accused committed the murder of his colleague one Patchaiammal @ Thenmozhi and committed theft of jewels worn by her, thereafter to screen the evidence and identity of the deceased, had mutilated her face and thereafter, out of guilty conscience, had consumed poison and thereafter, he was taken to P.W.11 / Dr.Vijayakumar for treatment, before whom the appellant / accused had confessed about the commission of murder of the deceased. P.W.11 / Dr.Vijayakumar is an independent witness and he is a responsible person and a Government Servant and nothing had been elicited from him or any other witnesses to falsify the evidence of P.W.11 / Dr.Vijayakumar and that pursuant to his arrest, the recovery of the stolen jewels have been effected. Further, even during the examination of the accused under 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant / accused had not denied the fact of taking treatment from P.W.11 / Dr.Vijayakumar.
20. Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the deceased, appellant / accused and P.W.13 were working in the Mosquito Net manufacturing company owned by P.W.6 and that had been elucidated by the deposition of P.Ws.6 and 13. Moreover, the brother of the deceased, namely, P.W.5 had spoken about having dropped the deceased at Double Water Tank Bus Stop on 22.02.2013 and he had also spoken about the deceased wearing the dresses identified and marked as M.Os.13 to 15 and jewels identified and marked as M.Os.16 to 19 and it is confirmed by the evidence of P.W.5 and subsequently, after the duty was over, P.W.14 had seen the deceased standing in the Bus Stop and that he had also seen the appellant / accused picking the deceased in his two-wheeler / M.O.20. P.W.15 had also seen the appellant / accused and the deceased travelling in M.O.20 / two-wheeler and there is substantial evidence by P.Ws.14 and 15 who have last seen the appellant/ accused along with the deceased. Further, on the next day at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.2 had received intimation about the murder of the deceased and the body lying near a pond on the south side of the coconut grove belonging to Palaniappan at Kulathupalayam and he had given information to P.W.3 and thereafter, to P.W.1/ V.A.O., and at about 01.00 p.m., he had given Ex.P1 / complaint to P.W.29 / S.S.I and thereafter, on the basis of Ex.P1/complaint, Ex.P23/F.I.R., was registered and that it had been confirmed through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 13 and P.W.29 and through Exs.P1 and P23. Thereafter, on 25.02.2013, the appellant / accused had consumed poison and it was known to P.W.18 through P.W.17 and they had admitted him at Karur Government Hospital at 07.30 a.m., where the appellant / accused had confessed to P.W.11 / Doctor admitting the commission of murder of Thenmozhi and removal of her jewels and having mutilated her face so as to screen identity and also admitting that the jewels were sold at a jewellary shop at Karur Bazar and thereafter, consumed pesticide. Thereafter, P.W.11 had sent the confession statement of the appellant / accused along with a covering letter to the Out- Post Police Station at Karur Government Hospital and thereafter, based on the confession of the appellant / accused recovery of material objects have been made. Thereby, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has cogently and convincingly proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and there was no missing link in the prosecution case and thereby, pinpointing that it was the appellant / accused, who had brutally murdered the deceased, robbed her jewels and had also mutilated her face in order to screen the identity of the deceased. The prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and thereby, the trial court has rightly framed charges for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 379 and 309 I.P.C., and the Trial Court had rightly convicted the appellant / accused for the above said offence.
21. We have heard Mr.M.Karunanithi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused and Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. We have scrupulously and consciously examined the evidence and materials available on record with the onerous responsibility imposed on us. We have also gone through the Judgment of the Trial Court.
22. No doubt, the case on hand is one of circumstantial evidence resting on extra-judicial confession and recovery of articles at the behest of the appellant / accused. We shall at the threshold point out that there is no eye witness to the commission of murder and as such, the prosecution case rests solely on the circumstantial evidence. The Honourable Apex Court as well as our High Court in series of decisions has held that when a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, the evidence let in by the prosecution must satisfy the following tests:
(i) Circumstances should be fully proved. (ii) Circumstances should be conclusive in nature.
(iii) All the facts established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
(iv) The circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused and that suspicion, however grave, cannot taken place of legal proof and the influence of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be compatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.
23. Now, it is to be seen whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant / accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that whether the chain of link have been proved without any snap in between. Now, looking into the facts of the case, it is the prosecution case that on 22.02.2013, at about 07.30 p.m., while the deceased was waiting to board the bus to get back home at Chettinad Cement Factory Bus Stop, the appellant / accused had picked up her in his two-wheeler and taken to Kulathupalayam Pond and murdered her and committed theft of jewels worn by her and thereafter, in order to screen the evidence and identity of the deceased had mutilated her face with stone and in order to escape, he had consumed poison. The body of the deceased was found near the pond by P.W.2, who had informed it to P.W.1 through P.W.3. Thereafter, based on the information given by P.W.1, a case was registered by the respondent ? Police.
24. The Investigation Officer / P.W.32 had, after taking up the case for investigation, gone to the place of occurrence at 02.30 p.m., and through P.W.21 / Photographer, photos / M.O.24 (eight series) were taken. Thereafter, at about 04.45 p.m., in the presence of P.W.3 inspected the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch. At the same place, certain articles as evidenced, namely, M.Os.1 to 12 were recovered under seizure mahazar and the dead body was handed over to the mortuary through P.W.23 / Head Constable. Thereafter, on the next day, between 06.00 a.m., and 09 a.m., inquest was conducted and Ex.P26 was prepared. Thereafter, the dead body was handed over for postmortem and postmortem had been conducted by P.Ws.7 and 8.
25. P.W.4 / father of the deceased, who was searching for his daughter, on information that an unidentifiable dead body of a woman was found near Kulathupalayam Pond and later, taken to Government Hospital, Karur, had gone and seen the dead body. He had identified the dead body as his daughter by the scar due to burn injuries found on her both legs and also the scar of injuries found on her left big toe.
26. P.W.5 is the brother of the deceased. P.Ws.4 and 5, who are father and brother of the deceased respectively, have spoken about the deceased having married one Ilangeswaran and thereafter, living with one Baskaran at Gandhigramam and working in Mosquito Net manufacturing company of P.W.6. P.Ws.6 and 13 have deposed about the appellant / accused and the deceased working in P.W.6's Company. P.W.5 had spoken about the dropping of her sister / deceased at 08.30 a.m., at Double Water Tank Bus Stop on 22.02.2013 and also spoken about the dress worn by the deceased M.Os.13 to 15 and jewels M.Os.16 to 19. After finishing the work, while the deceased was standing at the Bus Stop to go back to her home, the appellant / accused had picked her up in the two-wheeler / M.O.20 and that had been seen by P.W.14. P.W.15 had seen the appellant / accused and the deceased travelling in the junction of Veeravakkiam and Bye-Pass Road, thereby, P.Ws.14 and 15 have last seen the deceased on the night of 22.02.2013 at about 07.00 p.m. Thereafter, on 23.02.2013, at about 10.00 a.m., the body of the deceased was found near the pond on the south side of the coconut grove belonging to Palaniappan at Kulathupalayam.
27. Lodging of complaint by P.W.1 and the registration of the case has been proved by the evidence of the witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.29 and through Exs.P1 to P23. On 25.02.2013, out of guilty conscience, the appellant / accused had consumed poison and it was known to P.W.18 through P.W.17 and P.W.18 had admitted the appellant / accused in the Government Hospital, Karur. Though P.Ws.17 and 18 have been treated as hostile witnesses, they have spoken about the appellant / accused consuming poison and thereafter having been admitted at the hospital. Further, the admission of the appellant / accused in the hospital is proved by the evidence of P.W.31 / Doctor, who had admitted him and issued Ex.P24 / Accident Register. While the appellant / accused was on treatment on 28.02.2013, between 10.30 hours and 11.45 hours, the appellant / accused had given a statement in the form of extra-judicial confession / Ex.P10 about the commission of murder of the deceased, theft of her jewels and having mutilated the face of the deceased to screen the identity and having sold the jewels at a jewellary shop at Karur Bazar. P.W.11 / Dr.Vijayakumar, who is an independent witness has spoken about sending of Ex.P10 along with covering letter / Ex.P11 for further action to the Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam Police Station through Outpost Police Station of the Government Hospital at Karur. P.W.26 had spoken about the handing over of Exs.P10 and P11 to the Head Constable/P.W.27, who in turn handed over the documents to P.W.32 / Investigation Officer. These facts have been proved by P.Ws.11, 26, 27 and 32 and through Exs.P10 and P11.
28. Thereafter, P.W.32, on the same day at about 06.30 pm., had gone to the Government Hospital and arrested the appellant / accused, who was taking treatment as an inpatient in M.M.Ward in the presence of P.W.19 and at that time, the appellant / accused had given a confession, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses and thereafter, on 01.03.2013, after completion of treatment and discharge, the appellant / accused had taken P.W.32 and the witnesses to the place of occurrence at about 01.00 p.m., and thereafter, at about 01.15 p.m., the appellant / accused was taken to his house and at about 02.30 p.m., in the presence of the witnesses, M.Os.20 to 23, namely, two- wheeler, cash of Rs.52,000/-, pant and shirt worn by the appellant / accused and the receipt of sale of the jewels had been recovered and thereafter, the appellant / accused had been taken to Arun Kumar Jewellary Shop, wherein he had been identified by P.W.20 / Manikandan and in the presence of the witnesses, M.Os.17 to 19 had been recovered. These facts have been confirmed by the evidence of P.Ws.19, 20 and 32 and by Exs.P17 to 21 and P27 and by M.Os.17 to 23. Further, no motive or enmity had been suggested in respect of the witnesses, namely, P.Ws.19 and 20 and nothing had been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit the evidence of the witnesses.
29. Taking into consideration the over all evidence let in by the prosecution, it is clear that P.Ws.14 and 15 had seen the appellant / accused travelling in a two-wheeler. Though P.Ws.17 and 18 viz., the sister and the wife of the appellant / accused have been treated as hostile, they have spoken about the appellant / accused consuming poison and being admitted in the Hospital and taking treatment from P.W.11. No suggestion has been made to any of the witnesses that it was the respondent ? Police, who admitted the appellant / accused or that extra-judicial confession had been obtained from the appellant / accused at the behest of the Police. Moreover, after the arrest of the appellant / accused, based on his confession, jewels belonging to the deceased have been recovered from P.W.20 / Manikandan, owner of the Jewellary Shop, in the presence of the witnesses. There is no denial in respect of the admission in the Hospital and not even any suggestion has been made that P.W.11 recorded his statement / extra-judicial confession on the instance of the Police. Further, even in 313 Cr.P.C., questioning, it has been admitted by the appellant / accused that he went to Government Hospital to take treatment for stomach pain.
30. From the above evidence let in by the prosecution, we find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts pointing guilt to the appellant / accused that he alone had committed the murder of the deceased, committed theft of the jewels worn by the deceased and thereafter in order to screen the evidence mutilated the face of the deceased and later out of guilt attempted to commit suicide. All the circumstances have been cogently proved and there is no missing link in the prosecution case. We find no error or infirmity in the Judgment passed by the Trial Court, thereby, the same is liable to be confirmed.
31. In the result, the criminal appeal fails and it is dismissed and the Judgment, dated 07.07.2015, passed in S.C.No.75 of 2014, by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Karur, is confirmed. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant / accused shall stand cancelled. The respondent ? Police is directed to secure the appellant / accused and produce him before the Trial Court to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
To
1.The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Karur.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police, Velliyanai Police Station, Karur District..