Jayasankar vs State on 13 October, 2009

[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Jayasankar vs State on 13 October, 2009

Bench: C.T.Selvam

       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 13/10/2009

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

Crl.A(MD)No.329 of 2008
Crl.A(MD)Nos.330, 333, 340, 341, 342 of 2008
and Crl.R.C(MD)No.835 of 2008

Crl.A(MD)Nos.329, 330, 333, 340, 341, 342 of 2008:

1.Jayasankar
2.Ganesh Kumar
3.Kumar @ Kumaresan			.. Appellants in Crl.A.
					   No.329 of 2008/A1,A2 & A5
4.Niranjan				.. Appellant in Crl.A. No.330 of 2008/A6

5.Ganesan				.. Appellant in Crl.A. No.333 of 2008/A7

6.Narayanasamy				.. Appellant in Crl.A. No.340 of 2008/A8

7.Sridharan				.. Appellant in Crl.A. No.341 of 2008/A4

8.Dinesh Kumar				.. Appellant in Crl.A. No.342 of 2008/A3	

Vs.

State, rep. by
the Inspector of Police,
C.B.C.I.D. in
Tirumangalam Police Station.
(Crime No.413 of 2006)  		.. Respondent/Complainant

Common Prayer in Crl.A(MD)Nos.329, 330, 333, 340, 341, 342 of 2008

Criminal appeals are filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment
dated 16.07.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.61 of 2008 by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai.

!For appellant in
Crl.A(MD)No.329 of 2008		... Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
For appellant in
Crl.A(MD)No.330 of 2008		... Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah
For appellant in
Crl.A(MD)No.333 of 2008		... Mr.N.Ananthapadmanaban
For appellant in
Crl.A(MD)No.340 of 2008		... Mr.G.Sundaram
For appellant in
Crl.A(MD)No.341 & 342 of 2008	... Mr.R.Mariappan		
^For respondent in
Criminal Appeals 		... Mr.L.Murugan
				    Govt. Advocate (Crl. side)

Crl.R.C(MD)No.835 of 2008:

Pandi							.. Petitioner/P.W.1

Vs.

1.The Inspector of Police,
  C.B.C.I.D. in Tirumangalam Police Station,
  Madurai District.
  (Crime No.413 of 2006)				.. 1st Respondent/Complainant

2.Jayasankar
3.Ganesh Kumar
4.Dinesh Kumar
5.Sridharan
6.Kumar @ Kumaresan
7.Niranjan
8.Ganesan
9.Narayanasamy						.. Respondents 2 to 9/
						   			Accused 1 to 8.

Prayer

Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w.401 of Cr.P.C.,
against the judgment dated 16.07.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.61 of 2008 by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai.

For petitioner			... Mr.M.Ajmal Khan
For 1st respondent		... Mr.L.Murugan					
				    Govt. Advocate (Crl. side)
For respondents 2,3 & 6		... Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar
For respondents 4 & 5 		... Mr.R.Mariappan
For 7th respondent		... Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthaiah
For 8th respondent		... Mr.N.Ananthapadmanaban
For 9th respondent		... Mr.G.Sundaram

* * * * *

:COMMON JUDGMENT

The criminal appeals 329, 330, 333, 340, 341, 342 of 2008 have been preferred against the judgment dated 16.07.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.61 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai.

2. Crl.R.C(MD)No.835 of 2008 has been preferred by the petitioner/P.W.1 against the judgment dated 16.07.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.61 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai to enhance the sentence passed against the accused.

3. The accused were charged as follows:

Accused Name Offence No. 1 Jayasankar 120-B r/w. 302, 325, 201, 203 and 176 I.P.C. 2 Ganesh Kumar 120-B r/w. 302, 325, 201, 203 and 176 I.P.C. 3 Dinesh Kumar 120-B r/w. 302, 325, 201, 203 and 176 I.P.C. 4 Sridharan 120-B r/w. 302, 325, 201, 203 and 176 I.P.C. 5 Kumar @ Kumaresan 120-B r/w. 302, 201, 203 and 176 I.P.C. 6 Niranjan 120-B r/w. 302, 201, 203 and 176 I.P.C.

7 Ganesan 166, 167 and 218 I.P.C.

8 Narayanasamy 166 I.P.C.

4. The accused 1 to 4, 5 and 6 were acquitted of charges under Sections 120-B r/w. 302 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai was pleased to convict each of the accused under Sections 120-B r/w. 325, 201, 203 and 176 I.P.C. sentenced them as follows:

Accd. No. Conviction Sentence A1 120-B r/w. 325, 201, To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years 203 and 176 I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 120-B r/w. 325 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 201 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 203 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- i/d.

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 176 I.P.C.

A2 120-B r/w. 325, 201, To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay 203 and 176 I.P.C. fine of Rs.3000/- i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 120-B r/w. 325 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 201 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 203 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 176 I.P.C. A3 120-B r/w. 325, 201, To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- 203 and 176 I.P.C. i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 120-B r/w.

325 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 201 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 203 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 176 I.P.C.

A4 120-B r/w. 325, 201, To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- 203 and 176 I.P.C. i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 120-B r/w.

A5 120-B r/w. 325, 201, To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- 203 and 176 I.P.C. i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 120-B r/w.

A6 120-B r/w. 325, 201, To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- 203 and 176 I.P.C. i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 120-B r/w.

A7 166, 167 and 218 I.P.C.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- i/d.

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 166 I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- i/d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 218 I.P.C. (No separate punishment was imposed for the offence under Section 167 I.P.C.) A8 166 I.P.C. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- i/d.

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

5. The case of the prosecution is succinctly stated in the Judgment of the lower court and the same reads as follows:

(i) The Inspector of Police crime branch CID, Theni unit laid the charge sheet against the accused stating that on 17.6.06 at 13.00 Hrs. Jayashanker, the accused No.1 lodged a complaint in Thirumangalam Town police station alleging that on 12.6.06 at 23.30 Hrs. when he came to his house after closing his Computer centre located at Bharathy street, he saw one identifiable male, aged about 25 years, lying unconscious near one Seeni naicker Mill near his residence at Raja nagar, that when he searched his body for establishing his identity, he saw strips of 40 to 50 tablets in his trouser pocket, that he took him to Government Hospital, Thirumangalam in an auto-rickshaw from where at the request of the Medical officer of Government hospital, he took him to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai in a taxi and admitted such person at ward No.101 and that on receipt of information about the death of the said person on 17-6-06 he lodged the complaint.

(ii) One Radhakrishnan, the deceased in this case, a native of Sholavandan Road in Thirumangalam in Madurai District, was employed in a private firm in Bangalore. He had fallen in love with one Parvathy Indira @ Indu, a resident of Raja Nagar, Thirumangalam, when she used to visit the computer centre owned by her cousin Jayasanker, the said accused No.1. But, she did not reciprocate his love. Radhakrishnan undeterred by Parvathy Indira @ Indu spurning his love, continued an one sided affair. She informed this to her cousin sister Jayasanker, who issued several warnings to Radhakrishnan. But, Radhakrishnan persisted in hankering after her even after she was married to one of her relatives by name Senthil. Jayasanker admonished Radhakrishnan against this, in view of her marriage with Senthil. But, Radhakrishnan refused to pay heed to his warning. Once he told Jayasanker at one "Hanuman Gym" in Thirumangalam that he was in possession of some photographs taken of him with Parvathy India @ Indu in compromising positions and stated that he would not desist from his actions.

This angered Jayasanker and drove him to plan the elimination of Radhakrishnan. Jayasanker had already worked in a clinical laboratory in Kumbakonam and hence he had a fair knowledge of the utility of drugs and tablets. In pursuance of his bid to liquidate Radhakrishnan, he purchased, in phases, 60 sedative tablets of Trinicalm plus and Neocalm plus from one Balaji medicals located at Thirumangalam. In the meantime, Radhakrishnan came to Thirumangalam from Bangalore to attend a family function held in the first week of February 2006. On the morning of 11.06.2006, Jayasanker chanced to see Radhakrishnan in the bazaar in Thirumangalam town and asked him to come to his computer centre on the same day evening to thrash out the issue. He conceived a plan to offer Radhakrishnan, a soft drink mixed with the sedative tablets to bring about his slow death in the event of his refusal to hand over the alleged obscene photographs. In furtherance of his intent, he prepared a powder of ten tablets of Trinicalm plus and 10 tablets of Neocalm plus and kept it ready in his possession. On the same day, Radhakrishnan visited the computer centre of Jayasanker at Bharathy street around 19.00 Hrs. In the one to one meeting between Radhakrishnan and Jayasanker, the latter asked him to hand over the photographs in question which the former refused. Then Jayasanker offered Radhakrishnan liquor which was declined. He also spurned the offer of coffee made by Jayasanker. Then Jayasanker went outside leaving behind Radhakrishnan at his office, purchased half litre bottle of coco cola and offered a portion of it in a glass tumbler to Radhakrishnan at 20.30 Hrs. after mixing in it the powder of sedative tablets. Jayasankar consumed the unmixed portion of the beverage. Thereafter, Jayasanker dropped Radhakrishnan in his own motor cycle near Thevar statue at Thirumangalam.

(iii) On the same night, at about 21.15 Hrs. Radhakrishnan, struck by dizziness due to consumption of the sedative mixed soft drink grew suspicious of Jayasanker and went to his residence in Raja Nagar to ask him the cause of his dizziness. He pressed the calling bell and before the inmates responded to his call, he positioned himself at a dark place nearby the house. Jayasankar, his elder brother Ganesh kumar and his other female inmates came out and on seeing Radhakrishnan standing under the cover of darkness, Jayasanker, knowing his identity fully well, enacted a drama as if he was a thief loitering in that area and raised an alarm calling him a thief. His neighbours Dinesh Kumar and Sridharan came there on hearing the alarm raised by Jayasanker. The 4 male persons started beating Radhakrishnan indiscriminately questioning his presence at odd hours. Jayasankar pushed the deceased down to the ground as a consequence of which, he sustained injury on his head. During the beating and unable to bear the same, Radhakrishnan disclosed his identity to the 4 accused.

(iv) While Radhakrishnan was lying unconscious on the ground with the head injury, Jayasanker unobtrusively placed the remaining 40 tablet of Trinicalm plus and Neocalm plus in the trouser pocket of Radhakrishnan. He and his elder brother Ganesh Kumar went to Thirumangalam town Police station and misinformed the H.C.331 Narayanasamy (A-8) then in charge of police station that an unidentifiable thief was found loitering in their area, who was overpowered by them and kept in captivity. The Head constable namely Subramanian came to the place of occurrence to verify the contention of Jayasanker. Meanwhile, the relatives of Jayasanker informed the developments to one Kumar (A-5), the maternal uncle of Jayasanker and one Niranjan (A-6), the former chairperson of Thirumangalam Municipality, who also came to the spot. They were also informed of the exact identity of the injured Radhakrishnan by A-3 and A-4. But all conspired together and deliberately suppressed his identity. On receipt of information from the sentry Police Constable, the Sub-inspector of Police Ravi (since deceased), who was on night rounds, arrived at the spot. He and A-3,A-4, A-5 and A-6 huddled into a confidential discussion after which the Sub-inspector directed the head constable no.331 Narayanasamy (A-8) to set at liberty Jayasanker and Ganesh Kumar from the police station. The head constable accompanied the duo in an auto rickshaw driven by one Senthil to the place of occurrence. The Head constable (A-9) is a family friend of the injured Radhakrishnan. But, he also acquiesced with the plan of the accused to suppress the identity of the deceased. The Sub-inspector of Police (A-7) and the head constable Narayanasamy (A-9) allowed Jayasanker to take the injured to the Government hospital, Thirumangalam without either of them accompanying him as obligatory on their part as per law or even sending him on a medical memo from the Police Station.

(v) Jayasanker took the injured to the Government Hospital, Thirumangalam and the Head contable Narayanasamy visited the hospital after some time and ascertained the developments in the hospital. When the Medical officer, Government hospital, Thirumangalam asked the Head constable to take the injured to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for further treatment in view of the gravity of the head injury, he deliberately disobeyed the direction of the Medical Officer (and law) and refused to accompany the injured. Then the injured was taken by the accused Jayasankar himself in a taxi and admitted in ward No.101, Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai on 12.06.2006 at 2.20 Hrs for treatment for his head injury. Prior to that he cunningly removed the 40 tablets from the trouser pocket of the deceased in order to misdirect the sequence of occurrence and kept the same with him. The accused Jayasanker referred the injured as unknown both at the time of admission in Thirumangalam Government Hospital and at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai despite knowing fully well his identity and caused the Accident Register copies of both the hospitals to be entered as such.

(vi) The injured was treated in ward No.101 for his head injury from 12.06.2006 to 17.06.2006 and he was scanned for his head injury. He succumbed to his head injury on 17.06.2006 at 5.00 Hrs. The dead body of Radhakrishnan was kept in the mortuary on 17.06.2006 and 18.06.2006 for the ostensible reason that its identity was not known.

(vii) On 17.06.2006 at 13.00 hours, on receipt of information of the death of Radhakrishnan, Jayasanker went to Thirumangalam Police Station along with his friend Shanmugam where the head constable 207, Ganesan (A-7) prepared a draft (false) complaint, for the sake of Jayasanker as if the identity of Radakrishnan whom he and all other accused had beaten was not known and asked him to write it in his own hand writing. When Shanmugam came forward to lodge the complaint instead of Jayasanker, the Head constable did not entertain his offer and allowed the accused to lodge the complaint in order to save him from punishment. The Head constable (A-7) fabricated the above incorrect document only at the instance of Sub-inspector of Police Ravi. During the inquest, the Head constable (A-7) obtained signature of 5 panchayatdars on blank white papers and prepared false inquest report at the instance of the Sub-Inspector of Police.

(viii) On 19.06.2006, the elder brother of Radhakrishnan by name Jeyapandi on seeing the publication of photo of the deceased in the news papers identified the dead body. Autopsy was held at Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital and the viscera was sent for chemical examination. The viscera analysis report reveals that the components of trifluoperazine and trihexyphenidyl tablets were detected in the blood, liver and kidney of the deceased. Based on the findings of the Chemical analysis of viscera, the medical officer who conducted post mortem furnished his final opinion stating that the deceased died of trifluoperazine and trihexyphenidyl poisoning.

(ix) The Medical officers who treated Radhakrishnan at the Causality ward, took a scan of his head and provided treatment at Ward No.101 were of the opinion that the deceased died due to head injury sustained by him. When the medical officer who conducted, autopsy was interrogated for clarification on his final report, he informed that he so opened, in the absence of any other visible evidence on the dead body to determine the cause of his death and that he could not find any injury on his head owing to the liquefied state of the brain due to the decomposed state of the dead body. He further opined that he could not definitely say that the components of the said two tablets found in the viscera are poisonous ones and that he furnished his opinion as death due to the poisoning of the said two tablets only because of the absence of any other conclusive evidence found on the dead body to determine the cause of death. However he concluded that death of Radhakrishnan could have occurred due to head injuires sustained by him as opined by the 3 medical officers.

(x) As per the medical opinion, the deceased died of injuries caused by A- 1 to A-4. A1 to A4 are said to have caused the said injuries with the knowledge that those were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Knowing fully well the said truth, they are said to have screened the offence. They also are alleged to have furnished false information and to have omitted to furnish correct information to the Sub-inspector of Police. Hence A-1 to A-4 rendered themselves liable for prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302,325,201,203 and 176 IPC.

(xi) A-5 and A-6 knowing the identity of the deceased through A-1 to A-4 entered into criminal conspiracy with them and the Sub-Inspector of Police suppressed the identity of the deceased thereby screening the truth, furnished false information to the sub-inspector of Police as if the identity of the deceased was not known there by omitting to furnish correct information which they were bound by law to give to the public servant. Hence A-5 and A-6 were liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B read with 302 IPC and 201,203 and 176 IPC.

(xii) The Sub-inspector of Police (since deceased) entered into criminal conspiracy with the A-1 to A-6 in suppressing the identity of the deceased despite knowing the same through the A-1 to A-6 and thereby screened the offence of A-1 and A-6, furnished false information to his subordinates as if the identity of the deceased was not known, neglected to accompany or send his subordinate with the injured to the Government hospital, Thirumangalam from the place of occurrence and failed to issue a medical memo from the police station for providing treatment to the injured, thereby disobeying the direction of the law willfully, and caused A-7 to fabricate a false complaint (for registering the case under Section 174 Code of Criminal Procedure.) for the sake of A-1 in order to favour him and for the purpose of using the same before the Court of law and prepared incorrect inquest report after obtaining the signatures of the panchayatdars on blank papers though A-7. As the Sub-inspector of Police, Ravi had died, charge against him has abated.

(xiii) A-7 a public servant, at the instance of Sub-inspector of Police, Ravi fabricated a false complaint (for registering the case under Section 174 Code of Criminal Procedure) for the sake of A-1 in order to favour him and for the purpose of using the same before the court of law and prepared incorrect inquest report after obtaining the signatures of the panchayatdars on blank papers. Hence A-7 is liable to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167 and 218 IPC.

(xiv) A-8 being a public servant disobeyed he direction of law by not accompanying the injured deceased from the Government hospital, Thirumangalam to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai as per the direction of the medical officer. Hence A-8 is liable to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 166 IPC.

(xv) The said case was taken on file as PRC 23/07 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam. The learned Magistrate furnished copies of the documents that were relied on by the prosecution to the accused under Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure. As the offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.

(xvi) The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai made over the case to the file of the trial Court for disposal according to law.

(xvii) The trial Court after appearance of the accused, on hearing both counsel and on perusing the material records, framed charges against the accused as under:

Accused Name Offence No. 1 Jayasankar 120-B r/w. 302, 325, 201, 203 and 176 I.P.C. 2 Ganesh Kumar 120-B r/w. 302, 325, 201, 203 and 176 I.P.C. 3 Dinesh Kumar 120-B r/w. 302, 325, 201, 203 and 176 I.P.C. 4 Sridharan 120-B r/w. 302, 325, 201, 203 and 176 I.P.C. 5 Kumar @ Kumaresan 120-B r/w. 302, 201, 203 and 176 I.P.C. 6 Niranjan 120-B r/w. 302, 201, 203 and 176 I.P.C.

7 Ganesan 166, 167 and 218 I.P.C.

8 Narayansamy 166 I.P.C.

The said charges were read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty.

(xviii) The prosecution witnesses have deposed as follows:

(a) PW1 Pandy deposed that the deceased Radhakrishnan is his son, who after completion of his graduation in Bachelor of Engineering at Anna University worked at Gova, Ariyalur and at L&T Bangalore. He got a job in the Chetty Nadu Cement at Usilamparai Karur as a senior Engineer. He had come to their native place Thirumangalam to attend the family function on 11.6.2006. After participating in that function, he was being seen off on that date around 10 p.m. when he informed that after getting the relieving letter from Bangalore and after joining the company at Karur, he would come and take them (his parents) to that place. Thereafter as nothing was heard from him for more than two days, he contacted another son of him, Jayapondy PW2. PW2 told him that he also did not receive any message from his brother, the deceased Radhakrishnan. Hence Pw1 told Pw2 to make enquiries about his whereabouts both at his earlier working place as well as with his friends and relatives. But no information was received from them about the whereabouts of the deceased Radhakrishnan.

(b) PW2 deposed on similar lines.

(c) PW8 Pandy deposed that he knew the first accused and had leased out his premises to the first accused for his Rohini Computer Training Centre from December 2005 on words.

(d) Pw5 Periyasamy deposed that the deceased Radhakrishnan, one Ragavan and he were close friends. He and the deceased Radhakrishnan went to the computer centre for preparing the application forms after the deceased returned from Ariyaloor. At that time, in the year 2005, the first accused scolded the deceased Radhakrishnan and when he made enquiries with the deceased Radhakrishnan in this regard, the deceased said that he had teased the first accused's sister and further told that he would handle the problem.

(e) PW3 Ramamurthy alias Ramu deposed that he knew the deceased Radhakrishnan and whenever the deceased Radhakrishnan used to visit their native place for holidays they used to spend time by going to cinema and having tea at the tea shop. In the year 2005 when the deceased Radhakrishnan came to their native place and when they were returning from the tea shop at Barathi street after having the tea, near the Rohini computer training center the deceased showed a lady by stating that her name is Paravathi indira and said he was in love with her. Pw3 further deposed that he knew the first accused also very well and in April 2006 after drinking tea at his shop and while returning, the first accused told him that the deceased Radhakrishnan unnecessarily tortured his sister Parvathi Indira though she was married to another person and the deceased Radhakrishnan was threatening them stating that he was having the photos of himself and his sister Parvathi Indira in a compromising position and that this might affect her marital life. Hence in this regard pw3 talked to the deceased Radhakrishnan indirectly several times. P.W.3 also attended the family function of pw1 on 11.6.2006. He then came to know about the death of Radhakrishnan and participated in the funeral. He further deposed that when he was examined by the Judicial Magistrate Melur, he had stated the same facts.

(f) PW4 Thiru Vairamurthy deposed that he knew the deceased Radhakrishnan and on 11.6.2006 he also participated in the Pw1's family function and on that day around 6.45p.m. when he was proceeding in his two wheeler on the Sholavandhan Road, near the 'Panaimara' bus stop, he saw the deceased Radhakrishnan coming that way and when asked where he was going the deceased said that he was going to meet a friend in the town regarding a small problem, and after having tea at a tea shop opposite to the State-Bank, he dropped the deceased, at the Rohini computer centre at the Bazaar near by the post office.

The deceased Radhakrishnan had gone inside the computer centre and then came back and told him, to come after half an hour. When Pw4 came back to that place after half an hour, he saw the deceased Radhakrishnan drinking a black colour cool drink and the first accused was also present there. A half litre plastic cococola bottle was nearly. The first accused gave the coco-cola to the deceased Radhakrishnan and he also drank the same. When Pw4 called the deceased Radhakrishnan, he said he had some personal matters to discuss with his friend and told him that he would return home later. Hence Pw4 alone returned back. On 18.6.2006 through pw2 he came to know about the death of Radhakrishnan and accompanied him to the Government Rajaji Hospital, assisted in obtaining the body and also at the funeral.

(g) PW5 Periyasamy further deposed that on the night of 10.6.2006, he spent time with the deceased Radhakrishnan along with their other friends. On 11.6.2006 around 8p.m. the deceased Radhakrishnan called over phone and told him that he was leaving to Bangalore. Later, Pw2 came to his house and enquired about the whereabouts of Radhakrishnan. Three days after that he came to know that Radhakrishnan was murdered. He also had gone to the Government Rajaji Hospital Madurai after passing on the message to another mutual friend Ragavan. They then participated in the funeral.

(h) PW7 Thiru Chinnasamy deposed that on 11.6.2006, a Sunday, he was returning from work on the Thirumangalam Madurai road when at the north of the Chininayakar street opposite to the Hero-Honda office, he noted a mob in front of a house, wherein a light was burning. When he went there, he saw a young person who was lying down being beaten by the first accused. The accused Ganasan, Dinesh and Sridhar were also standing there. Gansan's mother and his wife told them not to beat that person, but despite that they were beating such person. When P.W.7 enquired of the first accused why they were beating that person, the first accused told him that that person came there to steal. Pw7 told them that the person did not look a thief and even if so, they should not beat him and should hand over him to the police. Even after that the first accused kicked him by stating:

"ehd; brhd;dhy; nfl;fkhl;lhd; vd;Wk; mtd; rhfntz;Lk; vd;W brhd;dhh;/ mtd; j';ifapd; gpd;dhy; Rw;wpjphpe;jhd; vd;W b$ar';fh; brhd;dhh;".

When PW7 asked the first accused whether he knew the said person, the first accused told him that he is the brother of rowdy Jayapondy. Pw7 told the first accused that as he knew the person, he ought to have handed him over to the police station and if the beating was continued, the person would die. Pw7 further deposed that some days after the incident he had gone to the Panaimarathu bus stop for some personal work, where he met the other brother of Pw2, one Virumandi. He asked Virumandi why he was looking so dull, for which Virumandi said that his younger brother Radhakrishnan died in mysterious circumstances. When Pw7 asked whether he had seen Radharishnan, Virumandi replied that there was no possibility as he had studied elsewhere and was working elsewhere and that his appearance would be similar to his. When Pw7 asked him how his brother died Virumandi informed that he had died in mysterious circumstances and as on orphan. When asked whether any police complaint had been given, Virumandi informed that a C.B.C.I.D. inquiry had been sought. On further inquiry Virumandi told P.W.7 that they doubted his (deceased) friends and also doubted the first accused. At that time, Pw7 recollected the earlier occurrence, he had witnessed and informed the same to Viurmandi. Pw7 further deposed that he had stated the above facts when CBCID police made enquires of him as well as before the Judicial magistrate Melur.

(i) Pw10 Thiru Subramanian the then constable Thirumangalam Town Police station deposed that on 11.06.2006 around 23.15 hours after the first accused and other persons came to the police station and informed to constable Narayanasamy that they caught hold of a thief, and Constable Narayanasamy told this witness and another constable Lakshmanaperumal to go to that place. Hence he went to the occurrence spot along with other patrol officials and in the occurrence spot when he made enquiries with the first accused about the happenings, the first accused said that a person (aged around 25 years) after pressing the calling bell of their house tried to run and when they caught hold of him, he fell down and became unconscious and despite sprinkling water, did not regain consciousness. Pw10 further deposed that at that time the sub- inspector of police Ravi also came there and directed the first accused to bring an auto and to take the injured to the Government hospital Thirumangalam. It is his specific evidence that at that time 7 to 8 persons were standing there.

(j) Pw11 Thiru Lakshmanaperumal, the then head constable Thirumangalam deposed that on 11.06.2006 when he was on patrol duty at Shanmuga Nagar, Sub- Inspector of police Ravi, through wireless message, directed him to come to Rajanagar. Head constable Pw10 also came to Shanmuga Nagar and he also told him to come to Raja Nagar. Pw11 went to Rajanagar in his two wheeler and at that time the sub-inspector Ravi, Subramanian Constable No.1676, accused Niranjan and 10 others came there in a Tata Sumo and in that place a person (aged around 25 years) was lying unconscious. The sub-inspector of police sprinkled water on his face, but the person did not regain consciousness. The said person was sent in an auto to Thirumangalam Government hospital.

(k) Pw6 Thiru Senthil-kumar the auto driver deposed that on 11.06.2006 around 10.30 p.m. the first accused called him stating that he had caught hold of a thief and he required an auto. When Pw6 refused to go without any police instructions, the first accused told him that the police had told him to bring the auto and at that time a police constable from the police station also called him. Hence he took the auto to Thirumangalam Town Police station and at the time the 8th accused questioned the first accused about the happenings. The first accused told the other offcials to keep the first accused and the other person in custody. The first accused phoned to some body and asked the 8th accused to speak over the phone. The 8th accused over phone informed that he would take care of everything.

(l) PW6 further deposed that he went to the occurrence place at Raja Nagar accompanied by one known constable and there found the deceased Radhakrishnan lying unconscious. The constable told the first accused that the first accused informed only of rendering one blow but the person was lying unconscious. The first accused replied that when he opened the door after hearing the calling bell, no one was present. Thereafter his mother told him that some one was hiding in the near by thorn bush and he pulled that person from the thorn bush and handed over to his brother who gave one blow to that person and the said person fell down and became unconscious. Pw6 further deposed that when they phoned to the sub-inspector they could not contact him. However, on the way to the police station they received a phone call from the sub-inspector and informed him that they were all in the occurrence spot and they returned to the occurrence place. At that time except the 5th accused, other accused were all present there.

(m) PW6 further deposed that he took the (deceased Radhakrishnan) unconscious person to Thirumangalam Government hospital and the Doctors present there examined him (the deceased Radhakrishnan) and found the presence of injury on the back of the head. They then called him to take the deceased to Madurai Government Rajaji hospital, which Pw6 refused to do. He demanded his fare of Rs.160/-. The first accused gave him only Rs.60/- and the police officials asked him to collect the remaining fare the next day. The next day he could not collect the remaining fare as no one was in the police station and on the second day the second accused paid his remaining fare Rs.100/- and also asked him whether anybody made any inquiries with him and when he replied in the negative, the second accused told him that if anybody made any inquiries with him he was to say that they took a person who way lying on the road.

(n) Pw14 Dr.Azhakuvadivel the then medical officer Thirumangalam Government Hospital deposed that on 12.06.2006 at around 00.30 am when he was on duty an unknown person aged around 25 years in an unconscious state was brought by the first accused for treatment. On enquiry the first accused informed that the unknown person was lying unconscious on the Madurai road near Hero Honda shop and when he examined that person to ascertain his identity, he found two strips of tables. (Trinicalmplus and neocalmplus) (M01) in his shirt pocket.

(o) Pw14 further deposed that he found the person unconscious, not responding to painful stimuli, Pupil mildly contracted, not responding to the stimuli, pulse pressure and blood pressure normal and no smell of alcohol found in his breath. Abrasion over chin 4 X 0.5 cm present. No other external injury found. The patient was referred to Government Rajaji hospital Madurai as per Ex.P1. The said Jayasanker who brought the unconscious person made arrangement for taking him in a private vehicle to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and at that time another person accompanied the said Jayasanker. Pw14 further deposed that at that time the 8th accused also came there. When Pw14 questioned the 8th accused as to why he had come to the hospital, the 8th accused told the first accused to take the injured to the Government Rajaji Hospital Madurai and the first accused took the injured in a private vehicle. Pw14 also issued intimation to the sub-inspector of police Thirumangalam under Ex. P2.

(p) Pw12 Thenmozhi the then nurse Thirumangalam Government hospital deposed that on 11.06.2006 she was on duty from 7 P.M. to 7 A.M and when she was on duty, around 00.30 hours, two persons brought a patient in an unconscious state in an auto. As that person was in an unconscious state, the duty Dr.Azhakuvadivel (Pw14) gave only first aid and referred the patient to Government Rajaji hospital Madurai and the said two persons took the patient in private Ambassador car.

(q) Pw13 Dhandapani deposed that he knew all the accused in this case. In June 2006 when he was on the way from Thirumangalam Government hospital to Madurai Government hospital he saw the first accused and his paternal uncle in the Government hospittal Thirumangalam and when he enquired about their presence there, the first accused said that on the way to his house, he saw a person lying on the road and when he took him to the Town police station, the police directed him to take that person to the Government hospital. In the Thirumangalam hospital, Doctors were not available and the patient was asked to be taken to Madurai. Hence Pw13 helped them in taking the patient to Madurai Government hospital. After admitting the patient at Government Rajaji hospital Madurai and after an hour the first accused and his paternal uncle returned in his car to Thirumangalam. Pw3 demanded Rs.450/- as hire but they gave him only Rs.350/-

(r) Pw15 Dr.Gunesekaran the medical officer Government Rajaji Hospital Madurai deposed that on 12.6.2006 around 2.15 a.m., the first accused brought an unknown patient in an unconscious state referred from Thirumangalam Government hospital. The patient was unconscious and an abrasion was found on the chin and he was admitted in ward no.101. In this regard he issued the accident register copy Ex.P-3.

(s)Pw17 Dr.KailaiRaja the then medical officer Government Rajaji hospital Madurai deposed that the patient referred from Thirumangalam hospital was treated by Dr.Ashok Kumar the neurologist and at the time of admission in that ward the patient was unconscious, pupils were normal, an abrasion found over the chin, no vomiting and strokes present, treatment was given to the grievous head injury. Tube was inserted through nose to the stomach; tube was also inserted into the urinary bladder. Treatment was given to the patient continously and a free C.T.Scan was taken on 14.6.2006 and from that they found the bleeding injury on the right side of the brain, and also blood oozing on that side and they also found brain concussion. Hence treatment was given for that. All the medicines were injected. On 17.6.2006 around 5 p.m inspite of treatment the said patient died due to the head injuries without regaining consciousness. He opined that the said patient appears to have died due to head injuries and also the bleeding in the brain. The case sheet is marked through him as Ex.P5.

(t) PW16 Dr.Veerajkumar the then medical officer Government Rajaji Hospital deposed that on 17.6.2006 when he was on duty in ward no.101 the unknown in-patient taking treatment for the head injuries died around 5 p.m., in spite of treatment and in this regard he issued the certificate Ex.P4. (u) PW27 Thiru Saravanakumar deposed that he knew the first accused through one Krishnamurthy and he used to attend the hardware problems in the first accused Rohini Computer Center and on 12.6.2006 when he was at Kattankulathur the first accused called him over phone and told him of a problem in his computer centre. A1 also told him that he had taken an unidentified person lying unconscious on the side of the road, to the Government hospital with the help of police officials. After hearing this, PW27 appreciated his act and told him that he would attend the problem at this computer centre. Thereafter when he attended the problem, the first accused was not there in the computer centre and when he informed him about the work attended by him over phone, the first accused requested him to wait there it self, as he wanted to go to the temple along with him. Pw27 further deposed that along with the first accused he had gone to the nearby Anjeneyar temple, there the first accused told him that he was very much worried about the health condition of the person, he had admitted in the hospital and wanted to know about his health condition. The first accused requested him to accompany him to the Government Rajaji hospital Madurai. Both had gone to the hospital in a two wheeler and in the hospital Pw27 told the first accused that he would wait at the two wheeler stand itself and told him to go and see the patient. Though the first accused requested him to come along with him, he did not accompany him. After 5 minutes the first accused returned and told him that as the visiting hours was over he could not see that patient. Hence they returned back to Thirumangalam and at that time the first accused said that it was doubtful whether that person would survive. When Pw27 asked the first accused whether he had obtained any details about that person and whether the police were informed, the first accused did not give proper reply. Pw27 further deposed that the first accused told him that the information given to him over phone was different from the actual happening. On further enquiries, the first accused told him that on the occurrence date some person pressed the door bell of his house, when the first accused opened the door no one was there and when he opened the door a second time an unknown person was standing at a little distance. When the first accused questioned him, that person gave contradictory answers. Hence in doubt, he raised an alarm as 'thief', the neighbourers came and made enquiries with that person and at that time the first accused gave a blow and the neighbours also beat that person. The person became unconscious and as per the advice of the neighbours the first accused informed the same to the police and the police advised him to admit that person in the hospital. As per their advice the first accused admitted him in the hospital.

(v) PW20 Thiru Durairaj the photographer deposed that on 19.6.2006 around 9 a.m the Sub-Inspector of police Thiru Ravi, Thirumangalam police station and another person took him to the Government Rajaji hospital Madurai and also asked him to take photograph of a dead body kept in the mortuary. He took the photos and gave the print in compact disc MO2, for which he was paid Rs.250/- (w) PW21 Selvakumar deposed that in June 2006 the first accused came to his printing press and by showing a photo asked him to take prints of the same. When this witness questioned him whether the matter pertained to any police case, the first accused answered positively. He paid an advance of Rs.100/- and requested Pw21 to make ready the prints on the same evening itself. But within a short time, the first accused returned and asked whether this witness had made ready the prints of the photo for which this witness replied that he had not yet started the work. The first accused took back the photo and the advance money Rs.100/- by stating that the police directed him to take back the photo.

(x) PW22 Dhanraj deposed that in the year 2006 when he had gone to the Thirumangalam Town Police station for his personal work, his signature was obtained on a blank paper. The 7th accused and the then sub-inspector asked him to sign on the blank paper. Pw22 identified his signature Ex.P-12. (y) PW23 Thiru Sundramurthy deposed that around one year back he was standing in the Thirumangalam bus stop in front of the Police station to attend to a problem of one Dhanraj. At that time his brother Shanmugam took him inside the police station and the constable present there, asked him to sign on a blank paper. When questioned, the constable told him that there would be no problem for him. Hence he signed he identified his signature Ex.P.13. He further deposed that before he signed witness Dhanraj singed and after him witnesses Balu and Raja signed on that blank paper.

(z) PW24 Moorthy deposed that Pw22 is his paternal uncle and in the year 2006 a case was registered in Thirumangalam police for the occurrence that took place in his hotel and the same ended in a compromise. However the same occurrence took place once again. Hence the police was about to register another case against him and his uncle called him to come to the police station and at that time MynaGanesan, Shanmugam, Balamurugan also accompanied him. The 7th accused was in the police station. When they talked about Dhanraj's case, the 7th accused told them that he would see that no case would be registered and also obtained his signature (Ex.P14) on a blank paper. The signatures of Dhanaraj and Balamurugan were also obtained. When he questioned about taking of the signature on a blank paper, the 7th accused told him that signatures were taken towards disposing off an unidentified body. They signed stating they should not be put into trouble. After some days when the CBCID police made enquiries he told them about signing on a blank paper as per the directions of the 7th accused.

(aa) PW 25 Alagarsamy deposed that in June 2006 when he had gone to the Thirumangalam Town Police station to attend his friend's problem and in that regard he was talking with the police officer Ramanarayanan. The sub-inspector of police talked about the unidentified dead body. The said police officer Ramanarayanan was telling the constable about taking of thumb impression of the deceased for which the constable replied that the same had not been done. At that time Pw-25 intervened and causally said that if money is paid, anything can be done at the Government hospital and they would also get the thumb impression by cutting the hand of the deceased. The sub-inspector directed the constable to take the thumb impression of the deceased. After finishing his work, Pw-25 came out of the police station and saw one Alampatti Shanmugam and the 6th accused Niranjan going inside the police station.

(bb) PW19 Dr. Raghava Ganesan the Professor and medical officer of the Government Rajaji medical college hospital deposed that on 19.8.2006 around 10.30 am as per the request made by the sub-inspector of police Thirumangalam Town police station, and after identification of the dead body of Radhakrishnan aged around 25 years by the constable Narayanasamy he conducted the postmortem over the dead body around 10.45 am and found.

" Finger and toe nails blue. Body is found bloated. Postmortem peelings and blebs are noted all over the body in a patchy manner, Scalp heirs are coming off easily.

The following ante-mortem injuries noted on the body A partly healed abrasion 3x1 cm is noted on the chin OTHER FINDINGS:-

Peritoneal cavity - contains 50 m, of decomposed fluid. Pleural cavities contain 10 ml of decomposed fluid is noted on the either side of pleural cavities. Pericardium- contains 15 ml of decomposed fluid. Heart is flabby - Heart- right side fluid blood. Left side empty. Lungs, liver spleen ad kidneys

- cut section decomposed. Larynx and tracheas normal. Hyoid bone - intact, stomach - contains 100 ml of dark coloured turbid fluid with pungent odour. Mucosa is decomposed. Small intestine contains 20 ml of dark coloured fluid with pungent odour. Mucosa decomposed. Bladder - empty. Brain - liquefied."

He issued the postmortem certificate Ex.P8 by reserving his opinion for the cause of death awaiting the chemical analysis report. After receipt of that report wherein it was mentioned about the presence of Triflurocin and trikicelpendil medicines in the liver, kidney and blood, he opined that the death might be due to the consumption of those medicines.

(cc) Pw28 Thirumathi Meenakshmi the scientific assistant Forensic department deposed that on 20.6.2006 on receipt of the request letter received from the Thirumangalam police station for chemical analysis of the viscera and other inner parts of the body of deceased Radhakrishnan that were persevered during postmortem and on examination, Trifluoperazine and Trihexyphenidyl in the Liver, kidney and in the blood was detected and the same was not so detected in the stomach and contents, intestine and contents, brain and preservative. In this regard they submitted the report Ex.P15.

(dd) PW2 Jayapondy deposed that on 18.6.2006, he was in the tea shop. In the evening issue of the daily paper he saw the publication about the death of a 25 year old male who had been found unconscious on the road and who had died despite treatment. On seeing that, he had gone to the Thirumangalam police station and made enquiries with the constable Ganesan, the 7th accused herein who showed him a photograph. When Pw2 saw that photo the 7th accused told him that the face in the photo looks like him. The face was fully damaged, blood stains were found on the chin and the back of the shoulder was contused. The 7th accused told PW2 to go and see the dead body at the Government Rajaji hospital mortuary at Madurai. Hence PW2 immediately rushed to his house, informed the same to his parents and along with them had gone to Government Rajaji hospital and after seeing the dead body confirmed that it was his brother Radhakrishnan. He quarreled with the sub - inspector of police, refused to receive the dead body and after the intervention of his father PW1, who being a Government servant advised him that the police would do their duty; they received the dead body and conducted the cremation.

(ee) PW1 also deposed on similar lines.

(ff) PW2 further deposed that when he made enquiries with the accused Narayanasamy, the constable, he was informed that his brother, the deceased Radhakrishnan was admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital Madurai for a week and he used to visit him in the hospital. PW2 also argued with this accused on why he had not informed them about the admission of his brother in the hospital despite knowing him. After completion of the funeral, he had gone to the police station for lodging the complaint as they had a doubt in the unnatural death of his brother. The Inspector of police Dhanapalan without hearing them simply stated that his brother Radhakrishnan had only committed suicide. Hence, they lodged the complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police. As they did not get any positive result, they approached this Court for C.B.C.I.D enquiry and as per the order passed by this Court; the C.B.C.I.D started the enquiry about the unnatural death of his brother Radhakrishnan.

(gg) PW26 Sundrapandian deposed that in June 2006 Pw2 over phone told him that he saw a publication in the evening paper about the death of an unknown young person aged 25 years and the body was lying in the mortuary of Government Rajaji hospital and in that publication it is mentioned as 'Thirumangalam' police. Hence he advised PW2 to go to the Police station to find out whether that person was his brother. PW2 made enquiries with the Thirumangalam police and the constable showed him a photo and on seeing that it looked like his brother Radhakrishnan. PW2 accompanied them to the Government hospital, Madurai. (hh) PW26 further deposed that in the photo they noticed blood stained injury on the right eye. When PW2 made enquiries on the death of the person in the said photo, the Thirumangalam police said that the person had consumed poison. Then PW2 raised the doubt that if that person really had consumed poison, he could not have had the eye injury for which the police told him to bring his father. The next day they conducted the funeral and when Shanmugam had gone to the Thirumangalam police station to talk about this matter he also accompanied him.

(ii) PW26 further deposed that as he knew Shanmugam, he had gone to Shanmugam's office. At that time the accused Niranjan and Kumar were also there. Accused Kumar said that a person was found lying in front of his sister's house and in this regard they had informed to the police and also taken that person to the hospital. When he requested him to show the place where that person was found lying, they showed him the place.

(jj) PW2 further deposed that when he was in the Thirumangalam police station he heard that they told on 11.06.2006 a person was brought with regard to an occurrence that took place at Rajanagar. When PW2 asked whether any case was registered in this regard, they gave him a Xerox copy of the FIR and in that it was stated that his brother the deceased Radhakrishnan was lying on the road in an unconscious state and on humanitarian grounds, the first accused has taken him to the hospital. On P.W.2's request, the police called Jayasanker and Palanivel. PW2 made enquiries with the first accused about the happenings. The first accused told that when he was on his way to his house after completion of his work, Radhakrishnan was lying unconscious on the road. Hence he admitted him in the hospital. When PW2 asked as to why A1 had not informed him since knew his brother Radhakrishnan very well, (as during childhood they both studied together), the first accused gave an evasive reply and went away from the police station.

(kk) PW2 further deposed that he then met Shanmugam along with his brother Sunder and at that time Shanmugam called the accused Niranjan and Kumar. Shanmugam told him that they had come there only for talks and they had nothing to do with the occurrence. When PW2 asked Shanmugam where his brother deceased Radhakrishnan was lying, the accused Niranjan and Kumar took him to that place and left the place abruptly. When PW2 was looking at that place, he questioned Shanmugam about this. Shanmugam told him that he had nothing to do with this occurrence and also further told this witness that he could not do anything and that they could do as they thought fit. At this stage they received the orders from this Court for investigation by the CBCID police. PW1 deposed on similar lines.

(ll) PW32 Thiru. Arunachalam the CBCID Inspector deposed that on 28.09.2006 as per the directions of the this Court's order dated 06.11.2005 and also as per the directions given by their Additional Director, he took up the case (Thirumangalam police station Crime No.413/06) for further investigation and also received the records pertaining to this crime number including the report Ex.P-26, printed FIR Ex.P-27. On 23.12.06 he proceeded to the scene of crime the Rajanagar Thirumangalam and after observing the scene of crime prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P-18, the rough sketch Ex.P-19 in the presence of witnesses and then made enquiries with the witnesses and recorded their statements separately. As per his investigation, he came to know the case was registered contrary to the true facts; hence he altered the provisions to under Section 302 IPC and prepared the altered report under Ex.P-24. He directed the revenue department officials to sent the records pertaining to this case immediately to the court.

(mm) PW30 Thiru. Sangaiaah deposed that on 23.12.2006 around 10 am when he with one Muniyandi were at Rajanagar Thirumangalam, PW32 prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch of the scene of crime in their presence and in that he and the said Muniyandi signed as a witnesses. He identified his signature in Ex.P-18.

(nn) PW32 further deposed that on 24.02.2007 around 3 p.m. he arrested the first and the second accused at the tea shop belonging to the first accused, located at Thirumangalam bus stand. In the presence of witnesses Vijayan and Thavamani, he made enquiries and the first accused gave a voluntary statement. The admissible portion is Ex.P-25. The first accused took them to his Rohini Computer Training Centre and from there he produced the tablets Trinicalmplus and neocalmplus strips each 20 tablets (Mo 1 series) which was recovered by him under the Mahazar Ex.P-17 (oo) PW29 Vijayan the Village Administrative officer Maravankulam has spoken to the arrest of A2, the recovery effected on the basis of his voluntary statement and of his assistance and himself attesting Ex.P17. Pw29 also speaks about the arrest of the accused Dinesh-kumar and Sridhar by Pw32 in the Raja saw mill situated at Madurai road.

(pp) PW32 further deposed that on the same day(24.02.2007) around 7 p.m., he arrested the fourth accused Dinesh-kumar and the accused Sridhar in the Raja saw mill at Madurai Road. He sent the accused 1 to 4 to judicial custody and also made arrangements for sending the recovered case property to the Court under form No.95. On 6.3.2007 he requested under Ex.P-20 the recording of 164 statements of witnesses Chinnasamy, Vairamurthy and Ramamurthy.

(qq) PW31 Thiru.Ravindiran the then Judicial Magistrate Melur deposed that he received the request letter Ex.P-20 from the CBCID Inspector for recording the statements of witness under sectin 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this case. He directed the issuance of summons to the witnesses and on 14.3.2007 he recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from 11.45 am onwards following due procedure. Their statements are Ex.P-21, 22 and 23 respectively. He then sent the same to committal Court, viz., Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thirumangalam. (rr)PW32 further deposed that by continuing the investigation to find out the cause of the death of the deceased Radhakrishnan and also to know about the chemical details of the recovered tablets, he sent a questionnaire Ex.P-6 to Pw-

7. He received the answers Ex.P-7 on 20.3.2007. He also raised some doubts under Ex.P-10 to Dr.Ragavaganesh (who did the postmortem over the dead body and gave the opinion for the cause of death) and received his reply Ex.P-11. (ss) PW18 Dr. Kumaran the Assistant Professor Medical College hospital deposed that he received the questionnaire (Ex.P-6) given by Pw32 in this case. Pw32 by mentioning the names of tablets Trinicalmplus, Neocalm plus asked for what kind of decease the above tablets are prescribed and whether it is freely available in the market, its contents and consumption of how much there of would cause a person aged around 25 years to lose consciousness and whether there is any possibility of leading to the death of person if he consumed 20 tablets at a stretch. Whether these tablets when mixed with a cool drink and then consumed become poisonous, what will be complications to a person after consuming 20 tablets at a stretch and generally whether these tablets are poisonous in nature. He had sent a detailed report (Ex.P-7) by stating that both these tablets are normally prescribed for psychiatric patients and they contains same chemicals but were manufactured by different companies and were sold in the said names. The Chemicals found therein are Trifloperazine 5 milligrams and Trihexyphenidyl 2 milligrams. These tablets are not be sold in the medical shop without the prescription of a medicalpractitioner. As these medicines contain some Pharmacokinetics, there are lot of differences between the reactions in the body of a regular consumer and a first time consumer. If many tablets were consumed for the first time, they may cause some side effects such as shivering of limbs, palpitation, tightening of muscles, fatigue, drowsiness and giddiness. But to the person who is a regular consumer of these medicines, a dosage increase would not result in much side effects. Hence it is not possible to authentically state when an adult aged 25 years would become unconscious and after consuming how many tablets at a stretch. The prescribed dosage is 20 mg. (in rare case it is 40 mg). There is a possibility of the person losing his consciousness and going into coma, if he consumes more than 4 to 5 times the prescribed dosage. Further as these tablets contains chemicals for the prevention of side effects, there will not be much side effect. But such chemicals may cause some side effects. Normally a person after taking these tablets, would become tired and sleep after 30 to 45 minutes. Most of the time the person will not lost his conscious but will be in deep sleep and may sometimes delirium. There is remote chance for death of a person consuming 20 tablets at a stretch. There is no direct death. There is no information whether these tablets become poison when consumed by mixing it with a cool drink like coco cola. Basically the tablets Trinicalmplus and neocalmplus are not poisonous.

(tt)PW19 Dr. Ragava Ganesan deposed on 20.302007 he received a letter Ex.P-10 from the CBCID inspector asking some explanations about the death of the deceased for which he gave the answers in the form reply letter under Ex.P11. (uu)PW32 deposed that on completion of investigation he laid the charge sheet against these accused as above said.

6. On completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses, they were duly examined and inquired under section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused denied the charges. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence.

7. I have heard learned counsel Mr.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar appearing for A-1, A-2 and A-5, Mr.A.Gunaseelan Muthiah for A-6, Mr.Ananthapadmanabhan for A-7, Mr.G.Sundaram for A-8, Mr.R.Mariappan for A-3 and A-4, Mr.R.Gandhi for Mr.Ajmal Khan on behalf of the revision petitioner/complainant in Criminal Revision Case and Mr.L.Murugan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent police. Criminal Revision Case No.835 of 2008 u/s. 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. was originally filed seeking enhancement of sentence for offences u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. has since been corrected for one under revision against acquittal for offence u/s.302 IPC.

8. This prosecution case is curious and broadly may be stated as follows:

i.On 11.06.2006 at 7 p.m, the first accused/first appellant enticed the deceased Radhakrishnan to visit his Computer Centre, wherein the first accused served him a drink of coco-cola mixed with psychotropic substances. ii.Late on the same day at about 11 p.m., the deceased knocked at the residential door of the first accused, the 4 accused pretended not to know him and set upon him, beat him up, in the course of which A-1 gave a severe blow to the face of the deceased, who fell down and suffered an internal head injury and minor external injuries.

iii.A-1 placed strips of psychotropic tablets in the pant pocket of the deceased to make it appear that he had suffered from some drug overdose. iv.A-1 preferred a false complaint as if he had found the deceased lying on the road.

v.A-1 and A-2 are brothers. A-3 is the friend of A-1, A-2 and A-4 is their neighbour. A-5 is the maternal uncle of A-1 and A-2 and A-6 is his friend. A-7 and A-8 are Head Constables at the Thirumangalam Police Station. vi.A-5 and A-6 towards aiding the accused in escaping the consequences of crime joined them and along with A-7 and A-8 as also one deceased Sub-Inspector by name Ravi, caused the admission of the deceased Radhakrishnan in the Government Hospital, Thirumangalam, then caused his admission in the Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital.

vii. Before admitting the deceased into the Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital, the first accused removed the psychotropic tablets from the pocket of the deceased pant and secreted them away at his computer centre. viii.The police i.e., the deceased Ravi and the accused 7 and 8, did not act on the information had from Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital on 12.06.2006 and after the death of the deceased on 17.06.2006, received a complaint from A-1, which was registered u/s 174 Cr.P.C., caused publication of a notice regarding the death of the deceased without displaying therewith the photo of the deceased and prepared a false inquest report.

The above prosecution case has been put up on investigation by the CBCID, since the earlier investigation conducted by the local police was complained against, by way of filing a Criminal Original Petition before this Court. This Court was pleased to direct investigation by the CBCID.

9. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is to be stated that faced with the requirement of arriving at a finding u/s.302 and/or u/s.325 against A-1 to A-6 with the aid of section 120-B IPC, the lower court has arrived at conviction u/s.325 read with section 120-B I.P.C. in respect of A-1 to A-6. It is only if this conviction stands that the culpability of A7 and A8 would arise for consideration.

10. In the above scenario it becomes necessary to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to show;

i. that A-1 administered psychotropic medicines to the deceased; and ii. that A-1 to A-4 dealt blows to the deceased and that A-1 punched the face of the deceased with such force that the deceased fell down and suffered head injury.

If there be evidence to prove the above two aspects, then it would become necessary to consider the other aspects of the prosecution case, as otherwise the prosecution case would fall to the ground.

11. PW-4, Mr.Vairamurthi is the sole witness who speaks to, having met the deceased by chance on 11.06.2006 i.e. the occurrence date of on the deceased having told him about meeting a friend regarding some small dispute of the deceased, requiring him to take the deceased to the Rohini Computer Training Centre by his vehicle, where the deceased asked him to come back half-an-hour later, of his return to Rohini Computer Centre and having seen the deceased Radhakrishnan drinking a dark coloured liquid at the computer centre of the first accused and of the presence of . ltr. plastic coco-cola bottle. He has also spoken of the first accused having poured a little of the liquid for the deceased and of the first accused also drinking the same. This witness admits to having attended the function that took place in the deceased's house in the morning of the occurrence day, though he denies his being a close relation of PW-1. PW-4's evidence, even if taken to be proved does not lend any substance to the prosecution case of A-1 having mixed the psychotropic medicines in the drink served to the deceased. As against this, we have the evidence of PW-1, the father of the deceased, who had deposed that another son of him by name Raja Iyer suffering a mental ailment, of his having taking medicines therefor during the occurrence period and of the medicines Neocalmplus and Trinicalmplus having been taken by such son. [It is the presence of these drugs that the viscera report of the deceased established.] In the face of the express admission of PW-1, the defence that the deceased could have consumed the said drugs on his own, gains acceptance.

12. The occurrence wherein the deceased was allegedly beaten by the accused 1 to 4 was spoken to by PW-7. PW-7 rightly was disbelieved by the lower court. Still, it is necessary to mention that PW-7 has in the box stated that A-1 had informed him that the person who was beaten was the brother of PW-2 rowdy Jeyapandian. PW-7 has also stated that he met Veerumandi, the brother of PW-1 and the deceased who told him that he suspected A-1 as being the cause of the death of his brother. PW-7 also stated that on Veerumandy expressing his suspicion, he informed Veerumandy about the incidence in which A-1 and others beat a person. It is the defence argument that as PW-7 has admitted in cross examination that he knew of Veerumandi and PW-2 Jayapandi being brothers, it is natural to expect that he would have informed Veerumandi about the alleged beating of the deceased by A1, since A1 had informed him that the person who was beaten was the brother of PW-2. Apparently, it is finding strength in such submission that the lower court has disbelieved PW-7. One other witness whose evidence would have been telling in establishing the prosecution case of A1-A4 having been set upon the deceased and beating him would be that of PW-27. If his evidence in chief is to be believed the same may well be read as an extra judicial confession, as regards the attack on the deceased by A-1 to A-4. But that is not to be. Through cross examination, the defence has established that as against PW-27's claim of being a software engineer, who used to visit A-1's computer centre and hence had acquittance with him, PW-27 did not know even the year in which he had completed his 'plus 2; that his stream of study was Commerce which had nothing to do with being a Computer Engineer. Though PW-27 had denied that the company he was supposed to work for was non-existent, and claimed to have furnished documents to the investigating officer regarding such company, the prosecution had not marked any documents to show that indeed such company as that which PW-27 claimed to be employed in was in existence or existed earlier. Tellingly, PW-27 had admitted to his being called by the investigating officer through PW-2 the brother of the deceased. In such circumstances, it is highly unsafe to rely on the evidence of PW-27.

13. While on the aspect of administration of psychotropic medicines to the deceased, it is seen that the viscera report of the deceased reveal the presence of Trifluoperazine and Trihexyphenidyl drugs in Blood, Liver and Kidney. The prosecution allegation is of administration of psychotropic medicines to the deceased on 11.06.2006 by the first accused. The deceased died on 17.06.2006. While so, a moot question that arises is whether the presence of drug in the viscera may be explained as the natural lodging of substance in organs such as the liver and kidney are traces of that which has been administered to the deceased while he was at hospital. It is to be remembered that PW-1, the father of the deceased had deposed to another son being mentally affected, of drugs being administered on him and of medicines allegedly administered by the first accused to the deceased being available at his residence. Also to be noted is the defence argument that the 'Malai Murasu' publication intimating the death of the deceased bore reference to the deceased having suffered mental ailment. The question raised will have to be left unanswered. Suffice it to say, that the position creates a major dent in the prosecution.

14. On the aspect of head injury caused to the deceased, it is seen that the medical reports pertaining to the deceased have not been produced by the prosecution. PW-15, the Doctor, who admitted the deceased, who was brought by A-1, at Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital on 12.06.2006 at about 2 a.m. noticed only an abrasion on the chin. Exh.P-3 is the accident register. PW-16 is the Doctor who has issued Exh.P-4 Death Intimation, wherein against 'diagnosis' it is mentioned as "Head Injury". P-14 is the Doctor at the Thirumangalam Government Hospital, to whom the deceased was originally brought by A-1 and who noticed the abrasion on the left chin of the deceased. PW-17 is the Doctor who speaks at length of hemorrhage of the right side of the brain of the deceased and treatment administered therefor. Ex.P-5 is the Primary Case Record for the deceased marked through such Doctor, despite objection. This primary case record had not been seized by the investigating agency but had been produced before the court only in the course of examination of PW-17. Though allegedly a scan was taken, neither the scan report nor the connected medical records have been produced. The evidence of this Doctor that the drug Texomethazone was administered for treatment of brain hemorrhage, given the manner in which the primary case record has been produced before the Court, is suspicious in the light of evidence of PW-28, a scientific expert involved with the Viscera report, whose evidence is to the effect that if Sebotyxine and Texomethazone i.e. the drugs allegedly administered by PW-17 for treating the brain hemorrhage of the deceased had been administered, presence thereof should have been reflected in the liver and kidneys and that presence of such drugs was not noticed. In the light of the evidence of PW-28 and the above nature of production of Ex.P-5, the primary case record, only at the time of the trial and the absence of Scan report and other medical records, this Court is unable to make out a case of treatment for brain hemorrhage and therefrom to find a case of death owing to head injury.

15. Having found as above on the two questions raised, it would not be necessary to deal at length with the other aspects of the case. However for the purpose of completion, the other aspects which needs to be touched upon are:

i.According to PW-6 he was called by A-1 and a Police constable at 10.30 p.m to go to the occurrence place. It is P.W-10's evidence that A-1 came to the police station only at 11.15 pm. ii.According to PW-10 only A-8 deputed him and PW-11 who were present in the station to go to the occurrence place. It is PW-11's evidence that Mr. Ravi, Sub Inspector of Police called him over wireless when he was on night rounds and instructed him to go to the occurrence place and PW-10 came to Shanmuganagar and called him to go to the occurrence place.

iii.According to PW-10, he went to the occurrence place earlier and Sub- Inspector came afterwards. PW-10 also stated in his evidence that Sub-Inspector came alone. It is PW-11's evidence that after he reached the spot he saw the Sub-Inspector of Police, PW-10, A-6 and 10 others getting down from a Tata Sumo Car. (PW-11 has stated in his 161(3) statement that he reached the occurrence place at 9.45 p.m. and he has not stated that the Sub-Inspector, PW-10, A-6 and 10 others have come in a Tata Sumo car.) iv.According to PW-10 and PW-11 the Sub-Inspector asked A-1 to call an auto in order to take the deceased to hospital only after reaching the occurrence place.

It is PW-6's evidence that he was all along with A-1 and with PW-10 from police station and only he took the deceased in his auto.

v.According to PW-6 auto driver, there was a wound on the back side of the head of the deceased. He also stated that there was swelling on the head of the deceased. According to the doctor's evidence there was no external injury on the head of the deceased.

In Ex.P5 the primary case record there was reference that the deceased met with road traffic accident and another reference that he had Cardio Respiratory Arrest. There was no explanation of the side of the prosecution for the references made in Ex.P5. There were two stories for the death of the deceased. One of poisoning and another of head injury.

16. The motive alleged in this case is that A1 nursed a grouse against the deceased, since he had fond leanings towards his cousin sister Parvathy Indira @ Indu and had informed him of being in possession of photographs, which would show the deceased and the girl Parvathy Indira @ Indu in a compromising position. In this regard, we have only the say so of P.W.3. It is seen that P.W.3 is a relative of P.W.1. The conduct of A1 is also to be mentioned. It is unnatural that a person who is guilty of having administered psychiatric medicines to the deceased and of having beaten him would care to take the deceased to hospitals and take the risk of his name appearing in official records viz., Hospital Records, as done by the accused in this case.

17. For all the aforesaid reasons, Criminal Appeals Nos.329, 330, 333, 340, 341 and 342 of 2008 shall stand allowed. Consequently, Crl.R.C.No.835 of 2008 shall stand dismissed. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellants/accused, shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paid by them, is ordered to be refunded forthwith.

smn To

1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Madurai.

2. The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai

3. The Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam

4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai

5.The Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I.D. in Tirumangalam Police Station, Madurai District.

6. The District Collector, Madurai

7. The Director General of Police, Chennai

8.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Madras High Court