Madras High Court
Muthukumar vs The State on 2 February, 2016
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Date: 02.02.2016 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Crl.A.Nos.603 and 672 of 2011 Muthukumar .... Appellant in Crl.A.No.603 of 2011 Babu .... Appellant in Crl.A.No.672 of 2011 vs. The State, rep.by The Inspector of Police, Valapady Police Station, Salem District (Crime No.129 of 2010) ... Respondent in both the appeals Criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 25.08.2011 passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Salem, in S.C.No.384 of 2010. For Appellants : Mr.S.Thankira For Respondent : Mr.M.Maharaja,Addl.P.P. COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.Nagamuthu,J.) The appellants in these appeals are the accused 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.384 of 2010, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Salem. They stood charged for the offence under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 404 r/w.Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgment dated 25.8.2011, the trial Court convicted both the accused under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 r/w.Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
The deceased in this case was one Mr.Mohamed Aswak Ali. P.W.3 is the father of the deceased. The deceased was residing in Madurandakam along with P.W.3 and other family members. The first accused Mr.Babu has a sister by name Sumathipriya. On a previous occasion, the deceased had scolded Ms.Sumathipriya branding her as a prostitute. The first accused got wild. So far as the second accused is concerned, he had fallen in love with a girl by name Bharathi, with whom the deceased also had fallen in love. Further, the deceased had a suspicion that the first accused had developed illicit intimacy with his wife. These are all instances quoted to allege that there was motive for the accused 1 and 2 to commit murder of the deceased.
3. Despite the above enmity, the accused were in talking terms with the deceased. On 26.1.2010, the deceased obtained Rs.25,000/- from P.W.3 - his father and took the TATA Indica car, belonging to his father, bearing Registration No.TN-02-W-9293, worth Rs.4 lakhs. He told P.W.3 that he was proceeding to Chennai. After 26.1.2010, the deceased did not return at all with the car. The deceased also had a Cell Phone with him. On 28.1.2010, a dead body of a male was found near the graveyard at Kattuveppilaipatty Village on Salem to Attur National Highways. The dead body was that of a male, approximately aged 30 years. There were extensive injuries on various parts of the body. There was a pant and shirt on the body, which were all blood stained. This was noticed by the Village Assistant of Kattuveppilaipatty Village and he in turn informed the same to the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.1) of Kattuveppillaipatty Village. P.W.1 immediately rushed to the spot, verified the facts and then proceeded to the Police Station and made a complaint in this regard under Ex.P1.
4. P.W.23 was the then Inspector of Police of Valapadi Police Station. He received Ex.P1 from P.W.1 at 10.00 a.m. on 28.1.2010 and registered a case in Crime No.129 of 2010, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Taking up the case for investigation, he forthwith proceeded to the place of occurrence and in the presence of P.W.1 and another witness, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch showing the place of occurrence, under Exs.P26 and P.27. Then he prepared an observation mahazar in another place nearby, where also the blood stains were found. Then he recovered a key bunch with two keys of a Bajaj Motor-cycle at the place of occurrence. He also recovered another key bearing No.TN-10928275. There was yet another key also found at the place of occurrence. He recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth also. He also recovered the other materials such as the yellow colour towel, a pair of cheppals, which were found at the place of occurrence. He prepared mahazar for the recovery of these material objects on the spot, in the presence of P.W.1 and another witness. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for postmortem. P.W.17, Dr. Paneerselvam, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 2.2.2010 at about 2.20 p.m. He found the following injuries.
1) An Oblique incised wound over infra orbital region M 3 X0.5X0.5 cms. It situated 166 cms above left foot and 5.5. cms below mid left side eyebrow. The edges are clean cut and with slightly everted with adherent of blood cloths with dust.
2)An oblique lacerated cut out wound over front of neck 10X5X1.5 cms with clear cut severence of trachea and surrounding stripped muscles and vessels and it is situated 3 cms above supra sternal notch and 8 cms below mid chin and 150 cms above left foot. The edges are irregular and everted with adherent of blood clots with dust.
3)An oblique vertical stab injury over upper part of the right side chest M 5X3Xcavity deep and it is situated 10 cms below the previous injury and 140 cms above rt foot. The edges of both sides end of the would are acute ancle and borders are clean cut o/d.underlying injury shows a incised wound seen at the level of 4th intercostel space M.5X3Xmuscle deep.
4)An oblique incised like laceration wound over right side middle of front of chest 7X3Xcavity deep with protrudence of the lung and it is situated 4 cms below previous injury and 136 cms above right foot both sides of ends are acute angle with clean cut edges slightly everted. O/d underlying injury shows a incised wound seen at the level of 6th intercostel space M 7 x3xmuscle deep.
5)An oblique vertical stab injury over upper part hof left side chest 3x1 5xcavity deep and it is situated 138 cms above left foot and 7cms below mid clavicular region both sides of ends are acute angle with clean cut edges, slightly evered. O/s.underlying injury shows a incised wound seen at the level of 2nd intercostel side M 3x1 5xMuscle deep.
6)An oblique vertical stab injury over left side chest 3x1.5xcavity deep and it is situated 4 cms medial to previous injury and 136 cms above left foot and 9 cms below mid clavicular region both sides of ends are acute angle with clean cut edges slightly everted.
7)An oblique incised like lacerated wound over left side chest 6x2xcavity deep and it is situated 2 cms medial to previous injury and 135 cms above left foot and 10 cms below mid clavicular region. Both sides of ends are acute angle with clean cut edges, slightly everted.
8)An oblique stab injury over left side chest at the level of 4th intercostel space 4 x 3 x cavity deep and it is situated 2 cms below medial to previous injury and it is situated 134 cms above left foot and 10 cms below mid clavicular region. The edges are clean cut and with slightly everted with adherent of blood clots with dust. O/D undrlying injury shows a incised wound seen at the level of 4th intercostel space M-4x3xmuscle deep.
9) An oblique stab injury over mid chest 3 x 1 x bone deep and it is situated 3 cms medial to the previous injury and it is situated 133 cms above left foot and 11 cms below mid clavicular region. The edges are clean cut and with slightly everted with adherent of blood clots with dust.
10) An oblique stab injury at the level of sternal region at the level of 5th intercostel space M 4 x 1.5 x cavity deep and 1 cms below previous injury and it is situated 132 cms above left foot and 12 cms below mid clavicular region. The edges are clean cut and with slightly everted with adherent of blood clots with dust.
11) An oblique vertical stab injury over left hypochondrial 4 x 0.5 x cavity deep and it is situated 9 cms lateral to the previous injury and it is situated 130 cms above left foot and 13 cms below mid clavicular region. The edges are clean cut and with slightly everted with adherent of blood clots with dust.
12) An oblique stab injury over lateral wall of left abdomen 6 x 0.5 x0.5 cms with protrudence of intestine and it is situated 100 cms above left foot and 20 cms below mid axillary region. The edges are clean cut and with slightly everted with adherent of blood clots with dust.
13) An oblique incised like laceration below umbilicus 14 x 3 x cavity deep with protrudence of small intestine and it is situated 95 cms above left foot and 44 cms below mid clavicular region. The edges are clean cut and with slightly everted with adherent of blood clots with dust.
14) An oblique stab injury over left planks 3 x 0.5 x cavity deep and it is situated 6 cms below previous injury and 80 cms above left foot. The edges are clean cut and with slightly everted with adherent of blood clots with dust.
15) An oblique vertical stab injury over lateral wall of LT side upper part of abdomen 3 x 0.5 x cavity deep and it situated 111 cms above left foot and 30 cms below mid axillary line. The edges are clean cut and with slightly everted with adherent of blood clots with dust.
16) An oblique vertical stab injury over lateral wall of LT side upper part of abdomen 3 x 0.5 x cavity deep and it situated 1 cms below previous injury. The edges are clean cut and with slightly everted with adherent blood clots with dust.
17) An oblique stab injury involving left side abdomen and it is situated 2cms below previous injury. The edges are clean cut and with slightly averted with adherent of blood clots with dust.
18) Two punched out would over lateral wall of chest 1 x 0.5 x 1cms and it situated 103 cms above right foot.
19) An oblique incised like laceration over behind left ear at the level of lower aspect of left mandibular region 4.5 x 0.5 x bone deep with severence of lower aspect of left pinnae with exposure of cartilage.
20) An oblique incised like laceration over left side face 2.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cms.
21) An incised like laceration over back of right elbow 3.5 x 1.5 x 1 cms.
22) An incised like laceration over left mid clavicular region 3.5 x 0.5 x 1.5 cms.
23) Dark brown abrasion over upper part of outer aspect of left arm M 4 x 0.5 cms and 2.5 x 1 cms over left forehead.
Ex.P.19 is the postmortem certificate and Ex.P20 is his final opinion regarding the cause of death. According to him, the deceased would have died five days prior to the date of postmortem on account of shock and hemorrhages due to the injuries found on the dead body.
5. P.W.23-the Investigating Officer, during investigation came to know of the identity of the deceased. Then P.W.23 took the key found at the place of occurrence to the house of the deceased in order to verify whether it was the key of the house of the deceased. Accordingly, when tested, it opened the house of the deceased. Then P.W.2 and other family members of the deceased came to the Government Hospital at Salem and identified the head of the deceased, which was severed and preserved for the purpose of identification. Then he examined many more witnesses, including P.W.15.
6. On 15.2.2010 at 2.30 p.m. near the bridge, on the West of Madurandakam National Highway, P.W.23 arrested both the accused in the presence of P.W.14, the Village Administrative Officer and another witness. On such arrest, the accused 1 and 2 gave voluntary confessions independently at 2.30.p.m. and 3.30 p.m respectively. In the said confession, the first accused disclosed the place where he had hidden blood stained shirt, blood stained knife and the car. The second accused in his confession disclosed the place where he had hidden a knife, blood stained pant and shirts. P.W.23 recorded the said confessions in the presence of P.W.14 and another witness. In pursuance of the same, the first accused took P.W.23 and the witnesses to Nagathamman Koil and from a bush nearby, he produced a gray colour pant-M.O.13, a Sleeved shirt-M.O.14 and a full hand shirt-M.O.11 from the hide-out. He recovered the same under Ex.P13 Mahazar. Then the second accused took P.W.23 and the witnesses to his house and produced a Cell-Phone from the hide-out, that was recovered under mahazar. M.O.15 is the said Cell-Phone. Then, P.W.23 took both the accused, in pursuance of the confession statements, to Chennai. At Chennai, the first accused took the police to Santhome Housing Colony and identified one Udayakumar, who was residing in a flat in the third floor. From Udayakumar, the car key was recovered in the presence of witnesses. Then the first accused identified the car, which was parked near the house of Udayakumar and the same was also recovered (M.O.17). On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to the Court and handed over the material objects also to the Court. Then, on the request made by P.W.23, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Salem (P.W.16) conducted Test Identification Parade, in which P.W.15 identified the accused. He made a request to the Court to forward the material objects for chemical examination. According to the report, there were blood stains on the material objects. All the items, including the knife, were recovered at the instance of the first accused. On completing the investigation, he laid a charge-sheet against the accused.
7. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in first paragraph of this judgment. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 23 witnesses were examined, 33 documents and 21 materials objects were marked.
8. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 has spoken about the fact that the dead body was found on 28.1.2010 near a bridge and he has also spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar, rough sketch and recovery of material objects. P.W.2 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.3-the father of the deceased has stated that the deceased left on 26.1.2010 for Madras with a cash of Rs.25,000/- in the car (M.O.17) and he also had Cell Phone (M.O.15) with him. He has further stated that he identified the deceased from the severed head at the hospital and also identified the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence as that of the deceased. He has further stated that after arrest of the accused, he identified the Cell-Phone (M.O.15) and the car (M.O.17). P.W.4 is the cousin of the deceased. He has also spoken about the motive and the fact that on 26.1.2010 the deceased lastly left for Chennai in the car (M.O.17). After the dead body was found, he identified the dead body as that of the deceased from out of the severed head and other material objects found on the dead body. On 15.2.2010, according to him, the accused were arrested, on whose confessions, the Car, the Cell Phone, the knife and other material objects were recovered.
9. P.W.5 has stated that she knew the deceased. According to her, on 27.1.2010, the deceased left Chennai (Chromepet), after informing her that he was going to Yercaud. At that time, the accused also accompanied him. She has further stated that on the night of 27.1.2010, when she tried to contact the deceased, the Cell-Phone was in the switch off mode. She has further stated that on 7.2.2010, the Inspector of Police of Vazhapadi Police Station drew her attention to the photographs of the dead body, which she identified as that of the deceased. Later on, she identified the Cell Phone, the other belongings of the deceased, at the police station. P.Ws.6 to 9 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.10 is an auto driver, at Pondicherry. According to him, on 26.1.2010, three persons came in a TATA Indica Car to Pondicherry and he introduced them to G.Guest House for the purpose of booking a room for them. Accordingly they booked a room in the lodge and stayed there. P.W.11 has stated that the accused were standing at the Madurandakam bus stand and after some, the deceased came there in a TATA Indica Car and the accused got into the car and left. P.W.12 has stated the same facts as spoken to by P.W.11. P.W.13 has stated that he knew these accused already. According to him, on 26.1.2010, at about 9.00 p.m. when he came to Sothupakkam Bus Stand, at Madurandagam, these two accused and the deceased had come there in a car and they purchased brandy bottles and again left the place in the car. P.W.14 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and their confessions and the consequential recoveries of the material objects. P.W.15 claims to be an eyewitness. According to him, on 27.1.2010, when he was proceeding along with his friend towards Karipatti, at about 10.30 p.m., in a motorcycle, near Seshanchavadi (the place of occurrence), a TATA Indica Car was found parked. From near the car, one person was running and two persons were chasing. One person from out of the two who chased the other man, stabbed him with knife on his back. Then they dragged him by the side of the road to some distance and stabbed him repeatedly and killed him. P.W.15 further claimed that he witnessed the entire occurrence through the motorcycle head light. After finishing their task, when those two persons returned to the main road, he questioned them as to why they should behave like that. Those two persons threatened him of dire consequence and then went away in the car. Out of fear, he did not inform anybody about the occurrence. After 2-3 days of the occurrence, there was a news item in a newspaper about the above occurrence. Then driven by his conscience, he went to the police and informed the occurrence. He was examined by the Inspector of Police and thereafter on 2.3.2010, in the Test Identification Parade conducted in the Central Prison, Salem, he identified these two accused including the knife. P.W.22 is a Police Photographer, who has taken photographs, has spoken about the photographs taken at the place of occurrence. P.W.21 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who assisted P.W.23 in the matter of investigation. P.W.23 has spoken about the registration of the case, the investigation done by him and the final report filed.
10. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same as false. On the side of the accused, one Ravichancdran-the Deputy Director of Forensic Laboratory was examined as R.W.1, however, they did not choose to mark any document. The defence was one of total denial.
11. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the appellants/accused under Section 302 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal and Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the accused are before this Court with these two criminal appeals.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We have also perused the records carefully.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the motive for the occurrence has not been clearly established against both the accused. P.W.15-the eyewitness cannot be believed, as his conduct is quite unnatural and also the same is contradicted by medical evidence. P.Ws.11 to 13, who claimed to have seen the deceased in the company of the accused also cannot be believed because, they did not disclose about the occurrence immediately. So far as the arrest of the accused and the consequential recoveries of the material objects, namely, the Cell Phone, knife and the Car are concerned, the learned counsel would submit that the same cannot be believed, because, according to P.W.2, the Cell Phone was seen in the police station even on 8.2.2010 itself; whereas according to the prosecution, the accused were arrested only on 15.2.2010.
14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose these appeals. According to him, the motive for the occurrence has been clearly established by the evidence of P.W.3. He would further submit that there is no reason to reject the evidences of P.Ws.11 to 13, who had lastly seen the deceased in the company of these accused. He would submit that the evidence of P.W.5 would clearly establish that on 27.1.2010, these two accused accompanied the deceased in the car in question to go to Yercaud. According to him, there is no reason to reject the evidence of P.W.5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that so far as the arrest of the accused on 15.2.2010 is concerned, the evidences of P.W.4 and P.W.14 together with the evidence of P.W.23 (the investigating officer) clearly prove the same. It is on the disclosure statement made by the first accused, the car was recovered along with the key at Chennai. He would further submit that from out of the disclosure statement made by the second accused, the blood stained clothes of the accused were recovered, which contained human blood. This according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and therefore, the conviction and sentences imposed on them does not require any interference at the hands of this Court at all.
15. We have considered the above submissions.
16. There is no dispute that the deceased was a resident of Madurandagam Sumangali Nagar. There is also no dispute that his family owned the car bearing Registration No.TN-02-W-9293 (M.O.17). From the evidence of P.W.3, it has been established by the prosecution that the accused left the house of P.W.3 on 26.1.2010 in the said car. While leaving, he had Rs.25,000/- and a Cell Phone (M.O.15). At that time, he told P.W.3 that he was proceeding to Chennai. We do not find any reason to reject this part of the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.5 is a resident of Chromepet in Chennai. According to her, the deceased had fallen in love with her. On 27.1.2010, the deceased met her at Chromepet. At that time, he was in possession of the car-M.O.17 and he was accompanied by these two accused. These two accused were introduced by the deceased to her as his friends. All the three together went in the said car after informing P.W.5 that they were proceeding to Yercaud near Salem. Though this witness has been cross-examined at length, we do not find any reason to reject the evidence of this witness. Her evidence is so cogent and convincing. Thus, the deceased was found in the company of these accused in the car in question on 27.1.2010. She has also spoken about the possession of the Cell Phone (M.O.No.15) by the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased and these two accused had left Chennai on 27.1.2010 for Yercaud.
17. P.Ws.11 to 13 had seen the accused in the company of the deceased in the car in question in Pondicherry. From their evidences, it has been established that on 26.1.2010 in the evening the deceased and the accused were together in Pondicherry and then they proceeded to Chennai. That is how they had met P.W.5 and then went in the car. Thereafter, the whereabouts of the deceased was not known. According to the evidence of P.W.1, the dead body was found on the route to Yercaud near a burial ground on 28.1.2010 at about 10.00 a.m. The dead body has been identified to be that of the deceased. There is no much dispute regarding the identity. From these circumstances, the prosecution has now proved that between 27.1.2010 and 28.1.2010, the deceased would have died. P.W.17-Dr.Paneerselvam, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has given cogent evidence in respect of the injuries found on the deceased and the cause of the death. He has also opined that the deceased would have died five days prior to the date of postmortem. The postmortem was conducted on 28.1.2010. The opinion of the Doctor (P.W.17) has not been seriously disputed. Thus, from the evidence of P.W.17, it has been clearly established that the deceased was done to death between 27.1.2010 and 28.1.2010 and it was a homicide.
18. Now the immediate next question is as to who committed the death of the deceased? The prosecution relies on the evidence of P.W.15-Mr.Thennarasu, who claims to have witnessed the occurrence. He has stated that on 27.1.2010 at about 10.30 p.m. in the night he along with one Karthik he was proceeding in his motorcycle near Seshan Savadi. At that time, in the flash of the head light of the motorcycle, they found the car in question parked by the side of the road. Two persons were chasing another person. One of the persons, who were chasing, stabbed him with a knife. The person, who received the injury fell down. Then they dragged him by the side of the road to some distance, stabbed him repeatedly and killed him. It is his further evidence that he along with his friend were standing there and closely watching the entire occurrence. After finishing the job, according to him, the assailants came to the road and at that time he dared to enquire as to why they should behave like that. For that the assailants warned him of dire consequence. This witness has identified these two accused during Test Identification Parade as those two assailants. In our considered view, it is highly unbelievable that P.W.15 would have witnessed the occurrence. Had it been true that he had seen the occurrence, he would have informed somebody about the occurrence. But he has stated that he simply kept quite for few days out of fear. Thereafter, since his conscience pricked, he went to the police and informed, he has added. This conduct of P.W.15 is highly unnatural and therefore we are not convinced to accept the evidence of P.W.15. Though he has identified these two accused in the Test Identification Parade, on that score we cannot give any credence to this witness. For this reason, we reject the evidence of P.W.15. Once the evidence of P.W.15 is rejected, who claims to have witnessed the occurrence, then the prosecution has to rely only on the circumstantial evidence.
19. According to the case of prosecution, these two accused were arrested on 15.2.2010 in the presence of P.W.14 and P.W.4. On such arrest, one after another, they made voluntarily confessions. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that these two witnesses and the investigating officer (P.W.23) cannot be believed, in this respect, we do not find any force at all in the said argument. We do not find any reason to reject this evidence. It is crystal clear that after 27.1.2010, when the car was last seen by P.W.5, the whereabouts of the car was also not known at all. It was only after the arrest of the first accused, out of the disclosure statement made, the car was recovered at Chennai from the hide-out. The key of the car was also recovered. Similarly, the Cell Phone possessed by the deceased was also recovered on the disclosure statement made by the accused. Absolutely there is no explanation as to how the accused came to possess these two material objects as soon as the commission of the death. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to raise a presumption under Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that these two accused are the perpetrators of the murder of the deceased. Ofcourse, the said presumption is rebuttable. But absolutely there is nothing on record so as to rebut the said presumption against the accused. To the contrary, the said presumption is further strengthened by the other circumstances. As we have already narrated, the deceased was in the possession of the car as well as the Cell Phone and these two accused were with him on 26.1.2010 in Pondicherry and these two accused were found in the company of the deceased along with the car, on 27.1.2010, by P.W.5. These circumstances would duly strengthen the presumption raised herein above. Apart from that, the blood stained clothes recovered, at the instance of the accused, also have proved that they were human blood stains tallyiing with the blood found on the site. Even the knife recovered at the instance of the accused also contained human blood. These facts also would further strengthen the case of the prosecution.
20. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the blood grouping of the blood stains found on the material objects remain inconclusive and therefore, much weightage cannot be given for the same. In this regard, we have to say that we do not propose to sustain the conviction of the accused solely based on the recovery of the blood stained clothes and other materials, at the instance of the accused. We only say, it is yet another piece of evidence. As we have already pointed out, the possession of the stolen articles, namely, the Cell Phone and the car is a very strong piece of circumstance against the accused. From all these evidences, we are of the view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused.
21. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the motive for the occurrence has not been proved at all by the prosecution. For this, the learned counsel would submit that had there been such a motive, the deceased would not have accompanied the accused 1 and 2 at all. In our considered view what was there in the mind of the accused cannot be picturised simply. It is by conduct, the intention of an individual is to be gathered. From the fact that the accused accompanied the deceased, be in his company all along and finally took away the car and Cell Phone would all clearly go to show that the accused had strong motive to cause the death of the deceased.
22. We are conscious of the legal position that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances projected by the prosecution are to be proved beyond reasonable doubts and such proved circumstances should form a complete chain without any break, pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused and there should not be any other hypothesis, which is inconsistent with the guilt of the accused. Keeping this broad principles in mind, if we analyse the facts of the present case, as we have already concluded, the circumstances narrated above have been clearly established by the prosecution and these circumstances unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused. Thus, we finally hold that these two accused are the perpetrators of the crime and the prosecution has proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubts.
23. Now turning to the quantum of punishment, the trial Court has imposed only a minimum quantum of punishment, which is just and reasonable and the same does not warrant any interference.
24. For the forgoing reasons, we find no merit at all in these appeals. The appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed. The conviction and sentences passed in Sessions Case No.384 of 2010, by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, No.1, Salem, are confirmed. If the appellants/accused are not in custody, the trial court is directed to take appropriate steps so as to immure them in prison.
(M.J.J.) (S.N.J.) 02 February 2016
msk
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Valapady Police Station,
Salem District
2. The Additional District Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.1, Salem
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
AND
S.NAGAMUTHU,J.
msk
Crl.A.Nos.603 & 672 of 2011
02.02.2016