Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The charge sheet was laid down by the prosecution against the appellant for the above crimes along with one juvenile. The appellant was tried for the above offences separately, as the case against the juvenile was split up and pending before the Juvenile Justice Board.

3.The brief facts of the prosecution is as follows:

3.(a) The deceased one Avinash aged about 19 years was a friend of the accused and Juvenile Gunasekaran. All of them have studied in a tutorial college. The deceased used to wear chain and used to have cash in hand. On 23.09.2008 at midnight, the accused along with juvenile hit the deceased with stone and stabbed him and had thrown the body into the well. The deceased, originally was a native of Karnataka State. He came to Thiruvannamalai only to join in a tutorial college. P.W.8 Sumathi is the mother of the deceased Avinash. As the deceased had not contacted P.W.8 for more than 2 days, she came to Thiruvannamalai and enquired in the college and the students about his whereabouts. Thereafter, she gave a complaint to the police. In the meanwhile, P.W.1, Village Administrative Officer of Savalpoondi Village, on hearing the news about dead body, aged about 35 years floating in the well, he went to the police station and lodged Ex.P.1 report to the Sub-Inspector of Police. Based on which, F.I.R. was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C. First Information Report was marked as Ex.P.23.
P.W.6 issued Post-Mortem Certificate Ex.P.9 and also opined that the deceased appear to have died of shock due to multiple injuries and death would have occurred 2  4 days prior to autopsy.
3.(e) P.W.9 photographer took the photograph of the dead body. The photographs are marked as M.O.6 series. P.W.10 was the Tahsildar at the relevant point of time. On 23.09.2008, he recorded the confession statement of the accused in Ex.P.10, who surrendered before him, at the request of the Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Taluk Police station. P.W.11 examined the Viscera and issued Ex.P.13 Report. P.W.14 Deputy Director of Forensic Science Laboratory conducted Skull-Photo Superimposition Test and issued Report Ex.P.12, stating that the skull could not be reconstituted and it was unsuitable for skull-photo superimposition test. P.W.13 is a Scientific Officer of Forensic Science Department. She issued Ex.P.14 Diatom test report. P.W.14 is also a Scientific Officer of Forensic Department, examined the Material Objects and issued Ex.P.15 Biological Report. P.W.17 Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai Taluk Police Station, registered the F.I.R. Ex.P.23 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.644 of 2003. P.W.18 is a Mahazar Witness, who attested the Seizure. His signatures in the Seizure Mahazars are Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.25. Likewise, P.W.19 also attested the Seizure Mahazars. His signatures in the Mahazars are marked as Ex.Ps.26, P.27 and P.29. P.W.20 Inspector of Police completed the investigation and filed final report against the accused under Section 120(B), 302, 394 r/w 397 and 201 I.P.C.
9. On 23.09.2008, in pursuace to the above conspiracy they took the deceased near the well situated near the Shanmuga College, Kizh Anaikarai in the evening. Thereafter, on the same day in order to rob a chain, cell phone and cash, they had done away the deceased and tied hands and legs of the deceased and thrown the body of the deceased into the well, belongs to one Subramani and decamped with the cell phone, chain M.Os.4 and 5 etc., used by the deceased besides cash. Though, the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents, 6 material objects, on a perusal of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, we are not able to find any piece of evidence to show that in fact the deceased Avinash was studying in the Senthil Tutorial College at the relevant point of time, along with the accused. Though P.W.3 one Javith in his evidence has stated that all of them were studying in the Senthil Tutorial College, his evidence does not show that how long they were in the above college. Though in his evidence, he has stated that the accused and Gunasekaran (juvenile) had a conversion about the jewells, his evidence does not prove any of the fact such as deceased was last seen in the company of the accused at the relevant point of time. Though P.W.3, deceased, accused and juvenile Gunasekaran were all studying together in the Senthil Tutorial College, his evidence is totally silent about how long they were friends and how long they studied in the college. Whereas the evidence of P.W.8 mother of the deceased Avinash, clearly shows that only a week prior to his death her son came to Thiruvannamalai, as he had not contacted her for the last two days, she immediately rushed to Thiruvannamalai and gave a complaint to the police about missing of her son. But the above complaint has also neither seen the light of the day nor investigated by the investigating officer.
18. In fine, the Criminal Appeal is allowed acquitting the appellant of the charges framed against him and the appellant is set at liberty forthwith if his custody is no longer required in any other case. The disposal of the material objects shall be in accordance with the directions of the trial Court. The bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled forthwith. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him. 
						    [C.T.S.,J.]      [N.S.K.,J.]
                                                 	       24.01.2018 

Index    : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
ggs
To
1.The District Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai. 
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
3.The Inspector of Police, Thaluka Police Station,
 Thiruvannamalai.





















C.T. SELVAM,J.
AND 
N. SATHISH KUMAR,J.

ggs






						      

					              Judgment in:

 







24.01.2018