Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. According to the case of the prosecution, on 12.6.2002 at about 5.15 p.m., there was a phone call from the appellant herein to the deceased which was initially picked up by PW-1. According to PW-1 the caller identified himself by his name (same as the appellant). After some conversation with the caller the deceased went out by bicycle informing his parents that he would return soon. Unfortunately, he never returned. On 14.06.2002 at about 10 a.m., PW-1 went to the Oomachikulam Police Station and lodged a complaint Ex.P1 to the effect that Muthuramaligam was missing.

5. PW-12 Head Constable received the complaint and registered a Crime No.204 of 2003. PW-15 Tr. Ponnuchamy is the Inspector of Police of the abovementioned police station.

6. On the same day, the appellant was arrested at about 8 p.m. According to the prosecution, the appellant made a confessional statement which led to certain recoveries. The admissible portion of the statement made by the appellant is Ex.P5. On the basis of such a statement, PW-15 altered the First Information Report (FIR) and registered the case under Section 302 IPC and dispatched the FIR to the Court. Thereafter, he went led by the accused to the spot from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered around 9.45 p.m. Thereafter, he got the inquest conducted and prepared a report Ex.P18 around 2.30 a.m. i.e. in the early hours of 15.06.2002. The dead body was sent to the hospital for post mortem examination. PW-15 thereafter proceeded to the house of the appellant and seized MOs 7 and 8 (two knives) from the backyard of the house of the appellant. They proceeded further to the house of PW-9 at around 3.30 a.m. at the instance of the appellant and recovered the bicycle, M.O. 1. Subsequently, Nagarajan (A2 who was acquitted by the trial court) was arrested. After completion of the investigation, PW-16 Inspector of Police who succeeded PW-15 (in office) filed the charge sheet.

15. The other circumstance relied upon by the prosecution accepted by both the Courts is the recovery of MOs 1 (bicycle) and 7 & 8 (two knives) at the instance of the appellant pursuant to the statement before the police, the admissible portion which is Ex.P5.

16. PW-7 Mathivanan is the Panch witness along with Shenbagamoorthy (who was not examined), for the arrest of the appellant and also for the recovery of abovementioned material objects.

17. PW-9 Chinnathambi is the person according to whose evidence on 12.6.2002 at about 7 p.m. the appellant herein left MO-1 bicycle at his residence. However, the appellant never went back to take the bicycle. On the other hand, in the early hours of 15.6.2002 at around 3.30 a.m. PW-15 and others came to his residence and seized the bicycle MO-1.

18. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PW-7 and, therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon and his evidence should be discarded. There is nothing else on record to establish the trustworthiness of the recovery of the MOs 1 (bicycle) and 7 & 8 (two knives) at the instance of the appellant.

19. The learned counsel also argued that PW-9 never stated that when the police party led by PW-15 came to seize MO-1 from his residence, the police party was accompanied by the appellant and, therefore, the recovery of the bicycle is also unreliable piece of evidence.