Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.Dark brown colour abrasion, on the left cheek, 3x2 cm.
4.Sub arachnoid haemorrhage on the right frontal and both parietal lobe of cerebrum present.
The above mentioned wounds are antemortem in nature.
5.Aquatic animal bite marks, on the pinna of both ear, around the eyes, mouth and back of right hand present. O/E The edges are irregular. O/D The base is pale - Postmortem in nature."

7. P.W.17 recovered M.O.4-Yellow coloured banian, M.O.5-Green coloured Trouser, M.O.6-Shirt and M.O.7-Red coloured Trouser from the bodies of the victims and sent those material objects to the Judicial Magistrate along with Form-95. Thereafter, he sent the accused for Judicial Custody on 24.03.2008 at 6.30 P.M. On 24.03.2008, on the basis of confession statement given by the accused, the Investigating Officer examined P.Ws.6 and 7, the barbers of Samayapuram Mariamman Temple, who have tonsured the heads of the victims, and recorded their statements.

24. In this case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.6 and 7 to establish that they had tonsured the head of the children. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant argued that P.Ws.6 and 7 are residents of Maruthur and only the barbers who belong to Kannur and V.Durayur were permitted to tonsure in Samayapuram Mariamman Temple, so P.Ws.6 and 7 might not have been allowed to tonsure in the Samayapuram Mariamman Temple. It is not proved from the competent authority of the temple that only the barbers belonging to Kannur and V.Durayur were allowed to tonsure in Samayapuram Mariamman Temple. Hence that contention cannot be accepted.

26. P.W.7-Kumar deposed that the accused came with two children and he tonsured the head of one child and the other child was tonsured by Marimuthu. His evidence would show that photograph of the accused was shown to him and he identified the accused. A careful consideration of the evidence on record would show that nothing was elicited from P.W.7 to disbelieve his evidence.

27. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that barbers are doing tonsure work for a number of people, and hence, it is not possible for them to remember each and every person whom they have tonsured. P.W.7's evidence would show that a photograph of the accused was shown to him and he was able to identify the accused. Nothing was elicited from P.W.7 to reject his evidence as weak and unreliable. So, the accused took the children for tonsuring is established.