Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. Exclusive possession of Maruti Esteem Car (M.O.27):-

(a) PW11 Sherenik Mehta, the employer of the accused spoke to the fact that on 14.2.2007, he had to stay back at Chennai to continue the treatment of his wife. At about 10.00 pm on 14.2.2007, the accused had informed PW14 that he could not proceed to Thiruvakkarai as the vehicle developed some snag and therefore, he proceeded to Pondicherry to the house of his junior paternal uncle. Only on the basis of the admissible portion, Ex.P10 in the confession statement given by the accused, M.O.27 Maruti Esteem Car was recovered in an apartment at Pondicherry. From the dashboard of the said car, two pellets of cyanide were also recovered. PW10 Usman has spoken to sale of three pellets of cyanide to PW14. PW14 had, in turn, handed over all the three pellets of cyanide to the accused on 13.2.2007. The evidence of PW19 Dr.Udayasankar and PW17 Mallika, Forensic Science Expert would go to establish that cyanide was found both in the lungs and stomach of the deceased.
(b) It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the exclusive possession of Maruti Esteem Car owned by PW11 was not established by the prosecution. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW9 Kumaresan who would speak to the fact that on 15.2.2007 at about 1.30 pm, the accused boarded him in the Maruti Esteem Car. It is not the evidence of PW11 that the Esteem car entrusted to the accused was received back by him beforeever it was recovered by the investigating agency. Therefore, rejecting the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, we hold that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the exclusive possession of Maruti Esteem Car (M.O.27) with two pellets of cyanide with the accused.

22. Links complete in the chain:- The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the mobile numbers of the deceased as well as the accused and the conversation that took place between them just prior to the occurrence were not established. The accused has admitted that he met the deceased at 11.00 pm on 14.2.2007. The Maruti Car M.O.25 which allegedly carried the dead body was spotted at 6.00 am on 15.2.2007. It is his submission that when there is no evidence to establish that the accused was in the company of the deceased in between the aforesaid timings. Further, the car park in charge who noted down the entry of Maruti Car M.O.25 into the parking slot of Apollo Hospitals, Chennai was also not examined to establish that the accused was found driving the car. The Maruti Esteem Car Key and jewel and cash bags keys were not seized or recovered from the accused. It is a mystery as to how the Maruti Esteem Car was opened. Therefore, he would submit that there are lot of missing links in the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecuting agency.

(d) The investigating official has every authority to forcibly open the car and bags for the purpose of investigation. Of course, the investigating agency would have verified whether the keys were with the accused. We are concerned with the recovery of Maruti Esteem car with two pellets of cyanide and cash and jewel bags entrusted to the custody of PW9 by the accused and not the custody of the keys thereof. The case of the prosecution would not crash down on account of non-seizure of the keys from the accused especially when there is evidence to show that the Maruti Esteem car M.O.27 and cash and jewel bags were forcibly opened for taking out the offending article and valuable articles respectively therein.