Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(e)The other argument is that A.Anbu @ Gandhiraj [P.W.7] in his evidence did not speak about the presence of pubic hair in M.O.1 and that he did not speak about the presence of Saravanan [P.W.43] are too trivial for doubting the prosecution case.

(f)Mr.A.Raghunathan, learned senior counsel has built up a formidable defence of planting pubic hairs in M.O.1 based on tertiary deficiencies and by a process of deduction, he wants us to infer that the pubic hairs were planted on 04.11.2010 in M.O.1. On the contrary, we prefer to adopt the induction process of reasoning and go from specific to general rather than adopt the reverse engineering process. We find from the evidence of Saravanan [P.W.43] that he found the panties M.O.1 with hair stands in the midnight of 29/30.10.2010. He put cellophane tapes to keep the hair strands adhered to M.O.1 and put it in a cover and sealed it. It is not his evidence that he used wax seal to seal the cover. It is the case of the Investigating Officer, P.W.47 that he obtained the Angel Form Brassiers cardboard box from a nearby place and placed the cover inside the box and seized the same under the cover of mahazar Ex.P5. In Ex.P5 Mahazar, there is a clear description about this.