JUDGMENT
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. Accused Mani @ Subramani, the appellant herein was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 302(2) and 392 read with 397 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 451 I.P.C., life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and ten years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 I.P.C. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.
2. The short facts leading to conviction are as follows:-
(a) The 1st deceased one Velathal was the wife of the 2nd deceased Mayilsamy Gounder. P.W.1 Karuppathal is the daughter of the deceased Velathal and Mayilsamy Gounder. P.W.2 Gopal is the son in law of the deceased. Deceased Velathal and Mayilsamy Gounder were residing at Senganthurai Kalakattu Salai separately. P.W.1 Karuppathal and P.W.2 Gopal, along with their son P.W.3 Sukumar were residing at Orakkaliyur, which is situated 1 kilo metre from Senganthurai.
(b) On 03.10.1997, P.W.1 Karuppathal, P.W.2 Gopal and the deceased Velathal and Mayilsamy Gounder went to Somanoor Vazhai Thottathu Iyyappan Temple to tonsure P.W.3 Sekumar. Thereafter, they returned to Sengathurai at 4.00 p.m. After taking meals at Kalakkattu Salai, P.Ws. 1 and 2 came back to Orakkaliyur.
(c) Next day morning, P.Ws. 1 and 2, along with P.W.3 went to the Ezhumalayan Temple to perform pooja. On the same day (04.10.1997) evening, they came back at about 4.00 p.m. and P.Ws.1 and 2 sent P.W.3 to Senganthurai to give Prasatham to his grand father and grand mother, the deceased Mayilsamy Gounder and Velathal.
(d) P.W.3 took Prasatham in a yellow bag and went to the house of the deceased Velathal and Mayilsamy Gounder and saw that both the deceased were lying in a pool of blood. He found cut injuries on both the deceased. On seeing the horrible sight, P.W.3 ran towards his house and informed about this to his parents P.Ws.1 and 2.
(e) Then, P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the scene of occurrence and found the dead bodies of the deceased Velathal and Mayilsamy Gounder. They also found that the ear studs of the deceased Valathal were missing. This information was conveyed to P.W.4 Gopalsamy, former Village Panchayat President.
(f) Then, all of them went to Pollatchi Taluk Police Station and P.W.1 Karuppathal gave a Ex.P.1 complaint to P.W.17 Veluchamy, the Sub Inspector of Police. The same was registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 397 I.P.C. Ex.P.21 is the First Information Report.
(g) At about 8.00 p.m. on the same day, P.W.18 Varadhan, Inspector of Police proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and Ex.P.22 Rough sketch. He also conducted inquest and Ex.P.23 and Ex.P.24 are the inquest reports.
(h) Then P.W.18 recovered M.O.10 blood stained mat, M.O.11 blood stained pillow cover with pillow, M.O.12 blood stained bed sheet, M.O.13 blood stained earth and M.O.14 sample earth, M.O.15 blood stained mat, M.O.16 blood stained pillow cover with pillow, M.O.17 blood stained brown colour pillow cover with pillow, M.O.18 blood stained saree, M.O.19 blood stained yellow colour pillow cover with pillow,M.O.20 blood stained towel, M.O.21 blood stained earth, M.O.22 sample earth.
(i) The dead bodies were sent for post mortem to P.W.10 Dr.Sakunthala, who conducted autopsy on the bodies of the deceased-Velathal and Mayilsamy Gounder on 05.10.1997 at 2.00 p.m. P.W.10 found cut injuries on both the bodies. She issued Ex.P.10 Post mortem Certificate in respect of the deceased Mayilsamy Gounder and Ex.P.11 post mortem certificate in respect of the deceased Velathal. In both the certificates, P.W.10 gave her opinion that the deceased Velathal and Mayilsamy Gounder would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries on vital parts of the body.
(j) In the meantime, P.W.18 Inspector of Police got a clue from P.W.13 Devaraj that he saw the accused near the scene of occurrence on 03.10.1997 at 4.00 or 4.30 p.m. On the basis of the information, on 21.01.1998 P.W.18 arrested the accused and on his confession, M.O.2 Palai Kathi was recovered from a bush.
(k) Then the accused took P.W.18 to P.W.15 Nagamanickkam stating that he sold the ear studs to him. Accordingly, M.O.1 series the gold ear studs were recovered from P.W.15 Nagamanickkam. Then the accused was sent for judicial custody.
(l) On the request of P.W.18 Inspector of Police, P.W.14 Tmt. Kayalvizhi, Judicial Magistrate No.III, Pollatchi, recorded judicial confession from the accused on 06.02.1998. The proceedings containing the statement of the accused is Ex.P.16. After completing the investigation, P.W.18 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 449, 302 and 397 I.P.C.
(m) During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 18 were examined. Exs.P.1 to P.24 and M.Os.1 to 24 were marked.
(n) The case of the accused while he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is one of total denial.
(o) On an appreciation of the evidence available on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 451, 302(2) and 392 read with 397 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 451 I.P.C., life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and ten years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 392 read with 397 I.P.C.
3. The said judgment of conviction is the subject matter of the challenge before this Court in the appeal.
4. Mr. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, while assailing the judgment of conviction, would contend that the evidence of P.W.13 Devaraj, who saw the accused at 4.00/4.30 p.m. on 03.10.1997 near the scene of occurrence is quite artificial, in view of the fact that he did not choose to mention the same to any person till he was examined by the police on 06.10.1997.
5. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that Ex.P.16 the judicial confession would show that M.O.2 Palai Kathi was thrown into a river, whereas the case of the prosecution is that M.O.2 was recovered only on the confession of the accused from a bush and as such, no importance could be given either to the evidence of P.W.13 or to the judicial confession and as such, the evidence relating to the recovery of palai Kathi as well as ear studs M.O.1 cannot be relied upon.
6. On the above aspects, we have heard Mr.E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
7. We have carefully considered the contentions urged on either side and also gone through the records.
8. There is no eye witness in this case. However, there are the following three important circumstances projected by the prosecution to prove its case which are as follows:-
(i) P.W.13 Devaraj saw the appellant/accused with M.O.2 Palai Kathi near the scene of occurrence on 03.10.1997 at about 4.00/4.30 p.m. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place in the mid night of 03/04.10.1997.
(ii) P.W.19 Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 21.01.1998 and on his confession, M.O.1 series ear studs belonging to the deceased Velathal and M.O.2 Palai Kathi have been recovered in the presence of P.W.7 Balan, Village Administrative Officer, Iyyambalayam.
(iii) A Judicial confession has been given by the accused to P.W.14 Judicial Magistrate No.III, Pollatchi on 06.02.1998 in Ex.P.16 proceedings.
If the above said three circumstances are established, there is no difficulty in holding that the accused alone had perpetrated the offences in question.
9. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, both the deceased Velathal and Mayilsamy Gounder were residing separately in Kalakkattu Salai at Senganthurai Village. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to Temple and came back in the evening of 04.10.1997. P.W.3 Sukumar, son of P.Ws.1 and 2 was sent to Kalakkattu Salai to give Prasatham to the deceased. Accordingly, P.W.3 went and saw both his grand mother and grand father found lying in the pool of blood. Immediately on information, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the scene of occurrence and saw the dead bodies. Thereafter, they went to the Police Station with the help of P.W.4 Gopalsamy, former Village Panchayat President and gave Ex.P.1 complaint to P.W.17 Velusamy, the Sub Inspector of Police. The complaint was given at about 7.30 p.m. on 04.10.1997.
10. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not suspect any person in this double murder case initially. Therefore, they did not choose to mention anyone as a suspected person. However, they mentioned the missing of M.O.1 series ear studs belonging to the deceased Velathal.
11. P.W.18 Inspector of Police, even though took up investigation on 04.10.1997 itself, was not able to get any clue with regard to the culprit who committed the murder. Fortunately, on 06.10.1997, when he examined P.W.13 Devaraj, he got a statement from him that the accused was standing near the scene of occurrence on 03.10.1997 at 4.00 or 4.30 p.m. On that basis, P.W.18 entertained a suspicion on the accused.
12. P.W.18 would categorically state in his evidence that only on the information by P.W.13 Devaraj, who knew the accused earlier, went and searched for the accused in his village. However, he was not traceable. Ultimately, the appellant/accused was arrested on 21.01.1998 by P.W.18.
13. On going through the evidence of P.W.13, it is clear that P.W.13 is a respectable person owning a house at Oorakkaliyur and it is not necessary for him to speak falsehood against the accused. Therefore, the first circumstance cannot be rejected, as in our view, the evidence of P.W.13 Devaraj inspires confidence.
14. The next circumstance is the arrest and recovery. On 21.01.1998, the appellant/accused was arrested and as pointed out by him, M.O.2 palai kathi was recovered from a bush. This palai kathai was identified by P.W.13 Devaraj, stating that it was the weapon which was carried by the appellant/accused, when he saw him near the scene of occurrence on 03.10.1997 at 4.00/4.30 p.m.
15. Apart from that, the accused gave an information to P.W.18 that the ear studs, which were removed by him from the body of the deceased Velathal, were sold to P.W.15 Nagamanickkam at Pollatchi. Then the appellant/accused took the police party to Pollatchi and identified P.W.15 Nagamanickkam.
16. P.W.15 Nagamaickkam immediately accepted having purchased M.O.1 series ear studs from the accused and handed over the same to P.W.18. Accordingly, M.O.1 series were recovered by P.W.18 in the presence of P.W.7 Balan. The jewels were identified by P.W.1 as that of the deceased Velathal, both during the course of investigation and before the trial Court. Therefore, this circumstance also, in our opinion, would clinchingly prove that only the appellant/accused committed the offence and removed the ear studs and went away from the scene of occurrence.
17. The third important circumstance is the judicial confession. A reading of Ex.P.16 and a perusal of the evidence of P.W.14 Judicial Magistrate No.III, Pollatchi would make it clear that the accused gave voluntary confession to P.W.14 Magistrate.
18. It is noticed from the records that even though the occurrence had taken place on 04.10.1997, the accused was arrested only on 21.01.1998. Thereafter, he was detained in jail and only on 06.02.1998, the judicial confession was recorded from him. It is noticed from Ex.P.16 and also from the evidence of P.W.14 Judicial Magistrate No.III, Pollatchi that before recording the judicial confession, all the procedures have been followed and only after P.W.14 was satisfied that the accused wanted to give judicial confession voluntarily, the same was recorded.
19. It is stated that as per the judicial confession, M.O.2 palai Kathi was thrown to a river, whereas P.W.18 would state that the Kathi was recovered from a bush. This cannot be termed to be a contradiction which affects the case of the prosecution.
20. According to the prosecution, the accused alone committed the murder of the deceased Velathal and Mayilsamy Gounder and took away the ear studs belonging to the deceased Velathal. With reference to this part, there is a clear narration of events in Ex.P.16. As such, it cannot be said that the judicial confession is not in consonance with the arrest.
21. On the other hand, P.W.10 Doctor would say that the death would have been taken place in the mid night of 04.10.1997. This has been clearly corroborated in Ex.P.16 judicial confession. Furthermore, when the appellant/ accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he did not give any explanation as to how he came into possession of the jewels. He simply states that he was compelled to give such a statement to the Magistrate. When a suggestion was put to P.W.18 that the accused was compelled to give such a confession, it has been rightly denied by P.W.18.
22. Under those circumstances, all the above said pieces of circumstances as indicated above, in our opinion, would clearly establish that the accused alone had committed this brutal double murder for gain and as such, the conviction cannot be said to be illegal.
23. For the foregoing reasonings, the appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court.