In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Date : 08..01..2008 Coram : The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D. MURUGESAN and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH Criminal Appeal Nos: 248 and 250 of 2007 Mariyappan .. Appellant in Crl.A.No.250/07 Cholan .. Appellant in Crl.A.No.250/07 Vs.State by Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode Rural Police Station, Namakkal District. .. Respondent in both Crl.As.
Common Prayer:- These appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of Crl.P.C., against the common judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Namakkal in S.C.No.115 and 184 of 2005 dated 18.07.2006.
For Appellant
in both Crl.As : Mr.S.Paneerselvam
For Respondent
in both Crl.As : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V. Periya Karuppiah,J.)
The appeals are directed against the common judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Namakkal, dated 18.07.2006, in S.C.Nos.115 of 2005 and 184 of 2005. By the said judgment the accused in S.C.No.115 of 2005 were convicted to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment and in addition A.1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigourous imprisonment for the offence under Section 394 read with 397 I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment and the accused in S.C.No.184 of 2005 was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment and for the offence under Section 394 read with 397 I.P.C he was convicted and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.7,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
2.The case of the prosecution would show that the appellants in both the appeals, who were the accused in the aforesaid two sessions cases, had, along with some other persons, on 11/12.01.1992 at about 01.00 a.m. in Goundanpalayam Valkaddu Pallipattu village where one Muthusamy, son of Thirumalai Gounder was sleeping in his house with his family members, entered into the house with dangerous weapons like Koduval; on hearing the dog barking, the father-in-law of the said Muthusamy came out and on seeing strangers, attacked one of the persons with kodduval; on such enraging attack, he was dragged outside and murdered by the accused and others; thereafter, A.1, with a big stone, smashed the entrance door of the said house and entered into the premises and caused injuries to the inmates and stolen 30 sovereigns of gold and a sum of Rs. 11,000/- cash and in that incident, the complainant Muthusamy sustained injury on his right eye brow and near left eye and his daughter Kalaiselvi was also inflicted with a stab injury on her right shoulder and thereby the accused and others had committed the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and also under Section 397 read with 394 I.P.C.
3.P.W.1 is the complainant Muthusamy. He resides at Pallipatti. He would depose in his evidence that on 11.01.1992 at about 10.00 p.m. after dinner he, his wife, his daughter, his mother-in-law and her grandson were sleeping inside his house; his father was sleeping in the kitchen and his father-in-law was sleeping outside the house and that his servant Perumal was sleeping along with his family in a house which is about 100 ft. At about 1.00 a.m. he heard the sound of the dog barking; he went outside; his father-in-law also came out and they saw the accused standing. The accused had attacked his father and locked him in the kitchen and they had dragged his father-in-law outside; all the four accused threatened him and asked him for sandalwoods; one of the accused caused injuries on his left eye brow and forehead with knife and at that time, he pushed them and went inside and locked the house from inside. He would further depose that at that time, one of the accused smashed the door with a stone and the first and third accused entered into the house. Through the burning lights, the inmates saw both the accused. Both the accused threatened them with knife. The accused snatched the chain, bangles and earrings from his daughter Kalaiselvi. First when his daughter refused to give the gold ornaments, they stabbed his daughter on the left shoulder and snatched the chain from her. Then, the A.3 snatched the “thali chain” from the complainant’s wife. He also took away her bangles and earrings. At that time, both the accused who were inside the house, told the accused persons who were outside the house, ‘finish him off ‘. Then, both the accused went inside the pooja room and by breaking open the bureau, took away cash of Rs.11,000/- and other articles such as watches, bangles, chains, rings, etc. By then, one of the accused from outside entered into the house and told them that he had murdered a person outside and threatened the inmates, “if you do not part with all the gold jewels, you all will also be murdered.” The inmates replied that they have given everything. Then all the accused managed to lock the inmates inside a room and escaped. It was about 2.45 a.m. Later, at about 5.00 a.m. the inmates managed to break open the room door and came out of the room and searched for Muthusamy’s father-in-law. They found him dead with injuries in the nearby field.
4.P.W.1 would further depose that 30 sovereigns of gold worth Rs.80,000/- was lost on that day. He went around 8.30 a.m. in the morning to Tiruchengode Police Station and lodged the complaint, Ex.P.1 First Information Report. Then, he was sent to Hospital with a requisition. Later, when the accused were arrested, PW-1 identified M.O.1 watch, M.O.2 bangles 4 Nos. and M.O.3 his daughter’s ring. P.W.1 would also state that he had been to Kodaikanal Police Station to identify the jewels. There he had identified not only M.Os.1 to 3 but also M.Os.4 and 5. P.W.1 had been to Madurai Prison and identified A.1 and A.2 in the identification parade conducted there by the Nilakottai Magistrate. His signature therein is Ex.P.3 series.
5.P.W.2 is the Village Administrative Officer. He would depose about the preparation of the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.4, by the Investigating Officer. He would also depose about witnessing of the recovery of M.Os. 6 and 7, blood stained earth and sample earth; M.O.8 lungi; M.O.9 bed sheet; M.O.10 towel; M.O.11 knife; M.O.12 towel; M.Os. 13 and 14 blood stained mosaic tiles and sample tiles; M.O.15 stone; M.O. 16 series blood stained glass pieces of the T.V. screen; M.O. 17 series sample glass pieces; M.Os. 18 and 19 sample blood from the mosaic tiles and sample tiles; M.O.20, – broken door; M.Os. 21 and 22 blood stained mosaic tiles taken near the kitchen and sample tiles. P.W.2 had witnessed the recovery of all the above said material objects by the investigating officer under cover of mahazars namely Exs.P. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
6.The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and had produced Exs.P.1 to P.38 and M.Os 1 to 29, in order to substantiate its case. The trial Court had scrutinised the evidence and the Material Objects and had come to the conclusion that the accused in both the Sessions Cases are guilty of the charges framed against them, against which, A.1 had preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.248 of 2007 and in S.C.No.115 of 2005, had preferred the appeal in Crl.A.No.248 of 2007 and the accused in S.C.No.184 of 2005 had preferred appeal in Crl.A.No.250 of 2007.
7.Mr.S.Panneer Selvam, who appeared for the appellants in both the appeals had submitted that the trial Court had come to a wrong conclusion on the interested testimony of P.Ws 1, 3 and 4 and no other person had been examined to support the evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 4 and there was no eye witness regarding the alleged murder of the deceased Muthusamy Gounder and the judgment of the trial Court is not sustainable on that sole reason. He would further submit that the witnesses who were said to have been locked in the Kitchen room during the said occurrence on 12.01.1992 had not chosen to come out from the said house despite knowing about the murder of one person as told by the accused and the consequent delay in giving F.I.R., would also indicate inordinate delay, which has not been explained by the prosecution witnesses and the case has been fabricated against the accused falsely. The witnesses had identified the accused through photographs and therefore, the identity of the accused were not proved by the prosecution.
8.The learned counsel for the appellants would also stress in his argument that the prosecution did not find out the real culprits but had utilised the opportunity when the appellants were found involved in other cases had roped them in this case also and they are not the true accused in this case. The learned counsel for the appellants had also insisted in his argument that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, it is a fit case for giving benefit of doubt to the appellants and they may be acquitted from the charges.
9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.P.Kumaresan, who appeared for State in both appeals would submit in his reply arguments that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the ocular evidence produced by the prosecution had also been corroborated by the circumstantial evidence and it was clearly proved by the prosecution that the appellants were involved in the crime and therefore, the conviction of the accused by the trial Court is perfectly correct and there may not be any interference needed in these appeals. He would further submit that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1992 and the witnesses had been examined in the year 2006, though it was after a long gap of 14 years, the witnesses could recollect the bad events taken place in their house and their evidence is supported by other circumstantial evidence, which would certainly prove the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were the eye witnesses to speak about the robbery and murder committed by the accused and others on the fateful day on 12.01.1992 at 1.00 a.m. The accused with other persons had gained entry into the farm house of P.W.1 in order to commit robbery and murder and had committed the murder of the father-in-law of P.W.1. They also broke open the entrance door of the house and had caused injuries on P.Ws.1 and 3 and gained entry to the pooja room where the steel bureau was kept open and they had looted nearly 22= sovereigns of gold jewellery and cash of Rs.11,000/- and had threatened the inmates of the house with dire consequences; put them in a Kitchen room and locked from outside and had fled away from the scene of occurrence and such a long occurrence in the burning lights of their house was spoken to by P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and therefore their evidence cannot be eschewed simply because there was a long gap between the occurrence and giving evidence. He would further submit that P.Ws.1 and 3 were also injured by the accused while they looted the jewels and money at their house and their evidence gains importance, as they happened to be the injured witnesses. Apart from that, he would further submit that P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 and other witnesses had identified A.1 and A.2 in the test Identification Parade conducted by P.W.16 at Central Jail, Madurai. Moreover, finger prints were lifted at the scene of occurrence. After elimination of the finger prints of the inmates on comparison, the remaining finger prints tallied with the finger prints of A.1 in S.C.No.115/2005, who had also involved in a case in Crime No.747/1990 in Edapadi Police Station, where his finger print was recorded. Therefore, he would further submit that the identification of A.1 by the witnesses P.Ws1,3 in the test identification parade would certainly rope A.1 and A.2 in S.C.No.115/2005 in the crime. Apart from that, he would further submit that the recovery of the jewels from the accused at Kodaikanal would go a long way to show that the accused were involved in the offence and therefore, they could not escape from conviction for the said offences committed by them.
10.He would further submit that the evidence placed by the prosecution by way of investigation and through witnesses would prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and such a heinous crime committed by them cannot deserves to be given any benefit of doubt, since the evidence produced by the prosecution are sufficient to confirm the conviction against the accused. Accordingly, he has prayed for the dismissal of the appeals.
11.We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by either side. On a careful consideration of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, we could see that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 12.01.1992 at 1.00 a.m. at the house of P.W.1 and the accused in both the cases along with four others had came to the house with weapons like Aruval, knife and iron rods, with an intention to commit robbery at the house of P.W.1 and in the occurrence of committing such robbery, they have got an intention even to commit murder in order to achieve their object and accordingly they are said to have gained entry into the house of P.W.1 after killing his father in law namely, Muthusamy Gounder, since he had interacted against the accused and thereafter, they had caused injuries on P.W.1 and P.W.3 in order to loot nearly 22= soverigns of gold jewels from the bureau as well as from the person of P.W.3 and her mother and had also taken away Rs.11,000/- from the house and had put the inmates of the house in the Kitchen and locked them all, after threatening that they would also meet the same fate of PW-1’s father-in-law if they make any alarm and fled away from the place of occurrence. Therefore, the case of the appellants are that except the family members of the victims namely, P.Ws 1 and 3, no other independent witnesses were available in the scene of occurrence to speak about the sequence of the occurrence. There is also a Farm house, in which the workers of the Farm are residing and they could also be eye witnesses for the occurrence. P.W.4 is one of the Farm workers who had also been examined to speak about the occurrence. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that there was no independent eye witnesses examined to support the evidence of P.Ws 1 , 3 and 4 cannot be sustained so far as this case is concerned. The evidence of P.Ws 1 and 3 would categorically prove the sequence of commission of murder of Kumara swamy Gounder, the father in law of P.W.1, breaking open of the entrance door of the house of P.W.1 and causing injuries to P.Ws 2 and 3 and relieving jewels of P.W.3 and her mother from their person and also taking away of the jewels and cash of Rs.11,000/- from the bureau and thereafter, confined all the family members inside the Kitchen and the accused threatened the inmates that they would be finished if they make any alarm and thereafter, they have fled away from the scene of occurrence. These sequence of events have been categorically spoken to by P.Ws1,3, and 4. Thereafter, the Kitchen was said to have been broken open only at 5.00 a.m., on the fateful day and P.W.1 could give complaint to the police at 8.00 a.m., for which he had stated that the Village Administrative Officer was not available on that date for giving complaint and therefore, the delay has been caused only because of the absence of the Village Administrative Officer. The said explanation could be accepted because there was not much delay in between opening the door at 5.00 a.m., and giving complaint at 8.00 a.m. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the delay has not been explained by the prosecution is not acceptable.
12.The test identification parade was conducted after a period of 10 months from the date of occurrence, at the Central Prison, Madurai. P.W.16 the then Judicial Magistrate of Nilakottai had conducted the same and the first Test Identification parade could not be conducted for some reasons and therefore, the witnesses had been asked to come to second identification parade to be held on 23.10.1992. In the second identification parade, Muthusamy-P.W.1, Kamalam, T.Kalaiselvi-P.W.3, Thangavelu, Perumal and Thirumalai Gounder and Sithaye-P.W.4 had participated. The evidence of P.W.16 would go a long way to show that the test identification parade was conducted, as per the procedure, on 23.10.1992, at Central Prison, Madurai and the report of test identification parade was produced by him as Ex.P.34. The depositions of the witnesses and the accused were also recorded by him and are produced as Exs.P.35 and P.36 respectively.
13.On a careful perusal of the evidence of the Judicial Magistrate-P.W.16, we could see that during the Test Identification Parade, P.W.1 had identified A.1 and A.2 in S.C.No.115 of 2005. Similarly, P.W.3 had also identified A.1 and A.2 in S.C.No.115 of 2005 when they were asked to identify the accused who were involved in the case. The said identification of A.1 and A.2 by P.Ws 1 and 3 would go a long way to show that they also formed part and parcel of the culprits who had committed the offence at the house of P.Ws1 and 3 on the fateful day.
14.Apart from that, the properties involved in the robbery at the house of P.W.1, were said to have been recovered at Kodaikanal. On 27.08.1992, A.1 and A.2 in S.C.No.115 of 2005 were arrested when they were approaching Iyampalayam Village near Vathlagundu. A.1 had threatened the police with a revolver and the police escaped from the said shooting and thereafter, when he tried to shoot again, it did not work and further, he threatened the police that he would stab if any person approached him but, the police had kicked at the leg of A.1 and had arrested them. After their arrest, they had given confession statement which was witnessed by P.W.9. The evidence of P.W.9 and the confession statement given by A.1 and A.2 would categorically speak about the sequence of the arrest. The said confession statement were produced as Exs.P.19 and P.20. On the basis of the confession statement of A.1, the police took the accused and the witnesses to the house of Indirani at Usilampatti and had recovered 1= sovereigns of gold and = sovereign chain. Apart from the chains, two bangles and a ring were seized under Ex.P.22 Mahazar. After that, they proceeded to Madurai where six sovereigns of chain and seven sovereigns of gold Mangalyam with chain and the gold locket weighing 1.35 grams and all these articles were identified by A.1 and they were seized under a Mahazar Ex.P.23. The said jewels were seized by the police from Usilampatti, Madurai and the same were produced as M.Os.2 to M.O.5. The confession given by A.1 and the seizure at Usilampatti and Madurai were proved by the evidence of P.W.9. The witness namely Indirani who was examined as P.W.13, from whom the jewels have been recovered at Usilampatti had turned hostile. However, in her evidence, she had admitted that Police had seized the bangles from her. Therefore, we could see that the evidence of P.W.9 is sufficient to hold that the jewels namely M.Os 2 to 5 had been seized at the instance of A.1 in pursuance of his confession statement given to Kodaikanal police station. The said material objects have been identified by P.W.1 and P.W.3. Their evidence would show that it belongs to P.W.3, her mother and her younger sisters. These evidence would promptly rope in A.1 in the offence.
15.Apart from that, the evidence of P.W.11, the evidence of fingerprint Expert would go a long way to show that the finger print lifted from the steel bureau at the house of the complainant, when compared with the other finger prints of the chronic offender in various crimes from various police station, it had tallied with the finger prints of A.1 who had already been involved in a criminal case in Crime NO.747 of 1990 of Edapadi Police Station. The said finger print report is marked as Ex.P.27. On a careful perusal of E.P.27, coupled with the evidence of P.W.11, we could see the involvement of A.1 in the offence which took place on 12.01.1992 at 1.00 a.m., at the house of P.W.1 and the same is confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt. Therefore, we need not doubt the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 3 since they are said to have been interested witnesses by the appellant. The identification of the accused in S.C.No.184 of 2005 by the witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.3 along with A.1 and A.2 in S.C.No.115 of 2005 would go a long way to show that the accused in S.C.No.184 of 2005 had also taken part in the occurrence which took place at the house of P.W.1. It is categorically spoken to by P.W.1 that the accused in both the cases with the weapon had attacked the father of P.W.1 and put them in a Kitchen and had taken away the father in law of P.W.1 namely the Muthuswamy Gounder to some other place and thereafter, they had caused injuries on P.W.1 and P.W.3 for the purpose of committing robbery. It is also spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 3 that A.1 in S.C.No.115 of 2005 and the accused in S.C.No.184 of 2005 had threatened with knife against them and had taken away the jewels owned by P.W.3 and the Mangalyam worn P.W.1s wife. The evidence against the accused in S.C.No.184 of 2005 was clearly spoken to by P.W.1 and the guilty of the accused in S.C.No.184 of 2005 was spoken to by P.W.1 and was corroborated by P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.2 would go a long way to show that the Muthu Swamy Gounder, the father-in-law of P.W.1 was found dead by the police Inspector at the said scene of occurrence at 10.00 a.m., on 12.01.1992 and he had signed in the observation mahazar Ex.P.4. Apart from that, the other material objects including the blood stained mud were seized from the said place of occurrence and he had also signed in the seizure mahazar. The other seizure of materials from the house where the robbery was committed was also witnessed by P.W.2 and he had also signed in the seizure mahazar Ex.P.13. He had also proved the seizure of ‘Pitchuva’ Knife marked as M.O.11. This would go a long way to show that the said Muthu Swamy Gounder was found dead after the accused had taken him outside from the house. The evidence of the post mortem doctor who was examined as P.W.7, would go to show that the said Muthu Swamy Gounder died due to the head injury caused on him and also due to the stab injuries in his abdamon. The opinion given by the Doctor would also go to show that the death of Muthu Swamy Gounder was caused by the act of the accused in the course of committing robbery. The injury sustained by P.W.1 and 3 was spoken by the doctor, P.W.6 who had examined them. The evidence of the injured witnesses coupled with the evidence P.W.6 would go to show that they sustained injuries in the occurrence as spoken to by P.W.1 and 3. As the injured witnesses the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 3, their evidence would carry more weight as their presence in the scene of occurrence had been promptly proved by the prosecution.
16.Therefore, on a careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, we could safely conclude that A.1 and A.2 in S.C.No.115 of 2005 and the accused in S.C.No.184 of 2005 are found to have committed the offences mentioned in the charges framed against them. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the trial Court had come to a right conclusion of convicting the accused in both the cases and had imposed sentence on the charges, to which we do not went to interfere and accordingly, both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. We dismiss both the appeals confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in SC.No.115 of 2005 and 184 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Namakkal.
(D.M.J.,) (V.P.K.J.,) 08.01.2008 jbm Index:Yes Internet:Yes To 1.The Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Namakkal District. 2.The Principal District Judge, Namakkal. 3.The District Collector, Namakkal. 4.The Director General of Police, Chennai 4. 5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai. 7.The Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode Rural Police Station, Namakkal. D.MURUGESAN,J AND V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH,J. Crl. A. Nos:248 & 250/07 08.01.2008