IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 20/10/2004
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice V. KANAGARAJ
and
The Honourable Mr. Justice T.V. MASILAMANI
C.A. No.196 of 2002
Teakon .. Appellant
-vs-
State by Inspector of Police,
Valparai Police Station
Valparai,
Coimbatore District.
(Crime No.111/97) .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal against the judgment made in S.C.No.126 of 1998
dated 11.12.1998 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
!For Appellant : Mr.A.Ganesh
^For Respondent : Mr.E.Raja,
Addl.Public Prosecutor.
:JUDGMENT
T.V. MASILAMANI, J.
The appellant is the accused in the Sessions Case No.126 of 1998 on
the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. He was convicted under
Sections 392 r/w. 397, 302, 323 and 201 (Part-I) I.P.C. by the Principal
Sessions Judge, Coimbatore on 11.12.1998 and he has preferred this appeal
questioning the legality of the same.
2. The appellant herein is referred to hereunder as accused for the sake of convenience.
3. The charge against the accused in substance may be extracted
hereunder:-
On 13/14.5.1997 at mid night in Nadumalai Estate, South division in
Valparai, the accused with the intention to commit robbery after committing
murder of the deceased Saraswathi @ Chinnammal in the backyard of her house,
attacked her with iron rod and robbed her of two sovereign of gold chain worth
Rs.6,000/-. In the course of the same transaction, the accused had assaulted
the witness Perumal Ammal @ Thangammal, mother of the deceased and also
strangulated her neck with intention to commit murder. In the course of the
same transaction, the accused had with the intention to cause the evidence of
the offence to disappear, dragged the dead body of Saraswathi @ Chinnammal
into the tea garden and buried the same. Hence, he is liable to be punished
under Sections 392, 302, 307, 201 r/w 301 I.P.C.
4. Since the accused denied the charges framed against him, the
prosecution examined 16 witnesses, marked 20 documents and produced 13
material objects to bring home the guilt of the accused.
5. The case of the prosecution as discerned from the prosecution
evidence may be set out briefly as hereunder:-
(a) Perumal Ammal @ Thangammal (since deceased) is the
eye-witness in this case who lodged the complaint, Ex.P-18 in the hospital
where she was admitted after the occurrence for treatment and Ex.P-19 is the
first information report prepared by P.W.14, the then Sub Inspector of Police,
Valparai Police Station who recorded the complaint from the said Perumal Ammal
@ Thangammal and prepared the printed F.I.R. which set the law in motion.
(b) The accused as well as the deceased were working in
Nadumalai Estate, Valparai as labourers in the tea estate. While so, on
13/14.5 .1997 at mid night 12.00 O’Clock while the deceased Saraswathi @
Chinnammal came out of her house to attend the natural call, the accused had
assaulted her with M.O.2, iron rod and caused the fatal injuries as a result
of which she succumbed to the same. The accused had also committed robbery by
snatching away from the neck of the deceased the gold chain weighing 2
sovereign worth Rs.6,000/- which is marked as M.O.1. When Perumal Ammal @
Thangammal, mother of the deceased happened to witness the occurrence, the
accused had also assaulted her and caused injuries with the intention to
commit murder. Thereafter, the accused dragged the body of the deceased into
the tea garden and buried the same. P.Ws.1 and 2 had witnessed the
occurrence.
(c) P.W.3, another worker in the same tea estate known to the
accused, had lent his gold chain weighing 2 sovereign to the accused as the
latter requested him to give his chain as he had to go to another place of
importance and since the accused failed to return the same till the day before
the occurrence, P.W.3 warned him of the consequence that if he failed to
return the gold chain, he would lodge a complaint to the police.
(d) P.W.4, son of the said Perumal Ammal @ Thangammal and
brother of the deceased, is working as driver in the Government Transport
Corporation at Valparai. He learnt about the incident on 14.5.1997 at about
3.30 A.M. in the early hours and came to the place of occurrence and took his
mother Perumal Ammal @ Thangammal to Valparai Government Hospital. She
narrated about the incident to P.W.4 in the hospital. P.W.9 doctor who
treated Perumal Ammal @ Thangammal issued the wound certificate, Ex.P-11 and
sent intimation to the police under Ex.P-1 0.
(e) Having received the said intimation, P.W.14, Sub Inspector
came to the hospital on 14.5.1997 at 5.30 A.M. and recorded the complaint
from Perumal Ammal @ Thangammal under Ex.P-18 and prepared printed F.I.R.,
Ex.P-19 and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate, Valparai as well as the
copies to the higher officials.
(f) P.W.15 Inspector of Police in-charge of Valparai Police
Station took up the investigation having received the copies of Exs.P-18 and
P-19 at 12.00 noon on 14.5.1997 and proceeded to the place of occurrence. He
issued requisition for exhumation of the dead body under Ex.P-6 to P.W.8
Tahsildar, Valparai. P.W.8 along with P.W.10 doctor went to the place of
occurrence, exhumed the body and proceeded to conduct the inquest as well as
the post-mortem. The inquest report prepared by P.W.8 is Ex.P-8.
(g) Ex.P-12 is the post-mortem certificate issued by P.W.10
doctor after conducting port-mortem on the dead body of Saraswathi @
Chinnammal at the place of occurrence in pursuance of the requisition given by
P.W.8 under Ex.P-7. P.W.10, the Autopsy Surgeon, found the following injuries
on the dead body of the deceased:-
“Injuries:
1. Laceration over the right side of occipital bone oblique 5 cm x 2
cm x 2 cm underlying structures lacerated, bone fractured depressed, covered
with sand and blood clots.
2. Laceration over the right side of occipital bone oblique 2 cm
below and parallel to wound 1.1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm covered with sand and blood
clots.
3. Laceration occipito-parietal region oblique left side 4 cm x 2 cm
x 2 cm. Wound covered with sand and blood clots, underlying bone fractured
and depressed. On removing the scalp bones broken into fragments, depressed
in wounds 1 and 3. The occipital bone broken into fragments on the right and
left sides and left parietal bone. On removing the skull bones haematoma seen
underlying membranes lacerated with laceration of brain brain substance and
vessels.”
She has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to
extensive haemorrhage, multiple fractures and injury to brain about 17 to 20
hours prior to autopsy.
(h) P.W.15 continued his investigation and prepared
observation mahazar, Ex.P-1 in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness and
also prepared the rough sketch, Ex.P-20. Thereafter he recovered M.O.3, blood
stained earth and M.O.4, sample earth in the presence of the same witnesses
under cover of mahazar, Ex.P-2 and he had also arranged to take photographs of
the place of occurrence.
(i) On the same day at 5.45 P.M., P.W.15 arrested the accused
in the bus stop at Samathapuram in Nadumalai Estate and recorded his voluntary
confession in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness. In pursuance of the
admissible portion of confession, Ex.P-5, the accused had taken the police
party along with witnesses to the tea garden No.1 4 in Nadumalai Estate and
produced M.O.2, iron rod and M.O.5, picas which had been recovered by P.W.15
under cover of mahazar, Ex.P-3 in the presence of the same witnesses.
Thereafter, the accused took them to his house and produced M.O.1 gold chain
weighing 2 sovereign and the same was recovered by P.W.15 under cover of
mahazar, Ex.P-4 in the presence of P.W.7 and another and recorded their
statements. On the same night at 8.30 P.M., he brought the accused to the
police station and sent him to lock-up. On 15.5.1997, P.W.15 forwarded the
accused along with the material objects to the Judicial Magistrate for remand.
(j) On 15.5.1997, P.W.15 examined Thangammal who was admitted
to Medical College Hospital at Coimbatore for treatment and obtained her
statement. He examined P.W.5 and other witnesses in Valpalai Police Station
on the same day and recorded their statements. Thereafter he examined P.W.10
doctor in the Government Hospital and recorded her statement.
(k) P.W.16, the Inspector who succeeded P.W.15 continued the
investigation and gave requisition Ex.P-14 to the Judicial Magistrate,
Valparai to send the material objects for chemical analysis. Further, on
7.6.1997, he examined P.W.8 Tahsildar and another witness and recorded their
statements. On 16.8.1997, he examined P.W.9, doctor who treated Thangammal
after obtaining Ex.P-11 wound certificate. After completing the
investigation, he laid the final report against the accused on 22.4.1998 under
Sections 302, 392, 307, 201 r/w 301 I.P.C.
6. On 23.12.1997, Perumal Ammal @ Thangammal died and therefore even
though she was cited as prosecution witness, she could not be examined during
trial.
7. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with
reference to the incriminating circumstances in the evidence let in by the
prosecution, he denied the same. He examined one witness and marked two
documents on the side of defence.
8. The learned Principal Sessions Judge having analysed the evidence
both oral and documentary arrived at the penultimate conclusion that on the
fateful night, the accused with the intention to commit robbery beat the
deceased with iron rod on her head and caused fatal injuries to which she
succumbed at the place of occurrence. Thereafter, he committed robbery in
snatching the gold chain weighing 2 sovereign from her neck. Further, the
accused had also dragged the deceased Saraswathi into the tea garden and
buried her with the intention to cause the evidence to disappear. Further he
had also attacked Thangammal, mother of the deceased who happened to witness
the occurrence and caused injuries. In the above circumstances, the learned
trial Judge found the accused guilty under Sections 392 r/w. 397, 302, 323
and 2 01 (Part-I) I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 7 years under Section 392 r/w 397 I.P.C. and life imprisonment under
Section 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323
I.P.C. and also ordered the sentence to run concurrently.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused has therefore
submitted that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned
Principal Sessions Judge has to be reversed on any of the grounds averred in
the memorandum of appeal. Firstly, he has contended that the trial court
erred in believing the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2. There is
no explanation on
the part of either P.W.1 or P.W.2 in not lodging the complaint at the earliest
opportunity if really they had witnessed the occurrence. It is the further
contention put forth by him that the subsequent conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 in
respect of their failure to inform anyone about the occurrence till the police
enquired would also probablise the defence version.
10. Similarly, he has argued that P.W.5 to whom the injured
complainant narrated about the incident also failed to lodge any complaint to
the police about the occurrence. Therefore his evidence is not only
artificial but also becomes unbelievable. It is contended further that P.W.4,
son of Thangammal and brother of the deceased who came to the scene of
occurrence after receiving information about the occurrence failed to inform
the police and also to search for his sister, the deceased in this case.
Hence, he would urge that his evidence also becomes suspicious in the
circumstances of the case.
11. Regarding the arrest of the accused also, the prosecution
evidence is not cogent and therefore the learned counsel has argued that on
that ground alone, the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the
trial court has to be set aside. Similarly, the medical evidence with
reference to absence of any bruises and abrasions found in the dead body of
Saraswathi would go to show and prove that the accused could not have dragged
the dead body so as to bury the same. Similarly, he has submitted that the
motive alleged for the murder is not only very weak, but also appears to be
unbelievable for the fact that the deceased was also wearing two gold bangles
and two gold ear studs at the time of occurrence as the same had been
recovered after post-mortem from her body. Therefore he has contended that
the accused would not have robbed her gold chain alone and it follows that the
motive alleged is proved to be false. Regarding the weapon used in the
commission of the offence also, the evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2 is contrary
and therefore becomes unbelievable. The learned Sessions Judge ought to have
accepted the statement of Thangammal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate as a
piece of evidence in favour of of the accused. Thus, the learned counsel for
the accused has contended that the trial court verdict has to be reversed.
12. Having regard to the materials available on record and the
circumstances as narrated above, it has become necessary to consider whether
the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused on all charges
leveled against him by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
13. The deceased Saraswathi @ Chinnammal and her mother Perumal Ammal
@ Thangammal were residing at Nadumalai Tea Estate, South Division in
Valparai. P.W.4 Paramasivam, son of said Thangammal and brother of the
deceased Saraswathi, is working as driver in the Government Transport
Corporation and he was residing in Kamaraj Nagar, Valparai at the time of
occurrence. Similarly, it is not in dispute that the accused, the deceased
Saraswathi and Thangammal as well as the witnesses, P.Ws.2, 3, 5 to 7 were
known to each other as they were working in Nadumalai Estate tea garden in
Valparai. In the above background, the question whether the accused was
guilty of the offences charged against him has to be decided.
14. The fact that the deceased died of homicidal injuries is spoken
to by P.W.10, Autopsy Surgeon who conduced the post-mortem on the dead body of
Saraswathi as per the requisition, Ex.P-7 given by P.W.8 Tahsildar. According
to P.W.10, the deceased would appear to have died on account of shock and
haemorrhage due to multiple fractures and injuries to the brain about 17 to 20
hours prior to the autopsy and to that effect she has issued Ex.P-12,
post-mortem certificate. Further P.W.10 has stated that the injuries 1 to 2
noted in Ex.P-12 could have been caused with a weapon like M.O.1, iron rod and
such injuries could cause death within few minutes after the attack. The
totality of the medical evidence as narrated above would indicate that the
deceased died on account of homicidal injuries and therefore we are of the
considered view that the culpability of the accused with reference to causing
of such injuries has to be determined on the basis of the recorded evidence.
15. It is necessary to analyse the evidence of the prosecution with
reference to the motive alleged for the commission of the offence. According
to P.W.3, a co-worker in the estate, the accused had borrowed his gold chain
weighting about 2 sovereign prior to the occurrence under the pretext that he
would return the same after visiting another place wearing the chain. Since
the accused was evading to return the gold chain to P.W.3 under one pretext or
other, P.W.3 finally gave a ultimatum to him on the previous day of the
occurrence that if he failed to return the chain, he would lodge a complaint
to the police.
16. It is in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased
Saraswathi was wearing M.O.1 gold chain with dollar weighing about 2 sovereign
and there is no reason shown to disbelieve their evidence, as neighbours, they
had every occasion to see the deceased wearing the said chain. It is in these
circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention put forth by the learned
counsel for the accused that the motive alleged for the commission of the
crime cannot be considered to be true.
17. In view of the above evidence, we have no hesitation to hold that
despite vigorous cross-examination, P.W.3 is consistent in his version that
whenever he asked the accused to return the gold chain, he was evading to
comply with the demand. It is relevant to note that he has empathetically
denied the suggestion that the accused had not borrowed any gold chain from
him. It is in these circumstances, we find no circumstance to disbelieve
testimony P.W.3 on this aspect of the matter. It follows necessarily that the
prosecution has succeeded in establishing the motive for the commission of the
offence by the accused.
18. Nextly, the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 has to be scrutinised as to
whether the same is liable to be rejected for any of the reasons stated by the
accused in the memorandum of appeal. P.W.1 is residing in the adjacent house
where the deceased and her mother Thangammal were also residing. According to
him, on 13/14.5.1997 at mid-night about 12.00 O’Clock, he heard noise outside
and he opened his door and saw the accused attacking the deceased twice on her
head with M.O.2, iron rod and after she fell down, he snatched the gold chain
M.O.1 from her neck and put the same in his pocket. Similarly, he has stated
that the accused on seeing Thangammal witnessing the occurrence had
strangulated her neck with hands and shut her mouth and also fisted on her
chest and pushed her to the ground. Further according to him, the accused
dragged the deceased into the tea garden. He has also explained that he could
not help them on account of the fear psychosis as the accused was armed with
weapon.
19. In this context, the salient particulars of the incident spoken
to by P.W.1 as ocular witness have been materially corroborated by P.W.2 who
was also residing in the adjacent house of P.W.1. The learned counsel for the
accused would contend that the conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 in not informing the
police or any one about the incident would indicate that they could not have
witnessed the occurrence. On the contrary, as has been rightly argued by the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor, both the witnesses did not stir out of
their houses due to apprehension that the accused would attack them also and
we are therefore hold that in view of the normal course of human conduct, they
appear to be natural witnesses.
20. Similarly, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that
the contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the one hand and
the medical evidence on the other in support of the contention that the
prosecution case is not true. He has stated that that the accused would not
have dragged the dead body of Saraswathi to a distance of about 120 feet
(vide) Ex.P-20 sketch as P.W.10 doctor would admit that there were no
abrasions or bruises found on the body of the deceased at the time of
post-mortem and therefore he would urge that the evidence of both the
witnesses has to be rejected.
21. It is however relevant to note that the deceased was wearing
saree, blouse and under garments (vide) evidence of P.W.12, Constable who
recovered the clothes and other material objects recovered from the body of
the deceased after post-mortem. Hence it stands to reason as also explained
by P.W.10, postmortem doctor that there was no abrasion found on the back of
the dead body of the deceased. In view of such factual aspect of the matter,
we are unable to agree with the defence counsel in this respect and therefore
we render a finding that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is cogent and
convincing.
22. The medical evidence as narrated above has corroborated the
version of both P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the homicidal injuries found on the dead
body of Saraswathi could have been caused by the accused with M.O.2, iron rod.
In this regard, the evidence of P.W.9, the doctor who treated Thangammal and
issued the wound certificate, Ex.P-11 assumes importance. It is no doubt true
that as per the evidence of P.W.16, Investigating Officer, Thangammal died on
23.12.1997, long after the occurrence and therefore the prosecution was not in
a position to examine her before the trial court. However, the fact remains
that the evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the assault by the accused
resulting in the injuries as found by P.W.9 on the injured Thangammal found
proved by the oral testimony of P.W.9 and the wound certificate, Ex.P-11.
23. Moreover, such evidence finds corroboration in the testimony of
P.W.4, son of the said Thangammal (since deceased). After hearing the
incident at about 3.30 A.M. in the early hours of 13/14.5.1997, he came in a
taxi to the residence of his mother and took her immediately to the Government
Hospital, Valparai for treatment. Though the learned counsel for the accused
would draw our attention that P.W.4 had neither made an attempt to trace his
sister nor informed the police immediately, when regard being had to the
natural course of human conduct, one would be anxious to get his mother
admitted to the hospital at the earliest for treatment and therefore, we do
not see any unnatural conduct on the part of P.W.4 in this respect.
24. The complaint Ex.P-18 was recorded by P.W.14 Sub Inspector,
Valparai Police Station from Thangammal at 5.30 A.M. on 14.5.1997 under
Ex.P-10 intimation given by P.W.9 doctor at 5.00 A.M. soon after admitting
Thangammal to the hospital for treatment and Ex.P-10 discloses that the same
was received by P.W.14 at 5.30 A.M. Therefore the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 14
coupled with Exs.P-10 and P-11 would speak volume of testimony to corroborate
the evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the occurrence. As stated
earlier, the author of the complainant, Ex.P-18 Thagammal died subsequently
and therefore the evidence of P.W.14 would cure the lacunae in this context.
Having regard to the above evidence both oral and documentary, we are of the
firm view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the occurrence by
adducing satisfactory evidence.
25. The learned counsel for the accused has drawn our attention to
Ex.D-2 the statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, D.W.1 from
Thangammal (since deceased) when she was admitted to the hospital immediately
after the occurrence in support of his argument that the sum and substance of
such statement would belie the prosecution case in entirety. He would contend
that Ex.D-2 may be considered as a dying declaration of Thangammal (since
deceased) and therefore the same sanctity attached to dying declaration
deserves to be given in respect of the same so as to arrive at the right
conclusion.
26. In this context, it is necessary to extract the relevant
provision under Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act so as to appreciate
such contention.
“32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead
or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.– Statements, written or verbal, or
relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who
has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be
procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances
of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts
in the following cases:–
(1) When it relates to cause of death.– When the statement is made by
a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of
the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of
that person’s death comes into question.
Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or
was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and
whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death
comes into question.”
27. In this case, admittedly Ex.D-2 was recorded on 14.5.1997 at 9.3
0 A.M. in the Government Hospital, Valparai and according to P.W.16,
Investigating Officer, Thangammal the deponent under Ex.D-2 died on 2
3.12.1997, about 7 months after recording the said statement. It is not the
case of either the prosecution or the defence that she died due to the
injuries caused at the time of occurrence.
28. It is therefore urged by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
placing reliance on the ratio in the decision rendered by the Hon’ ble Supreme
Court in RATTAN SINGH v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH (AIR 19 97 S.C. 768) as
hereunder:-
“Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act renders a statement relevant which was made
by a person who is dead in cases in which cause of his death comes into
question, but its admissibility depends upon one of the two conditions:
Either such statement should relate to the cause of his death or it should
relate to any of the circumstances or transaction which resulted in his death.
The collocation of the words in Section 32(1) “circumstances of the
transaction which resulted in his death” is apparently of wider amplitude than
saying “circumstances which caused his death”. There need not necessarily be
a direct nexus between “circumstances” and “death”. It is enough if the words
spoken by the deceased have reference to any circumstance which has connection
with any of the transactions which ended up in the death of the deceased.
Such statement would also fall within the purview of Section 32(1) of the
Evidence Act. In other words, it is not necessary that such circumstance
should be proximate, for, even distant circumstances can also become
admissible under the sub-section, provided it has nexus with the transaction
which resulted in the death.”
29. A fair reading of the proposition of law laid down as above by
the Apex Court would indicate clearly that at any stretch of imagination,
Ex.D-2 cannot be considered as a dying declaration of Thangammal who died long
time after the occurrence due to natural causes. Hence we are unable to
endorse the view put forth by the learned counsel for the accused with
reference to Ex.D-2, the statement of Thangammal which in our opinion is not
helpful to the accused in any manner.
30. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused is
that the trial court was not correct in rendering the finding that the accused
is guilty of the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. as the evidence of
photographer, P.W.11 shows that at the time of taking photographs, the dead
body of Saraswathi was exposed partly and buried half way. On the contrary,
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to the
evidence of P.W.8, Tahsildar who exhumed the dead body and conducted the
inquest (vide) Ex.P-8 inquest report and the evidence of P.W.10, Autopsy
Surgeon, who conducted the postmortem at the place of occurrence itself and
issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-12. He has therefore contended that
in view of such evidence, only after the body was exhumed, P.W.11,
photographer could have taken the photographs. Hence, he has urged that the
prosecution has proved that since the dead body of Saraswathi was buried by
the accused and exhumed later during the course of investigation, the offence
under Section 201 has also been made out in this case.
31. In this context, the learned counsel for the accused has also
cited the decision of this Court, JOTHI BEGUM v. STATE (1990 L.W. ( Crl.)
132) which in our opinion will not be applicable to the facts of the present
case as the dead body in the said case was found on the road side, but here in
this case, it was totally buried under the earth in the tea garden. Hence,
the ratio laid down therein cannot be made applicable to this case.
32. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred
to the principle laid down by the Apex court on this aspect in VIJAYA v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2003 Crl.L.J. 4318) as hereunder.
“What Section 201 requires is that the accused must have had the intention of
screening the offender. To put it differently, the intention to screen the
offender, must be the primary and sole object of the accused. The fact that
the concealment was likely to have that effect is not sufficient, for Section
201 speaks of intention as distinct from a mere likelihood. The ingredients
of offence under Section 201 are:–
(i) that an offence has been committed.
(ii) that the accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of
such an offence.
(iii) that with such knowledge or belief he–
(a) caused any evidence of the commission of that offence to
disappear, or (b) gave any information relating to that offence which he
then knew or believed to be false.
(iv) that he did so as aforesaid with the intention of screening the
offender from legal punishment.”
33. If the evidence on record relating to the commission of the
offence under Section 201 I.P.C. is scanned through in the light of the above
ratio enunciated by the Apex Court, we have no hesitation to conclude that the
guilt of the accused under Section 201 I.P.C. has also been proved beyond
doubt.
34. The last contention put forth by the learned counsel for the
accused is with reference to lack of blood stain found on the weapon, M.O.2 by
the Chemical Examiner (vide) Ex.P-16 and therefore he would urge that the same
has not been used for the commission of the offence.
35. On a careful reading of the evidence of P.W.7, Supervisor working
in Nadumalai Estate regarding the recovery of material objects inclusive of
M.O.2, iron rod and the evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W.15 in the
light of the admissible portion of the confession statement, Ex.P-5 and the
mahazar for recovery of the articles Ex.P-3, we have no other option except to
hold that such evidence has not been challenged by the accused in any manner.
Hence we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that even though the
Serologist report, Ex.P-16 does not disclose that M.O.2, iron rod contained
the same blood group of the deceased, the same had been well connected by
cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution that the accused used the same,
while committing the offence of murder of the deceased Saraswathi.
36. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore having analysed the evidence of
the prosecution, both oral and documentary arrived at the proper conclusion
that the charges levelled against the accused, the appellant herein have been
proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
37. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of
conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore in this case. The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Index : Yes/No
Website: Yes/No
dpp
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.
2. The Inspector of Police,Valparai Police Station,Valparai.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4. The District Collector, Coimbatore.
5. The Director General of Police, Chennai.
6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.