{"id":208213,"date":"2002-10-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002"},"modified":"2016-05-02T11:26:38","modified_gmt":"2016-05-02T05:56:38","slug":"ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh (A.1) vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh (A.1) vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 October, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 03\/10\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. JAGADEESAN\nAND\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MALAI.SUBRAMANIAN\n\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.398 of 1997\n\n\n1. Ramesh                (A.1)\n2. R. Srinivasan @ Seenu (A.2)\n3. Y. Narendran          (A.3)\n4.  Sathish Babu (A.4)                          ....  Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\nState of Tamil Nadu rep. by\nInspector of Police (Crimes)\nG-3 Kilpauk Police Station\nChennai-10                      .....     Respondent\n\nAppeal filed under Sec.397 Cr.P.C against the conviction and  sentence  passed\nin  S.C.No.318\/96  dated  2.4.1997  on  the  file of Principal Sessions Judge,\nMadras.\n\nFor 1st appellants :  Mr.K.  Asokan\n                Senior Counsel for\n                Mr.P.  Kumaresan\n\nFor 2 to 4 appellants :  Mr.V.  Gopinath\n                        Senior Counsel for\n                        M\/s M.  Rajasekaran and\n                        Mr.K.  Selvarangan\n\nFor respondent :  Mr.E.  Raja\n                Addl.  Public Prosecutor\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
MALAI.SUBRAMANIAN,J<\/p>\n
        The  appellants 4 in number are accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.318\/96 on the
\nfile of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.  They  were  convicted  to  undergo
\nimprisonment  for  life for offence punishable under Sec.302 read with 34 IPC;
\nto undergo 7 years R.I for offence punishable under Sec.397 read with 34  IPC;
\nto  undergo  7 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000\/-, in default to suffer
\nR.I for 3 months for the offence under Sec.449 IPC and to undergo 7 years  R.I
\nand  to  pay  a fine of Rs.1,0 00\/-, in default to suffer R.I for 3 months for
\noffence punishable under Sec.201 read with 34 IPC, on the allegation  that  on
\n10.5.95  at  about  3.00  or  3.30  p.m  they trespassed into the house of the
\ndeceased Suseela Ranganathan with intent to commit robbery and with intent  to
\ncommit her murder and after causing her death, took away 295.955 grams of gold
\njewels,  13  silver  coins,  2 ladies watches and 3 key bunches and thereafter
\npacked the dead body of Suseela Ranganathan and transported the same in a Fiat
\nCar bearing Registration No:TTU \u2013 4117 to the railway track in between Chetpet
\nand Nungambakkan and placed the same on the railway track so  as  to  make  it
\nappear that  it  is  a run over case.  The brief facts necessary to dispose of
\nthe appeal are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The deceased Suseela Ranganathan was a resident of  No.125,  R.B.I
\nQuarters,  Kilpauk  and  she was working as Grade.I Officer in Reserve Bank of
\nIndia along with P.W.3.  On 10.5.95 she went to the Bank and returned  to  the
\nquarters and thereafter  she  was  not  seen  alive.    P.W.1\u2013 K.A.  Ramasamy,
\nSambandhi (rk;ge;jp) of the deceased went to the quarters of the  deceased  at
\nabout 6.00 a.m on 15.5.95 to ascertain whether she was in the quarters because
\nP.W.2  \u2013  her  sister from Trichy complained to him that there was no response
\nwhen they rang up to the deceased.  He found the quarters locked.  He went  to
\nthe Office  and enquired and found that she was absent after 10.5.95.  He then
\npassed on this information to Trichy.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  On 17.5.95 he went to G-3 Police Station and gave a report  Ex.P.1
\nto P.W.41  \u2013  Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Cr.  No.829\/95
\nunder the caption “woman missing”.  Ex.P.43 is the printed  First  Information
\nReport.  P.W.41 proceeded to the quarters of the deceased along with P.W.1 and
\nfound the  quarters  locked.    After  ascertaining that a mutilated body of a
\nfemale was kept in the mortuary of Government General Hospital, Chennai,  both
\nof them  went  there, where he identified the body of Suseela Ranganathan.  No
\njewels were found on the body.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  In the meantime, P.W.6, who is the motorman (Driver), who took the
\nelectric train at 10.5.95 at 11.55 p.m  from  Beach  Station,  while  reaching
\nNungambakkam,  saw  some  obstruction  in  the railway track 100 feet away and
\nthough he applied break, he could not control the train and the same ran  over
\non the body of a lady and stopped 150 meters away.  He then after stopping the
\ntrain,  came  with  a  torch light along with the Guard and found a lady lying
\ndead.  After clearing the body,  he  took  the  train.    The  Station  Master
\npresented  a complaint to Egmore Railway Police and the same was registered in
\nCr.No.456\/95 under Sec.174 Cr.P.C at 7.00 a.m on 11.5.95  by  P.W.24  \u2013  Woman
\nHead Constable of Egmore Railway police Station.  The First Information Report
\nis Ex.P.15.    P.W.24  went  to  the place, where the body was lying, prepared
\nEx.P.10 \u2013 observation mahazar and drew rough sketch Ex.P.16.  She also  caused
\nthe dead  body to be photographed.  She then held inquest on the dead body and
\nprepared Ex.P.17 Inquest report.  Thereafter, the body was sent to  Government
\nGeneral Hospital for autopsy with a requisition Ex.P.21.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  P.W.30,  Dr.C.   Manohar, Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicines,
\nMadras Medical College, Chennai conducted post- mortem on the body of  Suseela
\nRanganathan, aged  about 57 years on 18.5.95 at about 2.45 p.  m and found the
\nfollowing injuries:\n<\/p>\n
“1.  Defacing, crushing injury involving head, face and neck and exposing  the
\nbase  of  the  cranial  cavity;  the  scalp was torn irregularly with multiple
\ncomminuted fractures of the vault of the skull of varying sizes with irregular
\ndisplacement bruising seen in some segments of the ectocranium and some  areas
\nof  the  sub  scalpal  region; the base of the skull with the facial bones was
\ncomminuted into multiple segments with  irregular  displacement  and  embedded
\ninto  and  distorted  soft  tissue  of face; small quantity of liquified brain
\nmatter seen in the cranial cavity; the median structures of the front  of  the
\nneck were  not  found.    The  cervical  vertebra  was  found  disrupted  with
\ncommunition and found embedded in the soft tissue of the back of the neck.\n<\/p>\n
2) A lacerated wound with marginal bruising with abrasion of 16 x 10  cm  over
\nright  shoulder  which  was  partially  amputated  from  right  shoulder joint
\nexposing the joint cavity with communition  of  upper  end  of  shaft  of  the
\nhumerus  with  bruising  around  the  soft  tissue  and  on the surface of the
\nfragments.\n<\/p>\n
3) Partially amputation of left shoulder joint  which  is  partially  attached
\nwith shoulder joint through a tag of skin; the margin are bruised; fracture of
\nshaft  of  left  humerus  into many pieces with laceration of surrounding soft
\ntissue.\n<\/p>\n
4) A partial avulsion of right hip joint with  extruding  of  right  hip  bone
\nthrough the lateral border of the right buttock and thigh with disarticulation
\nof  right sacr (torn) joint and pubic symphys is with fracture of public bone;
\nthe (torn) the skin were abraded with isolated bruising (torn) …..\n<\/p>\n
5) Lower quadrant of both gluteal region and perineal region lacerated 10 x 16
\nx 8 cm.\n<\/p>\n
6) Reddish abrasions:  right supra clavicular region 18 x 10 cm; on left  side
\nof  chest  on mid clavicular line 12 x 12cm; on left lower costal margin 6 x 3
\ncm; on right hypochondrium 6 x 3 cm.\n<\/p>\n
7) Fracture of 2 to  5  ribs  at  mid  clavicular  line  on  right  side  with
\nintercostal bruising.\n<\/p>\n
8)  Fracture  of  3  to  7  ribs  at  mid  clavicular  line  on left side with
\nintercostal bruising.\n<\/p>\n
9)Fracture of middle third of both tibia and fibula on  right  side:    Deeper
\nmuscles are exposed out; Margins are bruised.\n<\/p>\n
10)  Fracture  middle  third  of left tibia and fibula without bruising in the
\nsurrounding soft tissues.\n<\/p>\n
11) Fracture of lower third of femur without bruising in the surrounding  soft
\ntissues.\n<\/p>\n
HERT:  Cardiomegaly.   Hypertrophy of all the chambers of the heart coronaries
\npatent.\n<\/p>\n
LUNGS:  Early decomposition
\nStomach:  Empty Mucosa-nil abnormal
\nBLADDER:Empty uterus :Absent
\nAll other internal organs were found early decomposition changes”.
\nHe issued Ex.P.22 Post-Mortem Certificate with an opinion  that  the  deceased
\ndied of multiple crush injuries.\n<\/p>\n
        6.   Meanwhile,  P.W.14,  who was working as a Plumber in the Railways
\nand residing in Railway Quarters at Chetpet noticed a  White  Fiat  Car-M.O.28
\nstationed  near  the  quarters from 10.5.95, went to Chetpet Police Station on
\n16.5.95 and gave a report Ex.P.5.  P.W.28 \u2013 Sub Inspector of  Police,  Chetpet
\nPolice  Station  registered  a case in Cr.No.648\/9 5, prepared Ex.P.18 printed
\nFirst Information Report, went to the place  and  found  the  Car.    He  also
\nprepared  Ex.P.19  \u2013  Observation  Mahazar  and  seized  the Car under Ex.P.20
\nmahazar.  One pillow in the car was also seized under Ex.P.2 mahazar.   M.O.37
\nBeer Bottle  found  inside the car was seized under Form 95.  P.W.29 Inspector
\nof Police, Chetpet took up investigation in the case, ascertained the owner of
\nthe Fiat Car and questioned P.W.19, the father of the 1st appellant  and  then
\nforwarded  the  car  to  the  Court,  since  he  came  to know that a case was
\nregistered in G.3 Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  P.W.2 \u2013 sister of the deceased came from Trichy and identified the
\nbody.  P.W.3, the colleague of the deceased also identified the body.   P.W.4,
\na  doctor,  who  is  a  friend of the deceased and P.W.5, the caretaker of the
\nReserve Bank of India Staff Quarters also identified the body of the deceased.
\nP.W.41 \u2013 Sub Inspector of Police after ensuring that the dead  body  found  in
\nthe  mortuary  of  the  Government  General  Hospital was that of the deceased
\nSuseela Ranganathan, went to Egmore and  questioned  the  Railway  Police  and
\nsummoned  P.W.31  \u2013  Finger Print Expert, who was taken to the quarters of the
\ndeceased.  P.W.31 lifted three finger  prints  from  an  iron  safe  and  gave
\nmarkings J.1, J.2  and  J.3 to them.  They were also photographed.  M.O.38 are
\nphotographs.  Finger prints were compared  with  the  prints  taken  from  the
\nfingers of  the  deceased.   The left thumb impression of A.2 tallied with one
\nimpression.  P.W.41 ascertained that after 10.5.95 the deceased did not go for
\nwork.  On 19.5.95 after coming to know from Chetpet Police that the  owner  of
\nthe car is the father of the 1st accused, went to the house of the 1st accused
\nand on  seeing  P.W.41,  the 1st accused took to his heels.  He was chased and
\napprehended and when questioned, he gave a statement and then  produced  M.O.1
\nseries  \u2013  a  pair  of  gold  bangles  and  the same were seized under Ex.P.12
\nmahazar.  The 1st accused was arrested, brought  to  the  police  station  and
\nP.W.41 gave a Special Report Ex.P.44.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  P.W.42 took up investigation.  He then examined P.Ws.22 and 31 and
\nrecorded their  statements.    On  the  strength  of  the statement of the 1st
\naccused, he altered the crime to one under Sec.120-B, 302 and 38 0  IPC.    He
\nprepared Express  Report  Ex.P.45  and  sent  the same to the Court.  A.1 took
\nP.W.42 and his party and pointed out 2nd, 3rd and 4th accused in  Kasi  Chetty
\nStreet and  they  were  arrested  and interrogated.  The 3rd accused Narendran
\ngave a statement in the presence of P.W.35, the admissible portion of which is
\nEx.P.46, in which he had stated that he had left a ring, a gold chain, a  pair
\nof  diamond  ear  studs  and a key bunch with his friend P.W.20 \u2013 Baskar and a
\npair of bracelets (f’;fzk;) were left with another friend Mr.  Lakshmana Rao –
\nP.W.11 .  The 4th accused gave a statement, the admissible portion of which is
\nEx.P.47.  He produced a pair of diamond studs M.O.21 and the same were  seized
\nunder Ex.P.30  mahazar.    Then the statement of the 2nd accused was recorded,
\nthe admissible portion is Ex.P.48, in which he stated that  he  had  kept  the
\njewels in a bag at No.87, R.B.I quarters belonging to P.W.10- Subramaniam.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   P.W.42 and the witnesses went to the house of P.W.20 \u2013 Baskar and
\nrecovered M.Os.16,18,20 jewels and 3 key bunches  M.O.44  and  the  same  were
\nseized under  Ex.P.11 mahazar.  P.W.42 examined P.W.20 Baskar and recorded his
\nstatement.  Then he returned to the police station.  On 20.5.95 at about  9.30
\nhe went to the quarters of the deceased and prepared Ex.P.49 rough sketch.  At
\nabout  12.00  p.m,  he took the deceased to the place, where the dead body was
\nfound and seized a small rope.  At about 1.30 p.m, pursuant to  the  statement
\nof the 2nd accused, P.W.42 went to No.87, R.B.I Quarters and questioned P.W.10
\n\u2013  Subramaniam,  who handed over a bag which contained M.Os.1 to 19 jewels and
\nthe watches and the same were seized under Ex.P.9 mahazar.   P.W.10  was  also
\nquestioned by  P.W.42  and  a statement was recorded from him.  Suspecting the
\nappellants to be old offenders, their finger prints were taken and sent to the
\nFinger Print Bureau.  P.W.31 compared two other finger prints  lifted  in  the
\nquarters of the deceased with the finger prints of the deceased.  He found the
\nfinger  print  marked  J.3  tallying  with the finger print of the 2nd accused
\nSrinivasan.  He gave a report Ex.P.25.\n<\/p>\n
        10.  P.W.42 searched for P.Ws.37 and 38  (approvers),  but  could  not
\napprehend them.   On  28.5.95 he examined P.W.31 and some other witnesses.  On
\n29.5.95 at about 11.00 p.m, he arrested P.Ws.37 and 38  and  questioned  them.
\nThey  wanted  to  give  statement  before  the  Court and therefore, they were
\nproduced before the Court for recording their statements.  A  requisition  was
\nalso  given  to  the  Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate,  Madras to record their
\nstatements under Sec.164 Cr.P.C.  The Chief  Metropolitan  Magistrate  gave  a
\ndirection through Ex.P.36 to P.W.39, to IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai to
\nrecord the  statement  of  P.Ws.37 and 38.  Accordingly, he recorded the same.
\nThereafter, pardon was tendered to them.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  P.W.42 examined the witnesses on various dates viz., 16.6.95,  24
\n.6.95, 25.6.95,  26.6.95  and  7.7.95.    He  also  examined some witnesses on
\n27.7.95.  On 1.8.95 he examined P.Ws.24 and 25 and recorded their  statements.
\nHe  seized  blood  stained  saree  of  the deceased as produced by the Railway
\nPolice, who seized the same in Cr.No.456\/95 and the  saree  was  sent  to  the
\nCourt.   He also gave a requisition to send the blood stained pillow and other
\nM.Os for Chemical analysis.  On 8.8.95 he went and examined Dr.C.   Manokar  \u2013
\nP.W.30 and  recorded his statement.  On 10.8.95 he examined P.W.21 and others.
\nAfter completing investigation, he filed final report  against  all  the  four
\naccused punishable under Secs.302, 451, 409, 397 and 201 read with 34 IPC.  On
\n31.10.95 he  produced the jewels before the Court.  On 1.11.95 he produced the
\nkey bunches also before the Court.  Since P.Ws.37 and 38  who  are  originally
\narrayed  as  accused Nos.5 and 6, turned as approvers, an amended Charge Sheet
\nwas filed on 11.2.96 against these four accused.\n<\/p>\n
        12.  When the accused were questioned under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, their plea
\nwas one of denial.  No witnesses were examined on their side.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  There is no dispute that Suseela  Ranganathan,  the  deceased  in
\nthis  case  was  working  as  Grade-I Officer in Reserve Bank of India and was
\nstaying in No,.125, RBI Quarters, Kilpauk.  There is also no dispute that  the
\ndeceased  was  not  seen  alive  after  10.5.1995  since according to P.W.3, a
\nco-worker, the deceased was last seen only on 10.5.1995 .  After the  body  of
\nthe  deceased was sent to mortuary in General Hospital, P.W.1 – “Sambandhi” of
\nthe deceased, P.W.2 – elder sister of the deceased,P.W.3 a co-worker, P.W.4  a
\nfamily friend of the deceased and P.W.5 a resident of RBI Quarters, identified
\nthe dead body as that of Suseela Ranganathan.  Insofar as this identity of the
\nbody, a  contention  was  made  by  the  learned senior counsel Mr.K.  Asokan,
\nappearing for the 1st appellant that Ex.P.15 the complaint lodged with Railway
\nPolice, Egmore by the Guard who was in charge of the electric train which  ran
\nover the body, reads that a female aged about 25 years who suddenly trespassed
\nwas  knocked  down and killed, whereas the deceased was said to have been aged
\nabout 57 years as per Ex.P.22 Post Mortem Certificate.  There is  no  evidence
\nthat besides the deceased there was another body found on the railway track on
\n11.5.95.  The only question is whether the age of woman, who died, is 25 years
\nas  stated  in  Ex.P.15  or  57  years as found in the post mortem certificate
\nEx.P.22?\n<\/p>\n
        14.  Insofar as this aspect is concerned, the relatives and friends of
\nthe deceased viz., P.Ws.1 to 5 have identified the body  as  that  of  Suseela
\nRanganathan and  their  case  is  that  she  was  aged about 57 years.  On the
\ncontrary though in Ex.P.15 a female aged  25  years  was  said  to  have  been
\nknocked  down  and  killed  by train, the person, who lodged the complaint, on
\nwhich Ex.P.15 was registered has not been examined in Court.  Ex.P.15  reveals
\nthat it  was  signed  by one N.  Vijayashankar and he has not been examined in
\nCourt.  P.W.6 \u2013 the driver of the train alone was examined to prove  the  fact
\nthat the  train  ran  over  a  female.   He did not speak about the age of the
\nwoman.  There is absolutely no evidence to indicate as  to  who  informed  the
\nauthor of  Ex.P.1  5  regarding  the  age  of  the dead body.  In view of this
\ndiscussion, we are of the view that there is no dispute with regard to the age
\nof the deceased and there is no dispute with regard to  the  identity  of  the
\ndeceased  and therefore, we hold that the prosecution has established that the
\nbody found on the track was only that of Suseela Ranganathan,  aged  about  57
\nyears.\n<\/p>\n
        15.   Insofar as the cause of death is concerned, the prosecution case
\nis that all the four appellants caused the death  of  Suseela  Ranganathan  by
\nstrangulating  her  and  thereafter  removed the body from the quarters to the
\nRailway track and then placed the same over the railway track so as to  appear
\nthat the  death  was caused due to run over by the train.  The Doctor \u2013 P.W.30
\nwho did autopsy  on  the  body  of  Susseela  Ranganathan  found  amputations,
\nlacerations,  fractures  and  crush injuries and therefore, he gave an opinion
\nthat the deceased died of multiple crush injuries.   When  questioned  by  the
\ndefence  in  the  cross examination, he replied that there was no occasion for
\nhim to find out whether death could have been caused by asphyxia.   Though  it
\nis  the  duty  of  the prosecution to have elicited from the doctor that death
\ncould have been caused due  to  asphyxia  ,  the  defence  lent  its  hand  by
\nquestioning  the  doctor as to whether the death could have been caused due to
\nasphyxia, probably anticipating a negative answer; but the doctor replied that
\nthere was no occasion to look into that aspect, most probably because the body
\nwas mutilated,  crushed  and  there  were  so  many  fractures  on  the  body.
\nNaturally  when  one looks at the body which was run over by the train with so
\nmuch of fractures, broken limbs, amputations  and  crush  injuries,  immediate
\nopinion that could be formed is that death was due to crush injuries.  That is
\nhow the  doctor  also  gave  his  opinion.    Though cause of death usually is
\nestablished by medical evidence, in cases of this nature,  the  Court  has  to
\ntake  into  consideration  the  surrounding circumstances also to find out the
\nreal cause of death.  What was the necessity that compelled the deceased to go
\nto the railway track and jump before the running train if it is  the  case  of
\ndefence that the deceased could have jumped on the track in front of a running
\ntrain?  Secondly  there  is  the evidence of P.  W.7 \u2013 the watchman of Reserve
\nBank quarters to prove that at about 11.30 p.m on 10.5.95 a white colour  fiat
\ncar  went out side the gate and the 3rd accused was driving the car while 1st,
\n2nd and 4th accused were seated inside along with two other persons.  The  3rd
\npoint  is  that  the  said  white colour fiat car was found stationed near the
\nrailway colony by the side of the house of one Harikrishnan  as  per  Ex.P.20,
\nrough  sketch  drawn  by  P.W.28 \u2013 the Sub Inspector of Police, Chetpet Police
\nStation while investigating into a  complaint  lodged  by  P.W.14,  the  first
\ninformation report  being  Ex.P.18.    There is no explanation from any of the
\naccused as to how the said car belonging to the father of the 1st accused came
\nto be seen near the railway track by the side of the railway quarters.  Taking
\ninto consideration all these aspects and also in view of  the  fact  that  the
\ndoctor  who  did  autopsy  could  not  find  out  whether the death was due to
\nasphyxia because of the mutilated  nature  of  the  body,  we  hold  that  the
\ndeceased Suseela  Ranganathan  died  on account of homicidal violence.  Corpus
\ndelicti can be proved by the production of  the  dead  body  or  even  by  the
\ncircumstances proved  by  the  prosecution.  Though in this case, the body has
\nbeen produced, still the cause of death may be due  to  asphyxia  also,  since
\naccording to  the  doctor, he had no occasion to probe into that fact.  If the
\ndoctor would have answered that the death could not have been by asphyxia, the
\nmatter is different.  The answer was very carefully made whereby he said  that
\nthere was  no occasion to look into that aspect at all.  The prosecution ought
\nto have probed further to elicit from the doctor certain answers, but any  how
\neven  assuming  that  the  deceased was crushed to death by train according to
\nP.W.30, still the proved circumstances in this case about the  involvement  of
\nthe  accused 1 to 4 clearly indicate that the body of the deceased should have
\nbeen placed only by them on the railway track after murdering her.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  Though the prosecution case as per the 2nd charge is that  the  1
\nst  and  3rd  accused strangled the deceased with the help of a rope while 2nd
\nand 4th accused caught hold of her, in the absence of any eye witness account,
\nthe specific overt acts of each accused should not have been mentioned in  the
\ncharge,  but  the  charge  that  all  the four accused committed murder of the
\ndeceased and therefore, liable to be convicted under Sec.302 read with 34  IPC
\ncannot  be assailed on the ground that the specific overt acts were attributed
\nto each  of  the  accused  in  the  charge.    This  case  rests   purely   on
\ncircumstantial evidence.  In the absence of any eye witness to speak about the
\novert act of each accused, the Courts while framing charges but are tempted to
\nlook  into  the  statements  of the accused recorded by the police or recorded
\nunder Sec.164 Cr.P.C.  to attribute the overt acts of each accused.    If  161
\nCr.P.C  statement  of  an  accused  recorded  by  the Judicial Magistrate as a
\nconfession is found on record, that piece of evidence being admissible can  be
\nlooked into  for  that  purpose.   But in this case none of the accused 1 to 4
\nhave given any statements much less  confession  statements  to  the  Judicial
\nMagistrates.   Therefore, the Court ought not to have framed the 2nd charge by
\ndistributing the overt acts  to  each  of  the  four  accused  merely  on  the
\nstatement recorded from them under Sec.161 Cr.P.C.  Because of these lapses on
\nthe  part of investigating agencies while filing final reports and on the part
\nof the Courts while framing charges, the real accused shall not be allowed  to
\nescape resulting in failure of justice.\n<\/p>\n
        17.The   learned  senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the  1st  appellant
\nvehemently argued that as per Ex.P.15, the first information report lodged  by
\nthe  Station Master, a female aged about 25 years suddenly trespassed, knocked
\ndown and killed and therefore, though there is difference  of  age,  there  is
\nevery  likelihood  of  the deceased jumping in front of the approaching train.
\nAs we have already stated, the person who lodged the first  information  which
\nled to  the  registration  of Ex.P.15 was not produced before the Court.  As a
\nmatter of fact, it was P.W.6 \u2013 Motorman who alone had seen  the  body  of  the
\ndeceased lying  on  the track.  He had only stated that some 100 meter away he
\nwas able to notice some obstructions on the railway track and  immediately  he
\napplied the break.  His further evidence is that the train did not stop all of
\na  sudden, but it could stop only after running over the body at a distance of
\n150 meters.  This evidence of P.W.6 only indicates that he  was  able  to  see
\nobstructions 100 meters away when he was driving the train.  Though he made an
\nattempt, he  could not stop the train before crushing the body.  It is not his
\nevidence that he  saw  somebody  jumping  into  the  track  in  front  of  the
\napproaching train.  He is the witness competent to speak about the fact.  When
\nhe  has only stated that he saw some obstructions on the track, later found to
\nbe a body of a female he could have informed the  authorities  concerned  only
\nlike that.   Who ever gave the report, which resulted in lodging Ex.P.15 First
\nInformation Report, would have given the information only after it was  passed
\non to  them.    P.W.6  in  his  cross  examination  categorically  denied  the
\nsuggestion that he informed the Guard that a 35 year old lady jumped in  front
\nof the  train.    The  First  information  Ex.P.15  appears  to  be  a twisted
\ninformation.  Therefore, that cannot  be  used  as  a  piece  of  evidence  to
\ncontradict  the statement of P.W.6 especially when the first informant was not
\nexamined in Court.  If this document is beneficial to the defence, the defence
\ncould have cited the informant as the witness on their side.   That  has  also
\nnot been  done in this case.  Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that it
\nis not a case where any lady jumped in front of the train, but it  is  only  a
\ncase  where the body of the deceased was placed on the railway track to screen
\nthe act of murder.\n<\/p>\n
        18.  The prosecution let in the evidence  of  P.W.7  the  Watchman  of
\nReserve  Bank  Quarters  where  the deceased was residing to prove that he saw
\nthem leaving the quarters in a Fiat Car driven by the  3rd  accused  at  about
\n11.30 p.m  on  10.5.95.    He has also identified all the four accused stating
\nthat he knew them already.  According to P.W.10, a clerk in the  Reserve  Bank
\nof  India,  the  appellants 2,3 and 4 are also the residents of R.B.I Quarters
\nonly.  That is why P.W.7 was able to identify them clearly.  Nothing has  been
\nelicited  in his cross examination to compel the Court to reject his evidence.
\nTherefore, we hold that the prosecution proved the fact that  at  about  11.30
\np.m  the  3rd  accused drove the fiat car from the quarters and appellants 1,2
\nand 4 were seated inside.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  The second piece of evidence is  that  the  white  Fiat  Car  was
\nspotted  by  P.W.14 nearby the railway quarters and he lodged Ex.P.5 complaint
\nat Chetpet Police Station.  Pursuant to that complaint,  P.W.28  registered  a
\ncase,  prepared  Ex.P.18 first information report, observed the same, prepared
\nEx.P.19 \u2013 observaiton mahazar and also drew a rough sketch Ex.P.20.    Ex.P.19
\nreveals  that  the car was stationed at a distance of 65 feet from the railway
\ntrack and the sketch Ex.P.20 also shows  the  railway  track.    According  to
\nP.W.6,  the body was located on the track in between Chetpet and Nungambakkam.
\nHe would further state that he could see the body immediately after he crossed
\nthe Chetpet bridge.  Ex.P.16 rough sketch also reveals that the dead body  was
\nfound some  200  feet away from the Chetpet over bridge.  We can take judicial
\nnotice of the situation of the over bridge from where there is a path  leading
\nto Chetpet  Railway  Statio  n which is nearby the bridge.  After crossing the
\nbridge, some 200 feet away, the body was seen.  P.W.14, the  Railway  Plumber,
\nwho  is  residing  in Chetpet Railway Quarters had noticed the Fiat Car M.O.28
\nstationed nearby the quarters.  There is no dispute that M.O.28 belongs to the
\nfather of the 1st accused.  Though P.W.19 the father of the 1st accused claims
\nto have lodged a complaint with Saidapet Police on 13.5.95 regarding the theft
\nof his Car, he failed to produce the copy of such a complaint.   He  has  also
\nstated  that  on  18.5.95  having  come  to know that his car was available at
\nChetpet Police  Station,  he  went  there.    Therefore,  in  the  absence  of
\nproduction of  the  report,  said  to  have  been  lodged  by P.  W.19, we are
\nconstrained to hold that the evidence of P.W.19 that he  lodged  a  report  of
\ntheft  of  Car  with  Saidapet  Police is nothing but a defence made by him to
\nrelieve his son from the offence.  In view of  the  proximity  of  the  places
\nwhere  the  dead  body  on  the  track was found and where the Car, M.O.28 was
\nstationed, we can safely infer that M.O.28  car  should  have  been  used  for
\ntransporting the deceased.  Though we have already said that in the absence of
\neye  witness  account the prosecution cannot fix the place, time and manner of
\ncausing death  of  the  deceased,  merely  because  we  find  fault  with  the
\nprosecution for framing an improper charge, the entire case need not be thrown
\nout, if  available  evidence  is sufficient to hold the accused guilty.  Thus,
\naccording to us, the evidence of P.W.6 that all the four accused travelled  in
\nthe  Fiat Car obtains corroboration from the fact that the car of A.1’s father
\nwas found nearby the railway track in close proximity with the place where the
\ndead body of  the  deceased  was  found.    Therefore,  this  is  yet  another
\ncircumstances incriminatory in nature.\n<\/p>\n
        20.   Though  P.Ws.37  and  38, who were arrayed as accused along with
\nthese appellants, turned approvers and though P.W.37  turned  hostile,  P.W.38
\nhad spoken to the events that took place.  The evidence of P.W.38 being in the
\nnature  of  the statement of the accused, though it cannot be made a basis for
\nconviction, it can be used to lend corroboration to the  evidence  already  on
\nrecord.   P.W.38  would  state that all the four accused met him at about 8.30
\np.m on 10.5.95, while P.W.37 was also with him and informed him that they have
\ncommitted murder of Suseela Ranganathan and the body was packed in a gunny bag
\nand it should be removed.  His further evidence is that the  Car  of  the  1st
\naccused  TTU  4117 was found in front of the quarters of the deceased at about
\n11.30 p.m and the key of the  quarters  of  the  deceased  was  with  the  3rd
\naccused.   He would further state that the 3rd accused opened the quarters and
\nthey all lifted the bag, placed the  same  in  the  dickey  and  went  through
\nChetpet over  bridge  till  School gate.  According to him, the body was taken
\nand placed over the railway track and they also saw  an  approaching  electric
\ntrain towards  Tambaram.   His further evidence is that he and P.W.37 ran away
\nand others also ran away.  He claims to have seen the car next day at the same
\nplace with deflated tyres.  His evidence corroborates the evidence  of  P.Ws.7
\nand 14 and lends assurance to their evidence.\n<\/p>\n
        21.   The  learned  Senior  Counsel appearing for the 1st appellant on
\nthis point contended that P.W.14 claims to have seen the car from the  morning
\nof  10.5.95,  whereas  even  according to the prosecution, the occurrence took
\nplace in the afternoon of 10.5.95 and therefore, the evidence of P.W.14 cannot
\nbe used to convict the accused.  P.W.14 gave evidence in the month of  January
\n1997 about  the  incident  that  took place on 16.5.95.  Merely because in the
\ncross examination he says that he noticed the car in the  morning  of  10.5.95
\nwhen  he,  was  proceeding  to the work, the prosecution case that the car was
\nused for transporting the deceased only during the night of 10.5.95 cannot  be
\nrejected,  especially  when  a complaint was lodged by P.W.14 only on 16.5.95.
\nIf he would have lodged the complaint on 10.5.95 itself, then  the  contention
\nof the learned senior counsel can be upheld.  But he lodged the complaint only
\non 16.5.95 and therefore, there is every likelihood of his forgetting the date
\non which he saw the vehicle due to lapse of time, since after all human memory
\nis not  infallible.  Moreover, Ex.P.5 the complaint which was lodged by P.W.14
\nonly states that the car was stationed only from the night  of  10.5.95.    Of
\ncourse, P.W.14   admits  that  he  gave  Ex.P.5  complaint.    Therefore,  the
\ncontention of the learned senior counsel cannot be appreciated in the light of
\nthe contents of Ex.P.5.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  The evidence of P.W.38 not  only  supports  and  strengthens  the
\nevidence  of  P.Ws.7  and 14 but there is an extra judicial confession made by
\nthese accused to P.W.38 that they killed the deceased.  The statement  of  the
\naccused  to  P.W.38, who is not an accused presently and who is only a witness
\nin this case is admissible as an extra judicial confession of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  The further evidence that the car belonging to  the  1st  accused
\nwas  used  for transporting the deceased was strengthened by the recovery of a
\npillow M.O.29, from inside the car under  Ex.P.52  mahazar  by  P.W.28.    The
\npillow  was  compared with the pillow seized under Ex.P.2 from the quarters of
\nthe deceased and they tallied.  Therefore, it is yet another  circumstance  to
\nprove  that  the car of the 1st accused was used by these accused to transport
\nthe deceased.\n<\/p>\n
        24.  The next piece of evidence is that P.W.41 went to  the  house  of
\nthe 1st  accused on 19.5.95.  The 1st accused on spotting P.W.41 tried to take
\nto his heels and immediately he was caught and questioned.  It is the  further
\nevidence  of  P.W.41  that  gold  bangles  M.O.1  were recovered under Ex.P.12
\nmahazar.   P.W.36  and  P.W.22  who  are  the  attestors  in  Ex.P.12  mahazar
\ncorroborate the  evidence  of P.W.41.  M.O.1 bangles were identified by P.Ws 1
\nto 3.  The accused also have no claim over M.O.1.    This  recovery  of  M.O.1
\nconnects the  accused  with the crime.  The learned senior counsel for the 1st
\nappellant submits that the recovery is false, since M.O.1 was  sent  to  Court
\nonly  on  31.10.95  as per the evidence of P.W.42 \u2013 the Investigating Officer.
\nThe evidence of  P.W.42  in  the  cross  examination  is  that  the  concerned
\nMagistrate  for  Kilpauk  Police  Station  is XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, but
\nfinal report has to be filed only before the II  Metropolitan  Magistrate  and
\ntherefore,  the Magistrate informed him to keep the jewels and produce them at
\nthe time of filing the final report and that is why  he  sent  the  jewels  on
\n31.10.95.   If  the  jewels were recovered on 19.5.95 from the 1st accused and
\nimmediately afterwards from A.2 to A.4, P.W.42 had no necessity to  keep  them
\nwith  him  for  more than five months and therefore, his statement that he was
\nadvised by the Court to produce the jewels at the time of filing final  report
\nappears to  be  true.  The jewels taken away by the accused are said to be 296
\ngrams and it cannot be said that all these jewels were  procured  at  a  later
\npoint of  time to link these accused with the crime.  Therefore, we accept the
\nexplanation offered by P.W.42 for the delay caused in sending  the  jewels  to
\nthe Court.\n<\/p>\n
        25.   P.W.41 \u2013 the Sub Inspector of Police after recovering M.O.1 gold
\nbangles from the 1st accused, produced the 1st accused and M.O.1 to  P.W.42  \u2013
\nthe  Inspector  of  Police  along  with  the  statement  recorded from the 1st
\naccused.  After altering the first information report to one  under  Secs.302,
\n380  read  with  120B  IPC,  P.W.42  took  the 1st accused and the 1st accused
\nidentified 2nd, 3rd and 4th accused at Kasi Chetti Street and thereafter  2nd,
\n3rd and 4th accused were arrested.\n<\/p>\n
        26.   P.W.42  questioned A3 and recorded his statement, the admissible
\nportion of which is Ex.P.46.  In his statement A3 would say that he  entrusted
\na  ring, a gold chain, a pair of diamond ear studs and a key bunch with P.W.20
\nand he gave a pair of bracelet to P.W.11.  P.W.42 questioned 4th  accused  who
\nalso gave  a  statement,  the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.47.  He then
\nrecovered a pair of diamond ear studs- M.O.21 from  the  person  of  A4  under
\nEx.P.30 mahazar.    When  A2  was  questioned,  he informed P.W.42 that he has
\nplaced a bag containing jewels in the house of P.W.10  in  RBI  quarters,  the
\nadmissible portion of the statement is Ex.P.48.  P.W.42 was taken by A3 to the
\nhouse of  P.W.20 where P.W.20 handed over a cover containing M.Os.  16,1 8 and
\n20 viz., a diamond ring, gold chain and diamond tups.   P.W.42  recovered  the
\nsame under  Ex.P.11  mahazar.    This  piece of evidence has been spoken to by
\nP.W.42, P.W.20 and P.W.35.  Since P.W.35 spoke  about  the  recovery  of  only
\nM.Os.  18  and 19 the learned senior counsel Mr.V.  Gopinath, appearing for A3
\ncontends that the recovery has not been proved.  The recovery was made in  the
\nyear 1995 while the evidence was recorded in 1997.  Lapse of memory may be the
\nreason  for  not  remembering all the items as he failed to mention M.O.20 and
\nthe key bunch and P.W.20 also failed to mention  key  bunch  though  he  spoke
\nabout the  recovery of M.Os.16,18 and 20.  Therefore, the evidence of recovery
\ncannot be disputed on that score.  His further contention is that  though  two
\ngold bangles  were  said  to have been recovered from P.  W.11, P.W.11 did not
\nsupport the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.  Just  because  P.W.11
\nturned hostile, the evidence of P.W.42 regarding the recovery is not affected.\n<\/p>\n
        27.   P.W.42  was  taken by the 2nd accused to the quarters of P.W.10.
\nP.W.42 then questioned P.W.10, who produced a bag containing M.Os.1 to  5,  17
\nand 19.    They  were  recovered  under the cover of Ex.P.9 mahazar along with
\nM.O.10 violet colour bag, M.O.11 \u2013 plastic cover, M.O.41 key bunch,  M.O.42  \u2013
\nanother key  bunch  and  M.O.43  \u2013  a  key.  This evidence was corroborated by
\nP.W.16.\n<\/p>\n
        28.  The jewels seized from A.1 and A.4 and the jewels seized  on  the
\ninformation  furnished  by A.2 and A.3 were identified to be the jewels of the
\ndeceased by P.W.1 \u2013 “Sambandhi” of the deceased, P.W.2 \u2013 elder sister  of  the
\ndeceased  and  P.W.3  \u2013  an officer working in the Reserve Bank of India along
\nwith the deceased.  It is not the case of  the  defence  that  either  of  the
\naccused is  the  owner  of  any  of  the  jewels.    No  explanation  was also
\nforthcoming from any of the accused as to how they came to possess the  jewels
\nbelonging to the  deceased.    The  learned  Senior  Counsel  Mr.V.   Gopinath
\nappearing for the 3rd accused  contends  that  according  to  P.W.42,  at  the
\ninstance  of  the  2nd  accused  M.Os.2 and 3 were seized whereas, P.W.9 would
\nstate that the 3rd accused sold M.Os.2 and 3.  In the cross examination itself
\nit was elicited from P.W.9 that he could not definitely say whether M.Os.2 and
\n3 were the jewels recovered from him.  Merely because P.W.9  pointed  out  3rd
\naccused instead  of  2nd  accused,  the recovery cannot be disputed.  There is
\npossibility of 2nd accused also  accompanying  3rd  accused  and  selling  the
\njewels M.Os.2  and  3  through  3rd accused.  After all the evidence on record
\nonly shows the conjoint acts of all the accused.  The Supreme Court in 1985 SC
\n(Crl) at 263 has been pleased to hold that the testimony  of  panch  witnesses
\nwill not  become doubtful merely on their failure to identify the accused.  In
\n1979 SCC (Crl.) 56 it has been held by the Supreme Court that if the  evidence
\nof  the  Investigating  Officer,  who  recovered  the  M.Os is convincing, the
\nevidence as to recovery need not be rejected on the ground  that  the  seizure
\nwitnesses do not support the prosecution version.\n<\/p>\n
        29.  The  learned  Senior  counsel Mr.V.  Gopinath while attacking the
\nrecovery at the instance of the 2nd accused contends that P.W.10 did not state
\nthat it was the 2nd accused who kept the bag M.O.30 containing jewels  in  his
\nhouse  and  according  to him it was one Nagath Ali who informed him about the
\n2nd accused placing the bag in the house.  According  to  the  learned  senior
\ncounsel  in the absence of examination of Nagath Ali it cannot be held to have
\nbeen proved that it was the 2nd accused who placed the bag with the jewels  in
\nthe house  of  P.W.10  .  Though Nagath Ali was not examined, the recovery has
\nbeen made on  the  information  furnished  by  the  2nd  accused.    There  is
\nabsolutely  no  information  preceding  the  information  furnished by the 2nd
\naccused and therefore, the information furnished by the 2nd accused  leads  to
\nthe discovery of a fact that a bag M.O.30 containing the jewels from the house
\nof P.W.10.    Consequent  recovery  corroborates  the information given by the
\naccused and the knowledge of the accused regarding the presence of the  jewels
\nin the house of P.W.10 connects the accused with the crime under Sec.27 of the
\nEvidence Act.   Therefore, non examination of the said Nagath Ali is not fatal
\nto the prosecution at all.  P.W.16 has corroborated the evidence of P.W.42  in
\nthis regard.    Therefore,  we  hold  that  the  jewels inside M.O.30 bag were
\nrecovered on the information furnished by the 2nd accsued alone.\n<\/p>\n
        30.  The circumstances that all the  accused  were  seen  together  by
\nP.W.7  going  in a Fiat Car at about 11.30 p.m on 10.5.95 from R.B.I Quarters,
\nwhere the deceased was residing, the circumstance that the Fiat car  of  A.1’s
\nfather  was  found  stationed  near by the railway track where the body of the
\ndeceased was found, the circumstance that after 10.5.95 the deceased  was  not
\nseen  alive  by  anybody,  the circumstance that certain jewels were recovered
\nfrom the persons of A.1 and A.4 and the circumstance that  some  other  jewels
\nwere  recovered  on  the  information  furnished  by  2nd and 3rd accused, the
\ncircumstance that the jewels were identified to be that  of  the  deceased  by
\nP.Ws.1  to  3  and the evidence of P.Ws.10, 11 and 20 conclusively go to prove
\nthat it were these accused who were responsible for the death of the  deceased
\nand for  the  commission  of  robbery also.  Further the evidence of P.W.3 8 \u2013
\napprover lends corroboration to the above evidence.  According to  P.W.38,  as
\nstated  supra,  the accused confessed before him that they caused the death of
\nthe deceased.  He also says that the body was transported in the fiat car.\n<\/p>\n
        31.  A further piece of evidence was also adduced by  the  prosecution
\nin the  nature  of  finger print of the 2nd accused through P.W.31.  P.W.31, a
\nFinger Print Expert lifted three finger prints in the  steel  bureau,  out  of
\nwhich, one  print tallied with the print of the 2nd accused.  P.W.42 would say
\nthat the finger prints of all the accused were taken by the constable  on  his
\ndirection.   The  learned  senior counsel contends that the evidence of Finger
\nPrint Expert cannot be relied on since Police Standing Orders 836  (4)(k)  has
\nnot been  followed  in  this  case.  According to that Order finger impression
\nshall be taken only by Officers declared by a Superintendent or, in  the  City
\nof  Madras,  by  the  Commissioner of Police to be qualified to take clear and
\nwell rolled impressions.  In support of his contentions he relies on  a  Bench
\nruling  of  this  Court  reported in Shanmugayya and Others vs State (1992 (3)
\nCrimes 505.The Bench itself has stated in paragraph 36 that of course,  it  is
\npossible  to argue that Police Standing Orders do not have statutory force and
\ntherefore, non following of the Standing Order cannot be held in favour of the
\nappellants.  While considering whether the non following of the  procedure  of
\nthe Police Standing Orders was only irregular which did not affect the fact of
\nfinger print impression, only a direction was given to the State Government to
\nmake rules  under  Sec.8  of the Identification of the Prisoners Act 1920.  It
\nhas to be remembered that when the Expert gives an  opinion  that  the  Finger
\nPrint  lifted  in a scene of crime tallies with the specimen finger print sent
\nby the police, if the specimen finger print is not that of the accused, can it
\nbe said that the specimen finger print was taken from somebody else  and  then
\nsent for expert’s examination?  Merely because there was violation of a police
\nstanding  order,  we  are unable to hold that the evidence of the Finger Print
\nExpert has to be totally eschewed from consideration.  Even if the evidence of
\nthe expert is not taken into consideration, still the  circumstances  narrated
\nearlier  would  only  unclinchingly prove the guilt of all the four appellants
\nbeyond all reasonable doubts.\n<\/p>\n
        32.  The evidence adduced in  this  case  not  only  proved  that  the
\nappellants  have murdered Suseela Ranganathan but they have also robbed her of
\nher jewels.  The Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Alias Kaka vs State  (NCT
\nof Delhi) reported in 2001 SCC (Crl) 449 held as follows:
\n“Besides  Section  27,  the  Courts  can draw presumptions under Section 1 14,
\nIllustration (a) and Section  106  of  the  Evidence  Act.    The  presumption
\npermitted  to  be drawn under Section 114 Illustration (a) of the Evidence Act
\nhas to be read along with the “important time factor”.  If  the  ornaments  in
\npossession  of the deceased are found in possession of a person soon after the
\nmurder, a presumption of guilt may be permitted.  In the  instant  case  also,
\nthe  disclosure statements were made by the accused persons on the next day of
\nthe commission of the offence and the property of the deceased  was  recovered
\nat  their instance from the places where they had kept such properties, on the
\nsame day.  The murder and robbery in the instant case were part  of  the  same
\ntransaction  and  the  accused  from whom the recoveries were made, consequent
\nupon their disclosure statements, did  not  offer  any  explanation  regarding
\ntheir possession of the stolen properties”.\n<\/p>\n
        33.In  the  case of Sri Bhagwan vs State of Rajasthan<\/a> (2001 (3) Crimes
\n35 (SC),the Apex Court has been pleased to hold that if  the  appellant  could
\nnot  give  an  explanation  as  to how he came into possession of various gold
\nornaments belonging to the deceased, it is a fit case  where  the  presumption
\nunder  Illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act could be drawn that
\nthe appellant committed the murder and the robbery.\n<\/p>\n
        34.  Yet another case reported in 2002 AIR SCW 2060 (Ezhil vs State of
\nTamil Nadu)<\/a> is an apt decision to the  facts  of  the  present  case.    Their
\nLordships have been pleased to hold thus:\n<\/p>\n
“The  accused  have  not been able to properly or reasonably explain as to the
\nlegitimacy or origin of their  possession  of  the  articles  carried  by  the
\ndeceased when  he  arrived  from  abroad  at  the airport at Chennai.  In such
\ncircumstances, since the facts relating to the same  being  especially  within
\nthe  exclusive  knowledge  of the accused, the legislature engrafted a special
\nrule in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, to meet certain exceptional cases  in
\nwhich not only it would be impossible but disproportionately difficult for the
\nprosecution  to  establish  such  facts  which are specially and exceptionally
\nwithin the exclusive knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without
\ndifficulty or inconvenience.  The  appellants  in  this  case  have  miserably
\nfailed  to  explain  their  lawful possession of those articles with them that
\nreally belonged to and were in the possession of the deceased when  he  landed
\nat the  airport  at  Chennai.   Consequently, it was legitimate for the Courts
\nbelow, on the facts and circumstances of this case, to  draw  the  presumption
\nnot only of the fact that they were in possession of the stolen articles after
\ncommitting  robbery  but also committed the murder of the deceased, keeping in
\nview the proximity of time within which the act of murder was supposed to have
\nbeen committed and body found and the articles recovered from  the  possession
\nof the accused”.\n<\/p>\n
        35.In  this  case though the offence took place on the night of 10.5.9
\n5, the appellants were able to be arrested on 19.5.95 and  the  recoveries  of
\nthe  jewels of the deceased were made on that day and on 20.5.9 5 i.e., within
\n10 days.  The prosecution was able to  prove  the  circumstances  which  taken
\ntogether complete the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused
\nand  the  huge recoveries made from them and at their instance is a sufficient
\ncircumstance to hold that they were not only guilty of robbery but also guilty
\nof murder.  The proximity of time between the death of the  deceased  and  the
\nrecoveries  of  the  jewels  of  the  deceased  at the instance of the accused
\nenables the Court to draw an inference that the  accused\/appellants  not  only
\nrobbed the  jewels of the deceased, but committed her murder also.  In view of
\nthe above discussions, we have no reason to disturb the finding of  the  trial
\nJudge  that  the  appellants are guilty of offences punishable under Secs.449,
\n302 read with 34, 397 read with 34 and 201 read with 34 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
        36.  In the result, the conviction and  the  sentence  passed  on  the
\nappellants are confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(S.J.J.,) (M.S.J.,)
\n3-10-2002
\nsr<\/p>\n
Index:yes
\nWeb site:yes
\nTo\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Director General of Police, Madras\n<\/p>\n
4.  The District Collector, Chennai\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore\n<\/p>\n
6.  The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai\n<\/p>\n
7.  The Inspector General of Police (Crime),
\nG-3, Kilpauk Police Station, Chennai-10<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Ramesh (A.1) vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 October, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03\/10\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. JAGADEESAN AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MALAI.SUBRAMANIAN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.398 of 1997 1. Ramesh (A.1) 2. R. Srinivasan @ Seenu (A.2) 3. Y. Narendran […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208213","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh (A.1) vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh (A.1) vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-02T05:56:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"41 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh (A.1) vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-02T05:56:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":8125,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002\",\"name\":\"Ramesh (A.1) vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-02T05:56:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh (A.1) vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramesh (A.1) vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh (A.1) vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-02T05:56:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"41 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh (A.1) vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-02T05:56:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002"},"wordCount":8125,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002","name":"Ramesh (A.1) vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-02T05:56:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-a-1-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-rep-by-on-3-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh (A.1) vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 3 October, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208213","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=208213"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208213\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208213"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208213"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208213"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}