(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Sessions Division, Mahila Court, Cuddalore, made in S.C.No.18/2008 whereby the appellant/sole accused stood charged under Sections 302 and 404 of IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 IPC and three years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence under Sec.404 IPC.
2.Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) The deceased Basheerakani was the wife of P.W.12. During the relevant time, he was away in Saudi Arabia. P.W.4 is the brother and P.W.5 is the sister of the deceased. The land of the father of the deceased and that of P.W.8 were situated adjacent to each other. There was a pathway dispute between the parties. The same was solved by a panchayat. P.W.16 was the President of the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam of which, during the relevant time, the accused was a P.R.O. There was a land dispute between P.W.4 and one Kajamoideen. The same was informed to P.W.16, and he in turn asked the accused to solve the problem. Accordingly, the accused took the assistance of the Tahsildar of the place, and on measuring the lands, the problem was also solved.
(b) During the relevant time, the accused had occasion to go to the house of Basheerakani often. On one day, he borrowed gold chain of 6 sovereigns marked as M.O.9, from Basheerakani. He pledged the same, but he did not return it. Many a demand was made, and thereafter, she informed the same to P.W.4. P.W.13, the sister of P.W.12, was also informed of the same. The deceased took P.W.13 also and went to the house of the accused. When the demand was made, there was a wordy altercation. Following the same, the jewel was returned to the deceased after a few days. Thus the accused had a grudge in his mind. Even thereafter, he continued his relationship with the family members including the deceased.
(c) On 25.6.2007, P.W.22, who was residing in the opposite direction and also a friend of the deceased, found the deceased leaving from the house at about 9.30 A.M. But she did not return that day. After 10 days, she came to know that the dead body of Basheerakani was found.
(d) In the evening hours of 25.6.2007, when P.W.4 was in her house at Ariyalur, Basheerakani came over there at about 6.30 P.M. and received a phone call from the accused. She was informed by the accused to come to the bus stand. Accordingly, Basheerakani went to the bus stand where the accused was also standing. When they were actually standing nearby, it was actually witnessed by P.W.14. Thereafter they boarded a State Transport Bus, and they moved from there. At that time, P.W.7 found both standing aside the road and chatting. An auto belonging to P.W.10 was engaged by both the accused and Basheerakani, and they were taken to Periyanesanur Village. After some time, P.W.10 left the place leaving both of them at that place. Thereafter, P.W.11, the Headmaster of a School, who was coming on his way, found the accused alone standing nearby the place of occurrence. He was talking to him, and there was some evasive reply from the accused. Thereafter, he also left the place.
(e) On 26.6.2007 at about 10.00 A.M., the Assistant of P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer (VAO), found a dead body of a female and informed the same to the VAO. Then P.W.1 proceeded to the spot, found the dead body and proceeded to the respondent police where he gave Ex.P1, complaint. Then a case was registered by P.W.26, the Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No.252 of 2007 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P24, was sent to the Court.
(f) P.W.28, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P25, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P26. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P27. The place of occurrence along with the dead body were photographed through a photographer, P.W.18. M.O.22 series are the photos with negatives. Then the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition for conduct of autopsy.
(g) P.W.21, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Vridhachalam, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Basheerakani and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P19, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained i.e., head injury i.e., brain.
(h) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 6.7.2007 at 7.00 A.M. He came forward to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of two witnesses. The admissible part of the confessional statement is marked as Ex.P32 pursuant to which he produced M.O.9, double gold chain, M.O.10, Thali chain, and M.O.11, gold ring. All of them were sent to the Court, and the accused was also sent for judicial remand. On requisition, the test identification parade was conducted by P.W.24, the Judicial Magistrate, Tittagudy. The identification parade proceedings are marked as Ex.P23. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis which brought forth Ex.P13, the Chemical Analyst's report, and Ex.P14, the Serologist's report. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report.
3.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses and also relied on 38 exhibits and 22 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. procedurally as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found the accused guilty and awarded punishment as stated above. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant.
4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel would submit that the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer, and it relied upon only circumstantial evidence; that the specific case of the prosecution was that she was found missing from the evening hours of 25.6.2007; that P.Ws.4 and 5 are the brother and sister of the deceased respectively; that they came to know about the same the very next morning; but till Ex.P1 complaint was given by P.W.1, VAO, they have not given any complaint at any point of time at any police station; that this itself would be indicative of the fact that actually the case was a cooked up one having a grudge against the appellant; and that in the instant case, the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11 who, according to them, saw the accused in the company of the deceased cannot be believed for the reason that their statements have reached the Court only after the charge sheet was laid.
5.The learned Counsel would further submit that the prosecution much relied on and the trial Court has also accepted the identification parade; that it could be well seen that the identification parade was not properly conducted; that even the Judicial Magistrate has well admitted that she has gone through the records of the particular case already and thereafter, she conducted the parade; that apart from that, the Magistrate has not even asked the accused whether he has got any complaint to be made; that it is also fatal to the prosecution case; that further even P.W.1, the VAO, who gave the complaint, has categorically admitted that he went to the spot where the dead body was found, and the police and public were present at that time; that the same would actually hit the investigation; that even the Revenue Officials were also present and thus it would be quite clear that the case came to be registered subsequently; and that all would go to show that the case has been fabricated against the accused.
6.The learned Counsel would add that the prosecution had not attributed any motive to the accused for committing the crime; that even the prosecution brought to the notice of the trial Court that he has actually robbed the jewels of the lady at the time of the occurrence which were marked as M.Os.9 to 11; but, it could not have been true for the simple reason that number of jewels were actually found in the dead body; that had it been the real intention of the accused to steal from the lady the jewels, he would have removed all the jewels and taken away, but not done so; that part of the jewels could not have been left with her while relieving the other part; that under the circumstances, it can be well stated that there was no motive at all; that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case; that all the witnesses have given false evidence, and hence he has got to be acquitted.
7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
8.It is not in controversy that the dead body of one Basheerakani, the wife of P.W.12, was found by P.W.1, the VAO, who gave a complaint, Ex.P1, and it was actually identified. The postmortem certificate was to the effect that she died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. The case was registered under Sec.302 IPC. Following the inquest made by P.W.28, the Investigator, and preparation of the inquest report, Ex.P27, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.21, the Doctor, who has given a categorical opinion that she died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. Therefore the cause of death as put forth by the prosecution was never disputed by the appellant before the trial Court or before this Court. Hence it can be safely recorded so.
9.It is true that in order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer and it relied upon only circumstantial evidence. But, this Court is also mindful of the caution made by the settled principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court that in a given case of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must place and prove all the necessary circumstances which should constitute a chain without a snap and should point to the hypothesis that except the accused no one could have committed the offence. In the instant case, even after the application of the test, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances which are noticed by the Court are as follows.
10.Even prior to the occurrence, the accused had close intimacy with the family members of the deceased, and the witnesses and in particular P.W.13, have spoken to the fact that the accused borrowed a gold chain from the deceased; but, he did not return it. Then P.W.13 accompanied the deceased to the house of the accused, and there was a demand pursuant to which there was a wordy altercation and thereafter, he returned the same. Even then, the accused continued the relationship with the family members. P.W.4 has categorically spoken to the fact that on 25.6.2007, the deceased came to her house and staying over there, and at about 6.30 P.M., she received a phone call from the accused, and she left the place. The evidence of P.W.4 to the extent that the deceased received a phone call from the accused was proved by the prosecution.
11.The next circumstance was the evidence of P.W.14, who actually saw the accused and the deceased both standing in the bus stand of Ariyalur. According to evidence, they actually boarded a bus and got down near the place Agaram, and they were actually found near the roadside by P.W.7. Yet another strong circumstance, in the considered opinion of the Court, is the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11. P.W.10 was an auto driver. According to P.W.10, both the deceased and accused got into his auto and travelled, and he dropped both at Periyanesanur Village, and he left the place. Thus it would be quite clear that both of them were taken to the place where the occurrence has taken place. It is further to be made clear by the prosecution that it was P.W.11, the Headmaster, who has seen the accused nearby the place of occurrence, and he also questioned about his presence; but the accused gave an evasive answer. From the above, it would be quite clear that the accused was found in the company of the deceased on the evening of 25.6.2007 by P.Ws.7, 14 and 10, and thereafter the accused alone was found nearby the place of occurrence by P.W.11. This part of the evidence would speak of the last seen theory which would indicate the involvement of the accused in the crime.
12.Added circumstance in favour of the prosecution was the recovery of M.Os.9 to 11 namely the double gold chain, thali and gold ring respectively. All these jewels were actually worn by her before the occurrence has taken place, and she was relieved of the jewels. All these jewels were identified before the Court that it belonged to Basheerakani. These jewels were recovered from the accused following a confessional statement given by him which was proved through a witness. It is pertinent to point out that the occurrence has taken place on 25.6.2007 night hours, and the case was actually registered by the Investigating Officer on 6.7.2007, within 10 days. In such circumstances, how he happened to be in custody of the jewels of the deceased it is for him to explain; but he had no explanation to offer though he has raised as a ground in the appeal memo that the jewels belonged to him which was an unacceptable explanation. Identity of these jewels which belonged to the deceased and which were in his custody was found within a period of nearly 10 days. In the absence of any explanation from him, it could be easily inferable and presumable that he was either the thief or the receiver of the stolen property. Since he was found in the company of the deceased for a few hours prior to the occurrence, as spoken to by the witnesses coupled with the fact that he was in custody of the jewels of the deceased, it would be quite clear that except him, no one could have committed the offence. Under the circumstances, the trial Court has marshaled the evidence proper, considered the same and found him guilty and rightly too.
13.In the face of the evidence available as discussed above, the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant do not carry any merit whatsoever. It is true that the dead body was found by the VAO, P.W.1, and the police personnel and all the public were available which did not mean that it was a false case. In the instant case, the role played by P.W.1 was only to the extent of putting the criminal law in motion and giving complaint to the police stating that the dead body was found. As far as the motive is concerned, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was no motive has got to be rejected for the simple reason that it was a case where she was relieved of her jewels which were marked as M.Os.9 to 11. That apart, the contention that some procedure was not followed by the VAO, P.W.1, cannot be relevant in the case on hand because it was only a complaint which was given by him on seeing the dead body, and it was not case where a confession has been recorded by him. Hence the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant would not in any way affect the rigor or truth of the prosecution case. It is true that the prosecution rested its case on the circumstantial evidence. But, the circumstances which were placed and proved by the prosecution would be indicative of the fact in clear term that it was the accused and none else committed the offence. The trial Court was perfectly correct in finding him guilty and awarding the punishment. There is nothing to disturb the judgment of the trial Court, and the same has got to be sustained.
14.In the result, this criminal appeal fails, and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court.
15.Mr.N.Doraiswamy, appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Court to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant, is entitled to get remuneration from the Legal Aid, Madras.
nsv/ To:
1.The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Cuddalore.
2.The Inspector of Police Veppur Police Station Cuddalore District
3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras