Crl.A.No.671 of 2008 State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District. .. Appellant in C.A.671/2008 Vs.
This judgment shall govern the four criminal appeals viz., Crl.A.No.531/2008 filed by A1, Crl.A.No.671/2008 filed by the State, Crl.A.No.567/2008 filed by A2 and Crl.A.No.534/2008 filed by A3 to A8. In all these appeals, challenge is made to the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court-II, Cuddalore whereby the appellants/A1 to A8 in Crl.A.Nos.531, 567 and 534/2008 along with A9 and A10 stood charged as follows:
1st charge - A1, A2, A3 to A8 under section 120-B r/w 302 IPC.
2nd charge - A1 under
section 302 IPC.
3rd charge - A2, A3 to A10 under
section 302 r/w 109 IPC.
4th charge - A1, A3 to A8 under
section 201 r/w 302 IPC.
On trial, A1 was found guilty under Sections 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default, to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and also found guilty under
section 201 I.P.C. and awarded punishment to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. A2 was found guilty under
Section 302 r/w 109 IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default, to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment. A3 to A8 were found guilty under
section 201 IPC and awarded 3 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. A9 and A10 were acquitted of the charges. Seeking enhancement of punishment insofar as A1 was concerned, the State has brought forth the Appeal No.671/2008.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is a native of Arasaradikuppam. His younger brother Sakthivel had three children. The deceased Sathishkumar 6 = years old boy, is the first child of Sakthivel. A1, A5, A6, A7 and A8 are the children of A3 and A4. A2 was the sorcerer. A9 and A10 belonged to a village called Othiyadikuppam. The family of the first accused raised a construction of a residential house but it was stopped in the midway. They could not flourish in finance also. So, they used to go and meet A2, a sorcerer who was staying at Sethiathope, and he was in the habit of foretelling along with his son. On 27.4.2006 A1 accompanied by his family members met A2 and explained the family situation. P.W.3 and P.W.6 who belonged to different villages were also present along with the crowd who gathered there. After hearing the grievance of A1 and his family members, A2 advised them that in order to get prosperity and for completion of construction of the house they must give human sacrifice and that too, an eldest boy of a family within 6 to 10 years old and it should be done on the next full moon day. A1 and his family members took the advice of A2 and left the place. Thus, the conspiracy which hatched up between A1's family and A2 was actually witnessed by P.Ws. 3 and 6. On the date of occurrence, that was, on 13.5.2006, during morning hours, the deceased boy Sathishkumar along with P.W.2 and his friends was playing in front of the house of the first accused. The first accused talked to the deceased for some time during lunch hours. P.W.2 and the deceased went to their house at about 3.00 p.m. Thereafter, the deceased informed his mother/P.W.4 that he was going to the house of A1 to watch T.V. P.W.2 also accompanied him and leaving the deceased in the house of A1, he left the place. At about 4.00 p.m., P.W.2 again went to the house of A1. At that time, he saw A1 putting a rope around the neck of the deceased and strangulating him. He also saw A1 hitting the head of the deceased on the wall. The deceased fell down. When P.W.2 questioned A1 about his conduct, he informed him that he has done human sacrifice for prosperity of his family and also in view of the marriage of his brothers to take place. A1 intimidated P.W.2 that if he reveals it to anybody he would also meet the same fate. A1 took the cell phone from the pocket of the deceased and gave it to P.W.2 and promised him that he would pay some amount later. P.W.2 went to his house and left the village along with his mother to Vadalur to his maternal aunt's house where he stayed for about 25 days.
(b) In the meanwhile, P.Ws. 1 and 4 were searching for the deceased but they could not find him. It was A1 who informed P.W.1 that the dead body of the deceased was found in the field. Immediately, P.W.1 gave a report to P.W.19 Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent Police Station at about 3.00 p.m. On the strength of the same, P.W.19 Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.427/2006 under
Section 174 Cr.P.C.
(c) P.W.19 took up investigation. She proceeded to the spot made an inspection and prepared Ex.P.15 observation mahazar and also drew a rough sketch Ex.P.20. The F.I.R. Ex.P.19 was despatched to Court.
(d) Further, P.W.19 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars from 4.15 p.m. to 6.15 pm. and prepared the inquest report Ex.P.21. On the request made by the Investigating Officer, the dead body was subjected to post mortem.
(e) P.W.14, doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore conducted autopsy and gave post mortem report which was marked as Ex.P.17 wherein the doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died 48 72 hours prior to post mortem due to asphyxia and also due to head injury.
(f) Further investigation was actually taken up by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Panruti, who did not make any further investigation. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to P.W.23 Deputy Superintendent of Police on 23.6.2006. He went over to Arasaradikuppam Village and made enquiry of the witnesses. At that juncture, it was P.W.2 who came forward to give a statement. Pursuant to the statement given by P.W.2, the Investigating Officer came to know about the involvement of the accused. Then, he caused arrest of A1, A3 & A4 at about 2.00 p.m. on the same day. Pursuant to which, the confessional statement which was given by A1 voluntarily was recorded in the presence of P.W.5 and the other witness. The admissible part of the same is marked as Ex.P3. Pursuant to the confession statement M.O.2 Nokia cell phone was recovered from P.W.2's house under a cover of mahazar. Further, P.W.23 recovered, M.O.1 rope from the house of A1 under Ex.P5 mahazar in the presence of the said witnesses. P.W.23 recovered M.O.3 half burnt sack and M.O.4 ash of sack under a cover of mahazar Ex.P6.
(g) A1 identified A2 and he was arrested by P.W.23. Further, A5 to A8 were also arrested on 28.6.2006. They came forward to give confessional statements in the presence of Village Administrative Officer and other witness. P.W.23 also recorded the statement of A5 and the admissible part of the same is marked as Ex.P8. Pursuant to the confessional statement made by A5, he recovered the plastic box under Ex.P9 mahazar in the presence of witnesses. PW.23 went to the place of A2 and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.16. On 4.7.2006, P.W.23 with the aid of Forensic expert went and recovered the blood stains on the wall of A1's house under a cover of mahazar. The statement of the witnesses were recovered under
section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate-3, Cuddalore/P.W.22 and the same were marked as Exs.P24 to P.30 respectively. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a final report.
(h) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses and relied on 35 exhibits and 11 material objects. On completion of evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied them as false. No defence witness was examined but four documents Exs.D1 to D4 were marked. The document from Vinayakapuram temple was marked as Ex.C1. The Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and found the appellants guilty and rendered the judgement of conviction and sentence as referred to above. Hence, Crl.A.Nos. 531, 567 and 534 of 2008 have been brought forth by the appellants/accused. Not satisfied with the punishment of life imprisonment awarded to A1, the State has brought forth Crl.A.No.671 of 2008.
3. Advancing the argument on behalf of the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.531, 567 and 534 of 2008, the learned senior counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution proceeded on the footing that a conspiracy was hatched up by A1 and his family members along with A2 in his temple where A2 was foretelling at Sethiathope on 27.4.2006. For that purpose, two witnesses were examined viz., P.Ws. 3 and 6, but the trial Court was not ready to accept the case of the prosecution in so far as conspiracy part was concerned and acquitted the accused in respect of conspiracy theory. It is a matter of surprise to note that the trial Court has found A2 guilty of abetment and the same witnesses were examined for that purpose and the trial Court has also relied on the same evidence tendered by P.Ws. 3 and 6 in that regard. Once, the trial Court was not ready to believe the conspiracy theory which was spoken to by P.Ws.3 and 6, the trial Court should have also rejected the contention putforth by the prosecution that there was instigation made by A2 for the commission of murder by A1 or any other accused. It is also pertinent to point out that P.W.3 is the cousin brother of the deceased. P.W.6 was also well known to the prosecution witnesses. Had they been present at the time, when A2 advised or instigated A1 to make human sacrifice and that too, the eldest male child within 6 to 10 years of age, after looking into the newspapers and the photograph of the child and after coming to know about the death, they would have revealed it but they had not whispered to anybody till the Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation and examined them on 24.6.2006. They have kept mum for 40 days which would indicate that they could not have been present at the time when the alleged conspiracy was going on.
4. It is true that A2 was a sorcerer and he along with his son was foretelling in the temple, but there is no evidence that A1 or his family members went to the temple where A2 was foretelling on 27.4.2006 or A2 advised them to do human sacrifice. In the absence of any specific evidence, the trial Court should not have believed the evidence adduced through prosecution witnesses but the trial Court found A2 guilty for abetment of murder.
5. In the instant case, so long as the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.6 are not believed by the trial Court and the case ended in acquittal in respect of the charge of criminal conspiracy, the trial Court should not have believed that there was any instigation or abetment made by A2 to A1 or his family members. A1 should have been acquitted by the trial Court but the trial Court has taken an erroneous view. Hence, he has got to be acquitted by this Court.
6. Insofar as A3 to A8 are concerned, they were found guilty by the trial Court for screening the evidence. In the entire case records and in the evidence adduced through prosecution witnesses both oral or documentary, there is nothing to indicate that A3 to A8 had got any role to play in the screening of the evidence, by taking the body of the child from the house of A1 or place of occurrence or keeping the same in the field. Thus, when there is absolutely no evidence, the trial Court has taken an erroneous view and recorded the finding that A3 to A8 were guilty of screening the evidence. Hence, they have got to be acquitted.
7. Advancing the argument further, the learned senior counsel assailing the judgement of the trial Court insofar as conviction of the first accused was concerned would submit that the prosecution placed much reliance on P.W.2. P.W.2 was a boy of 16 years old. According to P.W.2, he was playing with the deceased in the morning hours and he went to the house of A1 along with the deceased and left the deceased there and he went back to his house and again when he went to the house of A1 at 4.00 p.m., he saw A1 strangulating the deceased and dashing his head on the wall. When he questioned about the conduct of A1, A1 replied that it is human sacrifice for the prosperity of his family and intimidated P.W.2 not to reveal it to anybody. The learned counsel commenting upon the evidence of P.W.2 would submit that the occurrence has taken place on 13.5.2006 at about 4.00 p.m. but he has not whispered about the same till the investigation was taken up by P.W.23 Deputy Superintendent of Police on 23.6.2006. P.W.2 has come forward to speak about the incident for the first time only on 24.6.2006. Learned counsel would further add that PW.2, 16 years old boy who had remained silent for about 40 days, had come with such a statement which is nothing but expression of lie on his part. The learned senior counsel would further add, according to P.W.2, he left to Vadalur along with his mother and stayed in his aunt's house for 25 to 30 days and thereafter, he came to his village. Even after coming to his village, for a period of one week, he did not tell anything to anybody. It is a matter of surprise to note that he had kept quiet for 40 days. P.W.2 has stated that when the police officials were going on searching for the culprit, he took pity on them and came forward to speak the truth which would clearly indicate that such an incident could not have happened at all. P.W.2 could not have seen the occurrence at all. A boy of 16 years old was selected by the Police and has been tutored to tell a story like this. If a boy aged 16 years would have seen such an occurrence, he should have immediately spoken about the same but he had not done so. All would clearly indicate that it was nothing but further development made by the investigating agency in order to strengthen the prosecution case since they could not get any piece of evidence to focus before the Court.
8. Added further learned counsel insofar as the recovery of material objects were concerned, it is highly doubtful. The arrest, confession statement and the recovery were all cooked up affair to fulfil the legal provision to see that the accused could not escape from the clutches of law. The evidence given by these witnesses viz., P.W.5 and P.W.7/V.A.O would clearly indicate that the confession statements were the documents prepared by the investigating officer and the witnesses and the material objects which were recovered would not speak about the nexus to the crime. Added further learned counsel, the investigating officer claimed that there were blood stains found on the wall of the house of A1. Though the investigating officer examined P.W.2 on 24.6.2006 itself, the blood stains were found in the house of A1 only after a week and it was not found in the confession statement. These are all cooked up affair by the investigating agency in order to strength the prosecution case. If the evidence of P.W.2 and the recovery are disbelieved, the prosecution had no evidence to offer before the trial Court. But the trial court was carried away by the murder of a young boy aged 6 = year which created sympathy in the mind of the trial court and surpassed by the evidence, the trial Court has taken an erroneous view. Hence, all the accused/appellants are entitled to acquittal in the hands of this Court.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the State in reply to the above contentions putforth by the learned senior counsel for appellants, would submit that in the instant case, the trial Court has awarded punishment of life imprisonment insofar as A1 is concerned when it recorded the finding that A1 has committed murder of 6 1/2 years old boy way of human sacrifice. It was done not only at the instigation of A2 but it is quite clear that it was actually done on adumbration of superstition to the world. A1 has committed such a heinous crime and he can be taken as a menace to mankind. Under such circumstance, the awarding of life imprisonment would not meet the ends of justice and A1 has got to be properly dealt with by enhancing the punishment.
10. The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and looked into the materials available.
11. It is not in controversy that a boy, aged 6 = years, named Sathishkumar, son of P.W.4 was done to death and his dead body was found near a temple. After the complaint was received from P.W.1, P.W.19 Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.427/2006 under
section 174 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem. by P.W.14 doctor who was examined as a witness before the Court and he has given his opinion in the post mortem certificate which was marked as Ex.P.17. From his evidence, it is quite clear that the boy died out of asphyxia due to strangulation and also head injury. Thus it would be quite clear that it was a case of murder. Till the case was taken up by P.W.23 Deputy Superintendent of Police on 23.6.2009 on transfer of investigation, it is a matter of surprise to note that the police has not converted the case as one for murder. From the very reading of the post mortem certificate, which should have been received by the Police earlier would clearly indicate that it is a case of murder and a duty was cast upon the police officer to convert the case to that of murder but not done so. Only on transfer of investigation to P.W.23, present investigating officer, the case was converted to that of murder. Thus, from the available materials and evidence recorded by the trial Court it was clear that Sathishkumar died out of homicidal violence.
12. At the outset, the prosecution rested its case on the theory of conspiracy hatched up by A1, A2 and other family members of A1. It is not in controversy that A2 is a sorcerer who was staying in a temple at Sethiathope and he used to foretell to others. The same was admitted by him when he was questioned under
section 313 Cr.P.C. P.Ws. 3 and 6 would claim that when they went over to the said place seeking the advice of A2 for their relief, on 27.4.2006, it was a new moon day. According to P.Ws.3 and 6 they were available in the temple when A2 was foretelling to others. At that time A1 and the members of his family were there in the crowd who were about 30 to 40 persons. They met A2. A2 asked the other people to sit aside. At that time, they were all sitting aside and A2 was talking to A1 and his family members. A1 told him about his family situation. A2 came forward to state that human sacrifice should be given, that too, an eldest male child within 6 to 10 years of age and it should be done before the next full moon day. A1 took the words of A2 and left the place along with his family members. The prosecution examined P.Ws.3 and 6 in order to prove this part of conspiracy but the trial Court recorded its findings that there was no conspiracy which could be inferred from the circumstances and found the accused, not guilty under
section 120-B I.P.C. and acquitted them of the said charge. From the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 6 it would be quite clear that they were present at the time when A2 sorcerer, was foretelling in the temple to A1 and his family members to make human sacrifice of the eldest male child within 6 to 10 years of age. These two witnesses have given their statement to P.W.23 -Deputy Superintendent of Police when they were examined and P.W.23 also recorded their statement under
section 161 Cr.P.C.
13. Now, at this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants made a comment that P.W.3 is the cousin brother of the deceased and P.W.6 was actually known to the family members of the deceased and if they were really present when A2 gave such advice to A1 and his family members and when the death of Sathishkumar was actually published in the newspapers along with the photograph, either P.W.3 or P.W.6 could have immediately brought it to the notice of the family members but till they were examined by P.W.23, they kept quiet. Thus, it could be taken only as false statement according to the learned counsel for the appellants.
14. The Court has to necessarily disagree with the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the appellants for the simple reason that P.W.23 Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation and only when it came to the knowledge of the investigating officer that it was human sacrifice which was spoken to by P.W.2, till that time nobody knew that it was a human sacrifice. Even after the post mortem certificate obtained by the police, they did not alter the case from
Section 174 Cr.P.C. to one that of murder but kept the papers as it was. So long as P.W.3 and P.W.6 did not entertain any suspicion that it was human sacrifice one could not expect them to speak about the fact that A1 or their family members were present at the temple of A2 at Sethiathope and they were advised by A2. Only when P.W.2 revealed about the human sacrifice, the investigating officer took up investigation in a proper manner. P.W.23 began to examine the witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.6 who have came forward to give such a statement. Under such circumstances, it cannot be stated to be that they were keeping silent even after knowing the fact. It is true they did not speak. There was no necessity or situation arisen for them to speak about the fact till they were examined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police P.W.23. It is true, the trial Court was not ready to accept the case of conspiracy putforth by the prosecution. The trial Court has pointed out that there is no evidence to prove the conspiracy which could be inferred, but at the same time the trial Court came to the conclusion that P.W.3 and P.W.6 had sufficiently pointed out that it was A2 who actually advised A1 and others to commit the crime i.e., to give human sacrifice and it was A1 who had done so.
15. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the State, it was A1 who took the words of A2 and had actually acted upon and the other accused did not join with him. On the abetment made by A2, A1 could have committed the gruesome act of human sacrifice of a boy aged 6 =. Under such circumstances, there is evidence available pointing to the abetment of A2. Hence, the trial Court is perfectly correct in finding A2 guilty under
section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C.
16. This Court is able to see sufficient force in the contention putforth by the leaned counsel in respect of A3 to A8. When the materials are thoroughly scrutinised and on analysis of the evidence it would clearly indicate that there is no evidence pointing to the participation of A3 to A8 for screening the offence. There is bereft of evidence in that regard. In the absence of any evidence, the case of the prosecution that they got any role in the screening the evidence, cannot be accepted. The trial Court has taken an erroneous view in that regard. Hence, the judgement of conviction and sentence of the trial Court insofar as A3 to A8 are concerned, has got to be set aside.
17. Insofar as the act of crime of murder committed by A1 is concerned, the Court has to necessarily agree with the prosecution case. It is not in controversy that P.W.4 is the mother of the deceased Sathiskumar aged 6 =, who was actually done to death by way of human sacrifice and the date of occurrence was on 13.5.2006. According to P.W.4, Sathishkumar left the house in the morning and he was playing. P.W.2, the deceased and two other children were playing in front of the house of A1 and after lunch hours, P.W.2 went to the house of A1 along with the deceased and after some time he left the place. At that time, the deceased was found along with A1 in A1's house as per the statement of P.W.2. Thereafter, when P.W.2 went to A1's house at 4.00 p.m., he witnessed A1 strangulating the deceased with a rope and further dashing his head on the wall and the blood was oozing. Immediately, P.W.2 questioned A1 as to his conduct but A1 replied that it was human sacrifice and it was done for the prosperity of his family. Further, he threatened P.W.2 that if he reveals it to anybody, he would kill his entire family members and assured him that he would give payment for not revealing the same. This witness has further pointed out that on the very evening, he accompanied by his mother went to Vadalur to his maternal aunt's house and returned after 25 days. Even after returning to his house A1 met him and enquired whether he revealed the fact to anybody. P.W.2 has answered that he did not do so. At that time also, A1 has given him Rs.100/- and further assured that he would give him Rs.5000/- for not revealing to anybody. P.W.2 did not whisper it to anybody but when the police came for investigation and were enquiring the people in the village, it was P.W.2 who came foarward and gave such a statement. He spoke about the entire incident to P.W.23 Investigating Officer.
18. It is true that there was a delay of 40 days from the time when P.W.2 witnessed the occurrence till the statement given by him to P.W.23 Investigating Officer. At this juncture, the following circumstances are noticed by the Court to believe the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 was only 16 years old boy. When he has witnessed the occurrence, A1 has threatened him that he would kill his entire family if he reveals it to anybody. Quite natural, P.W.2 would be in a grip of psychic fear. Hence, he along with his mother went to Vadalur. From his evidence, it could be seen that he did not go to Vadalur on his own accord. He came to his house after 25 days. At that time also A1 met him and threatened him. Under such circumstance, he did not speak about the incident to anybody for a week. It is true that he has not spoken about the incident for about 40 days but the explanation tendered by P.W.2 for not making statement to anybody, in the considered opinion of the Court was satisfactory since P.W.2 was in a grip of fear on the threat made by A1. Further, in the instant case, according to P.W.1, M.O.2 was the Nokia cell phone of the deceased. According to P.W.2, after strangulating and dashing the deceased on the wall and when the deceased fell down, A1 took the cell phone from the pocket of the deceased and handed it over to him and asked him to keep it safe. Accordingly, it was kept by P.W.2 in his house and the same was produced by him. P.W.4 also identified that it was the Nokia phone which was in the hands of her son on the date of occurrence.
19. Added further, in the instant case, A1 was arrested and he came forward to give a confessional statement in the presence of P.W.5 pursuant to which M.O.1 rope used for strangulating the deceased was produced by him and he also took the police party to the place where the half burnt sack was thrown by him and it was also also recovered. The recovery of blood stained cement piece from the wall which contained human blood was also made. It was actually taken inside the house of A1. Thus, all put together would clearly indicate that the prosecution has placed all necessary evidence pointing to the guilt of A1.
20. As regards the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants, in particular, P.W.2 has not spoken to the fact for a lapse of 40 days, the same was explained by P.W.2, which in the considered opinion of the Court, is satisfactory. Under such circumstances, the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellants in that regard do not carry any merit and it has got to be rejected.
21. As far as Crl.A.No.531/2008 filed by A1 is concerned, on the strength of the instigation of A2, A1 has committed the heinous crime of murdering 6 = years old boy by way of human sacrifice. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court is perfectly correct in finding A1 guilty under
section 302 I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C. and A2 guilty under
section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C. 22. Insofar as A3 to A8 are concerned, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Under such circumstances, they are entitled for acquittal. Therefore, Crl.A.No.534/2008 is allowed. Crl.A.Nos. 531 and 567/2008 are dismissed.
23. Seeking enhancement of punishment to A1, the State has preferred Crl.A.No.671/2008. This Court is unable to agree with the learned counsel for the State. It is proved that A1, on the instigation of A2, has murdered a child aged 6 = years and the trial Court has found A1 guilty of murder and awarded life imprisonment. There is no doubt, it was a heinous crime committed by A1. As could be evidenced, it was human sacrifice made by A1, by killing a child. At this juncture, the State has sought enhancement of punishment. If the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to A1 is to be enhanced it can only be the capital punishment of death sentence. The Court is afraid as to whether, under such circumstances, it could give capital punishment to A1 for the simple reason, for imposing the capital punishment, the Court must see whether the survival of the accused is menace to the society. In the instant case, A1 has murdered a child aged 6 = years and there is no material placed before the Court to show that he actually involved in any other crime in the past. As far as A1 is concerned, there is no bad antecedents. Apart from this, even when number of persons are murdered, the Court can award life imprisonment if it is found to be sufficient punishment and the Court can award capital punishment of death sentence even for a single murder if it is found to be sufficient punishment, but the Court must look into whether the survival of the accused is menace to the society. In the instant case, it is true that an heinous crime of murdering 6 = years old child was committed by A1 but there is no bad antecedents. The Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case where capital punishment of death sentence could be awarded. The trial Court, after marshalling the evidence proper, thought that interest of justice would be met by awarding life imprisonment and rightly too. This court finds no reason to interfere with the judgement of the trial Court. Therefore, Crl.A.No.671/2008 has got to be dismissed.
24. In the result, insofar as Crl.A.Nos. 531 & 567 of 2008 are concerned, the judgement of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is confirmed. Accordingly, Crl.A.Nos. 531 & 567 of 2008 are dismissed. Crl.A.No.671 of 2008 filed by the State is also dismissed. Insofar as Crl.A.No.534 of 2008 is concerned, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The bail bonds if any executed by them shall stand terminated and the fine amount if any paid by them is ordered to be refunded to them. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.534 of 2008 is allowed.
vsi To 1. The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- II, Cuddalore. 2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras