TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tting all the eight Accused persons (A1 to A8). While all the eight Accused had been convicted Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code of criminal conspiracy, A1, A2 and A7 had also inter alia been convicted Under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code for murder of the deceased Raja Mohammed, hereinafter referred to as the first Deceased ('D1'), and his friend Raj Mohammed son of Ibrahim, the Accused No. 4 (A4), and hereinafter referred to as the second Deceased ('D2'). 2. Criminal Appeal Nos. 417 and 416 of 2010 have respectively been filed by Basheera Begum, the wife of D2 who deposed in the trial as the 3rd Prosecution Witness (PW-3) and Sahul Hameedhu uncle of D1, being the complainant, who deposed as the 1st Prosecution Witness (PW-1). Criminal Appeal Nos. 408-414 of 2010 have been preferred by the State, challenging the acquittal of the eight Accused. 3. The 1st Accused Jafer Ali (A1) and D2 are brothers and sons of the 4th Accused, Mohammad Ibrahim (A4). The 3rd Accused, Abdul Hameedhu (A3) is younger brother of A4 and uncle of D-2 and A-1. The 5th Accused Sheikh Dawood (A5) and the 6th Accused, Basheer Ali (A6) are relatives of A1, A3, A4 and D2. The wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ranthangi Police Station and lodged a complaint. 8. In the complaint, PW-1 stated that he suspected that the deceased might have been murdered by Perumal, Kuzhanthaiyan and Kumar, at the instigation of A3, as there was enmity between D2 and A3 over the eviction of A3 from the place of his residence. A1, brother of D2 and A4, father of D2 were not even named as Accused in the complaint. Nor were any of the other Accused named. 9. The sub-inspector attached to the Aranthangi Police Station registered the complaint, pursuant to which investigation in Crime No. 668 of 1990 commenced under, inter alia, Sections 120B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Inspector reached the place of occurrence on 29th December, 1990 after sunrise. The bodies of the deceased were sent for postmortem examination. 10. PW-22, a doctor attached to the Government Hospital at Aranthangi performed postmortem on the dead body of D2. Upon postmortem, the following injuries were found on D2: EXTERNAL INJURIES: 1. Contusion injury on upper lip and right maxilla. 2. Teeth in upper and lower jaw displaced. 3. Horizontal incised injury 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on chin. 4. Blood clots from mouth and nose. 5. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht knee joint anteromedially size 3 cm x 2 cm x ½ cm horizontal in nature. No bone fracture. 8. Ante mortem abrasion 4 cm in number each 3 cm x 2 cm over the right leg laterally. 9. Ante mortem contusion over the right side scalp over the right temporal region size 7 cm x 9 cm extravasation of blood underneath the scalp present. Fracture right temporal bone, squemoris part present, Meninges injury subdural haematoma present in intracerebral bleeding present. 10. Torn bridge depressed clots in the nostril present. No fracture. Nasal bone body not decomposed. The general appearance do not tally with police report. Death appear to have occurred about 16 to 20 hours prior to post mortem. Penis circumcised, eye lids closed, jaws clenched. Tongue inside the mouth. Internal Injuries: Abdomen mild distention present. Position organs normal, pale, no injury to liver Spleen, kidney no fluid or blood in the peritoneal cavity. Stomach contains 30 ml partially digested food. No specific odour. Thorax-position of organs normal pale fracture o right 4th and 5th ribs present. Heart empty, no injury lungs no injury. No foreign body in the trachea, Larynx, Hyoid bone not broken. Pel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....By a judgment and order dated 6th October, 1998, the Additional Sessions Judge, Pudukottai convicted all the Accused Under Section 120B Indian Penal Code and further convicted A1, A2 and A7 Under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. A1, A2 and A7 were sentenced to life imprisonment and also to fine of Rs. 20,000/- each. 17. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6th October, 1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pudukottai in SC No. 108 of 1996, all the Accused filed Criminal Appeals in the High Court, which were numbered as Criminal Appeal Nos. 834, 835, 836, 895, 926, 934 and 938 of 1998. 18. By the judgment and order under appeal, the Hon'ble High Court allowed the Criminal Appeals, set aside the judgment and order dated 6th October, 1998 of the Trial Court, of conviction of the Accused in SC No. 108 of 1996 and acquitted the Accused of the charges levelled against them. Since A7 had died while the proceedings in the High Court were pending, the fine amount if any, paid by A7, was directed to be refunded to his legal heirs. 19. The High Court, on consideration of the evidence adduced by the Prosecution, found that the entire prosecution case suffe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury on skull, brain and multiple injuries. 25. Mr. Tulsi submitted that where specific roles had been attributed to each of the Accused persons, a chain of circumstances linking them to the commission of offence was complete. The High Court ought not to have reversed the Trial Court's judgment. The High Court overlooked the fact that in most cases of circumstantial evidence, direct evidence of conspiracy is never available and existence of conspiracy has to be inferred from the circumstances of the crime. 26. Mr. Tulsi submitted that apart from complete chain of circumstances linking the Accused with the crime, expert opinion was also available. The depositions of PW-22 to PW-27 led to irresistible inference of the guilt of the Accused. Mr. Tulsi submitted that the High Court ignored the fact that the Accused persons alone had the motive and opportunity to commit the offence as established from the testimony of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-29. 27. Mr. Tulsi submitted that depositions of PWs 8, 16, 21, 23 and 24 clearly established that D1 and D2 were killed by the Accused persons. They did not die as a result of an accident. PW-8 dep....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ever, A3 who was associated with the ruling party at that time, and a Vice-president of the Aranthangi Panchayat Union, instigated occupants not to vacate, and many of them refused to vacate. According to this witness, this gave rise to a quarrel between D2 and A3 and a complaint was filed with the police. The District Collector conducted an inquiry and the disputes were compromised through his intervention. 33. This witness also said that there was a civil case pending in the District Munsif Court at Aranthangi against some occupants of the Palaa Thopu land of Fathima Beevi. D2 used to often go to Aranthangi with D1, being the complainant's sister's son, in connection with the civil case. From the evidence of PW-1 it only transpires that A1, A3 and A4 had property disputes with D2. 34. This witness stated that A4, father of D2 owned a Bajaj Motor Cycle bearing the Registration No. TN55/1406. On 28th December, 1990 at about 8.30 p.m. when this witness was in his rice mill, D2 left for Aranthangi along with D1, being his sister's son, on the said Bajaj motor cycle bearing the registration No. TN55/1406 owned by A4, to meet his advocate. D2 drove the motor cycle and D1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t all in the evidence of PW-1, to establish the guilt of the Accused persons or any of them, and certainly not beyond reasonable doubt. 42. All that PW-1 has said is that there were disputes between A3 and D2 with regard to the properties of Sulaimaan Rowthar and his daughter. No specific reason for enmity between A1 and D2 or between A4 and D2 has emerged from the evidence of this witness. 43. The 2nd Prosecution Witness (PW-2) M. Nagoor Gani, stated that he had travelled to Arasarkulam from Aranthangi by the last MPTC bus. This witness deposed that on the way he had seen that there were two dead bodies lying at about a distance of one kilometer to the north of Paapankulam, some distance away from the railway gate. The dead bodies were of PW-1's sister's son and A4's son. There was a motorcycle nearby. The Driver stopped the bus at the roadside after which the passengers got down and saw the bodies. Thereafter PW-2 along with one Ganapathy, who had also been travelling in the same bus, went and informed PW-1 of the death. PW-2 said that the police had examined him 1½ years after the incident. Nothing has emerged from the evidence of this witness to establish t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or which A5 had stood as guarantor. A1 had paid the entire money for purchase of the said lorry. PW-6 said that A5 had also helped him to sell that lorry. 49. PW-6 further stated that he had purchased the lorry bearing the Registration No. TSL 6579 from one K. Mayilsami, a broker of Karur (PW-7) for a sum of Rs. 3,35,000/-. This witness said that A5 came to Karur on 20.12.1990, that is, the date of purchase of the lorry and signed the agreement for purchase of the lorry, which was drafted by A5. PW-6 signed the agreement as a witness. PW-6 denied knowledge of what had happened to the lorry after its delivery to A1. PW-6 stated that A1 had paid Rs. 25,000/- on the date of agreement. He had agreed to pay the balance amount within 15 days, but he did not do so. PW-6 stated that the lorry purchased for A1 was parked outside the Court in a completely changed condition. 50. PW-6 further deposed that he had gone to Arokyam's workshop, near the broker's office at Manapparai, to see the lorry. He said he had gone there alone. PW-6 deposed that the owner of the workshop had asked him to take the lorry away from the workshop. 51. PW-6 said that he contacted Mayilsami (PW-7) through....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lorry he went to sleep. The next morning, a Leyland lorry was brought to the workshop for repair before 4.00 a.m. PW-8 could not say what was the registration Number of the lorry. PW-8 said he was not in a position to identify the lorry as eight years had elapsed. 56. PW-8 stated that A1 had come in the said lorry and claimed to be the driver of the lorry. PW-8, had obviously not known the person who had brought the lorry, as otherwise that person would not have asserted that he was the driver of the lorry. PW-8 however, identified A1. It is incredible that PW-8 should be able to recognize the driver of the lorry as A1 after so many years, when he could not identify the lorry. 57. PW-8 said that A1 had told him that the lorry had been hit by a bull. When PW-8 saw the lorry in the morning, he found the front bottom light on the left was broken. A1 gave him Rs. 100/- for repair work and asked him to give the lorry to PW-6 after finishing the work. 58. PW-8 said that he had handed over the amount of Rs. 100/- to Arokyam and asked Arokyam to hand over the lorry to A6. Four days later he went to the workshop and enquired about the lorry. He was told that A6 had come and taken the lor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he prosecution wanted him to be a witness and say something about the death of two persons on the road. This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution. He denied all the material suggestions put to him and denied having made to the police, the statements attributed to him. Nothing emerged from his cross-examination. 64. The 11th Prosecution Witness, P. Raju (PW-11) engaged in the business of flowers at Kattumavadi deposed that he did not know A1, A3 or A4. He said he had never seen A7 before. He said he did not know how D1 and D2 had died. He, however, knew they had died. He further said that he had not been examined by the police. 65. PW-11 was declared hostile and permitted to be cross-examined. He denied the suggestions put to him in cross-examination. In particular he denied the suggestion that he knew there was enmity between A3 and A4 and D2. In cross-examination, he also denied having seen A1 and two other persons get of from a lorry and go to a tea shop. He denied the statements to the police attributed to him by way of suggestions in cross-examination. He specifically denied having told the police that A1 was in the lorry with A7. 66. The 12th P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 28.12.1990 and came back to Manapparai on 29.12.1990. During his absence his brother and PW-8 had managed the workshop. This witness stated that when he returned to his workshop, he saw the lorry TSL 6579 there. This witness (PW-14) stated that PW-6, who used to bring lorries to his workshop for repairs, had requested him to repair the lorry, which had a small dent in the front left side. The bolts and nuts were loose. The repairs were duly carried out. However, nobody turned up to take the lorry back. 71. This deponent stated that 4 or 5 days later, he went to Trichy, where he saw PW-6 at the bus stand. He told PW-6 that nobody had taken back the lorry, which had been left in his workshop for repairs. On the next day PW-6 came to the workshop, identified the lorry, saying that it had been sold by him, gave him the repair charges and took the lorry away. This witness said that receipts were issued for major but not minor work carried out at the workshop. For minor work, money used to be taken, but no receipt issued. 72. The 15th Prosecution Witness, R. Ramamoorthy (PW-15) who had been running Sri Lakshmi Automobiles Spare Parts Shop at Manapparai, stated that he had issued cash....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stated that the two Accused were separately making oral statements at around 3.00 p.m. PW-18 said that he and his Assistant signed both the statements. 76. The 19th Prosecution Witness (PW-19) Chitravelu, V.A.O. Athani village, Aranthangi (PW-19) deposed that on 8.2.1991, at around 1.00 p.m. he was going to a hotel along with his Assistant Mariappan. Opposite the Avudayarkoil temple, he saw the Crime Branch Inspector of Aranthangi and some other policemen talking to Sheikh Dawood (A5). A5 told the police that if he were taken to Manapparai, he would show the vehicle. His statement was recorded. PW-19 said that Ex. P7 was the admissible portion of the confessional statement made by A5. This witness said that he and his Assistant had put their signatures in the statement. The number of the lorry was TSL 6579 and the make of the lorry was Leyland. By 3.00 p.m. this witness, along with his Assistant, accompanied the Crime Branch Inspector, Manapparai to the R.V.S. lorry broker shed, where lorry TSL 6579 was parked. A5 identified the lorry and the police seized it. By 7.45 p.m. the recovery Mahazar was prepared and the same was signed by this witness and his Assistant. This witness st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stated that on 3.2.1991 at around 3.00 a.m. when he had been sleeping in his office, a policeman sent by Inspector of police, Aranthangi came to him and told him that the Inspector wanted him to assist the Inspector to arrest the persons involved in a double murder. He stated that he went to the police station and from there he went to Kattumavadi corner. The police arrested Krishnan (A7) opposite the Plato TV centre. This witness could not, however, identify A7 in the Court. He was handed over the portion of the confessional statement of the Accused Krishnan, marked Ex. P-13 claimed by the Prosecution to be admissible, which he identified. He stated that Krishnan had said that if he were taken to Maangudi, he would show the pond where he had thrown the iron rod. This witness (PW-21) stated that this witness, his Village Assistant, Krishnan (A-7) and the police went to Maangudi. Krishnan (A7) got into the pond, and took out the iron rod and handed it over to the police. The rod was not sent for forensic examination. There were no blood stains or finger prints on the iron rod, recovered from an easily accessible open pond. The recovery, if any, is of no evidentiary value. This witne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st hit the ground would break. PW-22 said the injuries in the face could have been caused by the rod shown to him, that is, MO-23. 84. Even though, PW-22 in effect opined that, it was possible that the injuries on the face could have been caused if the deceased had been beaten on the face with an iron rod similar to M.O.-23, he also said that some of these injuries (Injury Nos. 1 and 3) were simple. Injuries 4 and 5 could also have been caused if a person had fallen after being thrown of and that there was no impression of the deceased being hit by M.O.-23. The evidence of this witness suggests the likelihood of D2 having been run over by a heavy vehicle, which caused his death. 85. Dr. Murugesan, Civil Assistant Surgeon who deposed as the 23rd Prosecution Witness (PW-23), had also been working as Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital at Aranthangi at the time of occurrence. He said that on 29.12.1990, the Inspector of police, Aranthangi sent the dead body of D1 for autopsy. He said that he conducted post mortem examination of the body along with Dr. Karunakaran, who had been working as Assistant Surgeon in the same hospital. PW-23 said that rigor mortis had set in when th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conclusive. 89. The 24th Prosecution Witness Radhakrishnan (PW-24), who had been working as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I, Palani, Dindigul district, described the damages on the motor cycle on which the deceased were riding. He opined that the damages could have been caused either if the motor cycle had been hit by another vehicle or if the motor cycle had fallen. His evidence is of no help to the Prosecution to establish the guilt of the Accused. 90. The 25th Prosecution Witness, P. Sivakumar a Scientific Assistant Grade-I, Forensic Laboratory, Pudukkottai (PW-25) deposed that he had inspected the place of occurrence and the motor cycle on which the deceased were travelling (MO-1). There were indications that the vehicle had been hit by another vehicle. He had advised the Investigating Officer to preserve the scraps of paint of the vehicle that had hit the motor cycle (MO-1) and the scraps of paint of MO-1. There were blood stains on the tar road near the motor cycle. There were also signs of dragging the dead body along the road. There were yellow coloured glass pieces, and white and orange coloured plastic pieces (MO-16). This witness had advised that MO-16 and the blood on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase. He also could not say when a part of the front side of the lorry had been painted black and red. 95. The 26th Prosecution Witness, A. Subramanian (PW-26) only stated that he had taken photographs of two dead bodies. Nothing much has emerged from his examination. 96. The 27th Prosecution Witness, Thiyagarajan (PW-27) also a photographer, stated that he had taken photographs of the lorry at the Aranthangi Police station. His evidence is of no relevance. 97. The 28th Prosecution Witness, P. Sondarajan (PW-28) who was a constable in the Trichy dog squad, stated that on 29.12.1990 he went to Arasarkulam road with the police dog named 'FRUIT'. There were two dead bodies. The dog smelt the blood on the dead body. After smelling the blood, the dog ran a short distance, got into Paapankulam and went up to the water and started barking. The dog then returned to the place where the dead bodies were found. Then it proceeded to Arasarkulam and ran 2 or 3 streets. Suddenly it lay before a house in the East Street, Arasarkulam. PW-28 said he did not know the door number or the owner of the house. The Inspector and the Dy. Superintendent of Police came to the house where the dog la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstable of Avudayarkoil Police Station, stated that at the time of occurrence he had been a Grade-II constable at Aranthangi and had taken the dead body of D2 to the Government Hospital for post mortem and brought it back after the post mortem. His evidence is of no relevance to the guilt of the Accused. 102. The 32nd Prosecution Witness R. Sethu (PW-32), who had been Sub-Inspector at Aranthangi police station on 29.12.1990, had registered the complaint lodged by PW-1, on the basis of which Crime No. 668/90 was started. He said that the FIR (Ex. P2) was sent to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate on the same day. His evidence is of no relevance. None of the Accused except the A1 were even named in the FIR. Even so far as A1 is concerned, there is nothing concrete in the FIR. A finger of suspicion has only been pointed towards him. 103. Nothing significant has emerged from the examination of the 33rd Prosecution Witness P. Kannappan (PW-33) who had only sent a requisition (Ex P-22) to Court to forward material objects concerning the case for chemical analysis report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai. He was later transferred. 104. The 34th Prosecution Witness, A.S. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.1992. He stated that the Accused had not been arrested till 5.6.1992. He searched them. On 24.6.1992 he had gone to Karaikudi with witnesses Chidambaram (PW-21) and Ramanathan and seized the register of Malar Lodge for the period from 5.5.1990 to 11.8.1990 (Ex P-24) under Mahazar (Ex P-28). On 24.6.1992, he had gone to village Unjanai and obtained the handwriting and signatures of Ramasami (A-8) under Mahazar (Ex. P-25). On 24.6.1992, he had examined Chidambaram (PW-21), Ramanathan, Driver Mahalingam and Raju (PW-4) and recorded their statements. On 25.6.1992, he had examined the complainant (PW-1), Nogoor Gani (PW-2) Shanmuga Sundaram (PW-5) and witness Ganapathy and recorded their statements. On 26.6.1992 the seized signatures and hand writings were sent to Court for onward transmission to the chemical laboratory under requisition (P-29). He said that he also examined Sub Inspector Chinnadurai (PW-30), Head Constable Govindarajan (PW-29) and A-4 and recorded their statements. In cross-examination he stated that he had not arrested any of the Accused. The 4th Accused (A4), had not been cited as an Accused and was therefore not arrested. On 24.6.1992, A8 surrendered before the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. He denied having told the police that A1 had taken him and PW-10 to Karaikudi to purchase lorry spare parts. He denied having told the police, that after they reached Aranthangi, they were joined by A4 and A5. He denied having told the police that they went to Malar Lodge Hotel. He denied having told the police that the Accused had conspired to kill D2. He denied that A1 had asserted that he would kill D2 with the help of a lorry. He denied having made any statement with regard to the Accused arranging a lorry. He categorically denied having made the statements allegedly recorded by police Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure In particular he denied having visited the Malar Lodge Hotel or of having seen or heard the Accused conspiring against D2. He denied that he had seen that the Accused were in a room which was locked from inside as alleged by the police. 111. The 40th Prosecution Witness, Alagappan (PW-40), who had worked as Manager, Malar Hotel, Karaikkudi from 1989 to 1991 denied that he knew A8. He said that he did not know A2. He said that there was lodging facility in Hotel Malar. The police came and made enquiries. He said that there was an admission register ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time. A8 obtained anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court at Pudukkottai on 26.2.1991. PW-43 said that on 13.3.1991 he had examined witnesses Mohamed Ali Jinnah, Akbar John, Raju (PW-2), Sahul Hameed (PW-1) and Basheera Begum (PW-3) and recorded their statements. On 14.3.1991 he had examined the witnesses Baskaran (PW-17) Sundaresan, Alagappan (PW-40), Chidambaram (PW-2), Kittu @ Krishnamoorthy (PW-12) and recorded their statements. When he examined Alagappan (PW-40) he had given PW-43 a copy of Page 54 of the booking register of Hotel Malar. This witness said that he had compared it with the original. He gave xerox copies of advance receipt No. 5825 dated 21.4.1990 and cash receipt No. 7409 dated 22.6.1990. 115. PW-43 said that on 15.3.1991, he had examined witnesses Abu Sali and Dr. Usen Masthan (PW-22) and recorded their statements. On 16.3.1991, he had examined Dr. Karunakaran, Dr. Sivasubramanian, Dr. Murugesan (PW-23) and recorded their statements. On 18.3.1991, he had examined the witness Sivakumar, Scientific Assistant (PW-25). On 26.3.1991 he had examined Prem and Jayakumar and recorded their statements. On 27.3.1991, he had examined witnesses Goyel and Nagari and recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an (PW-22), Dr. Murugesan, PW-11 and PW-12 had been examined by his predecessor. In the FIR, the Accused other than A3 were not named. A1 was named as an Accused on 4.2.1991 as also A4 to A8. 119. The 44th Prosecution Witness Raja, Inspector of Police, Myladudurai (PW-44) said that on 28.12.1990 he had been working as Crime Branch Inspector, Aranthangi. On 28/29.12.1990, Sahul Hameed S/o Mohammed Maideen (PW-1) lodged a complaint at the Police Station. The Officer in Charge of the Police Station received the complaint and registered the case, Crime No. 668/90 Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was received before 2.00 a.m. PW-44 said that as the Law and Order Inspector was on leave, PW-44 had taken up the investigation. He had gone to the place of occurrence and made security arrangements. Thereafter, he had returned to the station and sent intimation through wireless to the District Record Office, Finger Print Bureau, Photographer and the Dog Squad. Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence. As the police photographer had not come, he had arranged for a private photographer to take photographs. He said he had prepared an observation Mahazar (Ex. P-10) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2.1991 he arrested Abdul Hameed (A-3) in the presence of Rajappan and Kaliamoorthy in front of Taluk office, Pudukkottai and obtained a confessional statement from him. On the same day at 5.00 p.m., he arrested Md. Ibrahim (A4) and recorded his statement. Thereafter, he went to Aranthangi police station and put the Accused in the lock up by about 10 p.m. 125. PW 44 deposed that on 5.2.1991 both the Accused were sent to Court with the remand report. On 7.2.1991 this witness examined PW-40 C.T. Alagapan and recorded his statement. On 8.2.1991 at 1.30 p.m., PW-44 arrested A-5 Sheikh Dawood in the presence of PW-19 Chitravelu and C. Mariappan and recorded his statement. He identified the admissible portion of the confessional statement which is Ex. P7. 126. PW-44 deposed that he took A5 to Manapparai with the witnesses and seized lorry No. TSL 6579, which was in the custody of PW-6 Chinappu, from the RVS lorry broker shed at Manapparai. He said that in the Mahazar he had stated that the registration number in the number plate in front of the lorry (MO-40), was scraped and erased. PW-44 further said that by 8.30 p.m., he had recovered two cash bills from PW-6 under a Mahazar (Ex. P-4 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e lorry with the help of A5 and to adjust the accounts, as there was possibility of his going abroad. PW-44 said that PW-6 told him that he had handed over the amount of Rs. 25,000/- to Mayilsami of Karur (PW-7). PW-44 deposed that PW-6 had told him that the next day PW-6 stayed in the VRS lorry shed and on the following morning he went to Arokyam's workshop where the lorry was kept and enquired whether the repairs had been carried out. The workshop boy told him that the necessary repairs had been carried out. The following day, PW-6 came to the workshop, paid Rs. 75/- towards repair charges and took the lorry away by engaging a driver. PW-44 said that PW-6 had also told him that A5 had asked PW-6 whether A1 had seen PW-6 and settled the accounts. PW-44 said that A5 had requested PW-6 to arrange to get the lorry sold. PW-44 stated that PW-6 had told him that the police had brought A5 and seized the lorry. PW-6 handed over 2 cash bills for Rs. 75/- and Rs. 50/- both dated 3.1.1991 to the police. 130. PW-44 said that he had examined Kuppusami (PW-9), who had told him that he knew both D2 and D1. PW-9 told PW-44 that, on 29.12.1990 one Saathiah had requested him to accompany him ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been examined as a witness in the trial. 133. PW-44 said that during his examination PW-12 Kittu @ Krishnamoorthy, had told him that Jafar Ali (A1) used visit his workshop for repair of his motor cycle, so he knew him very well. On 28.12.1990 at 6.00 p.m., Jafar Ali (A1) had brought his TVS Suzuki motor cycle bearing Registration No. TCO 8561 for repairs and left it in the workshop. On 1.1.1991, the said Jafar Ali had come to the workshop and asked whether the repairing work had been completed. On being told that the repair would take 2 more days, Jafar Ali (A1) told PW-12 to hand over the vehicle to the person who would come with his letter. On 4.1.1991 one mechanic Kumar came with a letter and on seeing the letter PW-12 handed over the motorcycle and the letter to Kumar. 134. PW-44 said that he had examined. PW-39, Farooq who told him that one Ramasamy Ambalam @Unjanai Ramasamy (A8), Balu @ Balusamy (A2) and Krishnan (A7) used to visit A3, Hameed Rowther's house. PW-39 therefore knew them well. He said that five months before 4.2.1991, Jafar Ali (A1) had asked PW-39 Farooq, PW-10 and M. Abdul Jafar to accompany him to Karaikudi for purchasing lorry spare parts. After they ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Village Administrative Officer and his Assistant concerned signed as witnesses. No signature was obtained from any uninterested and/or independent witness. In the case file PW-44 did not state that no independent witness had come forward to sign the confessional statement. PW-44 said that he had not examined Sethu, the Sub-Inspector of Police. Nor had he asked him why he had straight away registered the case Under Section 302 on the basis of the complaint of the PW-1. PW-44 denied the suggestion that he had conducted the investigation at the dictates of PW-1 and his supporters. 137. The 45th Prosecution Witness, Kalairaj, Inspector of Police (PW-45) said that he had been the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Pudukkottai and had received information that the case Crime No. 668/1990 Under Section 302 and 120B Indian Penal Code of Aranthangi Police Station had been transferred for investigation to another Investigation Officer. On 15.7.1992, PW-45 had received the order of DGP dated 16.6.1992 to continue the investigation after which he received the case files and continued with the investigation as ordered. PW-45 deposed that on 25.7.1992, PW-45 inspected the place of occurrence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orded the statements of those witnesses whom he had examined and not those who had been examined earlier. He said he had examined Fathima Beevi and recorded her statement. He said he had not recorded the statements of witnesses who had been examined earlier and re-examined by him. He denied that he had not seen A2 till the chargesheet was fled. He denied that A2 was not in India at the time of the conspiracy. 140. As stated above, no defence witness was examined on behalf of the Accused. All the Accused persons offered themselves for examination Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied their guilt and claimed to be innocent. 141. The Prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that pursuant to a conspiracy between A1 to A8, A1, A2 and A3 murdered D2 and D1. A1 driving his lorry No. TSL 6579, dashed against the motor cycle which D2 and D1 were riding, and thereafter A-2 and A-7 beat them to death with iron rods. 142. The Prosecution has only been able to conclusively establish that, on 28.12.1990 at around 8.30 p.m., D2 rode out of Arsarkulam, towards Aranthangi on Motorcycle No. TN 55/1406 owned by his father, A-4, with D1 on the pillion. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es may have been caused as a result of collision between two vehicles. D1 may have incurred the injury/injuries by getting flung of the motor cycle and hitting hard ground or some blunt object, or by getting run over by a vehicle. The opinion of PW-23 on the cause of the injuries in the body of D1 is also not conclusive. 149. On a careful analysis of the post mortem reports and the oral evidence of the post mortem doctors, we find it unlikely that the deceased were beaten to death with an iron rod. PW-22 was of the opinion D2 fell off the motor cycle after a collision and got run over. The Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the deceased were beaten to death with a rod. The Prosecution has also not been able to Rule out the possibility of D1 and D2 being killed in a 'hit and run' accident involving some unknown vehicle. 150. There are also inherent improbabilities and inconsistencies in the evidence which demolishes the case of the Prosecution that the deceased were beaten to death with iron rods by A2 and A7. It does not stand to reason why A2 and A7 should have risked getting of the lorry and beating D2 and D1 with iron rods, when A1 had dashed his lorry agai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence of PW-6 reveals that A1 had earlier, long before the alleged conspiracy at the Malar Lodge Hotel on 21.6.1990 purchased a lorry with the Registration No TDB 9635 for which A5 had stood guarantor. This lorry was sold some time in October, 1990, about four months after the date of the alleged conspiracy, and in less than two months, on or about 20/21 December, 1990 Lorry No. TSL 6579 was purchased. It is, therefore, evident that A1 used to have a lorry, or at least had one since January 1990 with a short break, possibly for the purpose of his business. It would be preposterous to attribute the purchase of the lorry to the sinister motive of murdering D2. The Prosecution has made no attempt to explain why A1 should have sold the lorry he already had if there were a conspiracy to kill D2 by hitting him or running him over with a lorry. 155. From the evidence of aforesaid witnesses as also the evidence of PW-8, PW-14, PW-15, PW-16 and PW-17 it transpires that the lorry was brought to Arokyam's workshop at Mannaparai on 29.12.1990 for minor repairs. After the repairs were done PW-6 took delivery of the same and left it at a lorry shed near the office of A7, who had sold the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he left side. This in itself does not establish any link between lorry and the incident. Incidentally, this witness also stated that A1 had told him that the lorry had been hit by a Bull. There is no evidence to suggest that the damage that was found on lorry TSL 6579 could not have been caused by a bull. 160. PWs 11, 12 and 13 were all declared hostile. Nothing has emerged from their cross-examination to link lorry No. TSL 6579 with the death of D2 and D1. PW-11 said that he did not know A1, A3 or A4. He had never seen A7 before. He denied having seen A1 and two others get of from the lorry and go to a tea shop. PW-12 said that he was not in town on the date of the incident. He had gone to Pondicherry to buy a car. He denied having told the police that a Leyland lorry had been kept parked near National Battery Works from 24.12.1990, which statement, even if made, does not connect the lorry to the incident which occurred on 28.12.1990. This witness also denied having seen or spoken to A2. PW-13 stated that he had fixed his thumb impression on certain documents as the police asked him to do so. 161. PW-14 the owner of a workshop identified PW-8 who had worked as a tinker at his sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he colour of some broken glass pieces at the scene of occurrence matched the colour of the side light and or indicators of the lorry, that does not prove involvement of the lorry in the same incident. Many lorries have the same kind of lamp/indicator covers. Moreover the lorry was purchased second hand and there is no evidence at all of the condition of the lorry at the time of its delivery to A1. 164. Significantly the accident took place on the night of 28/29.12.1990. The tenor of the evidence suggests that the lorry had been lying at the workshop for 4 to 5 days. The repairs had been completed. Both the bills/cash memos in respect of bulbs and side lights with the number of the lorry are dated 3.1.1991. PW-35 has in his evidence stated that the vehicle was seized as late as on 8.2.1991. If the lorry was found with any broken lamps, loose screws and bolts or dents almost a month and a half after the incident, long after purchase of replacement parts, the lorry in all probability got damaged while it was parked at the shed from which it was seized or may be afterwards. 165. In any case, even assuming for the sake of argument that lorry No. TSL 6579 was the lorry, which knocked d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ute motive to a father to plot the murder of his own son, there would have to be more compelling reasons. The case made out by the Prosecution is speculative and unsubstantiated. 172. In any event, it is not the case of the Prosecution that either A3 or A4 committed the murder, or was even present at the place of occurrence. Furthermore, it is nobody's case that A2, A5, A6, A7 and A8 or any of them had any enmity with D2. 173. To implicate the Accused, the Prosecution has propounded the case of conspiracy hatched by all the Accused at Malar Lodge Hotel on the night of 21.6.1990, to bump of D2, by using a lorry. 174. The Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that there was any conspiracy to kill D2 at the Malar Lodge Hotel, Karaikudi, or anywhere else. Mr. Tulsi's submission that there was evidence that on 21.6.1990, the Accused had booked a room at Malar Lodge Hotel, Karaikudi, and conspired to kill D2 with the help of a lorry, cannot be sustained. 175. The only evidence with regard to the alleged conspiracy is the absolutely inadmissible hearsay evidence of PW-44, a police officer who investigated the crime. PW-44 stated that he had examined PW-39, who had in cours....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould be no need for A-1 to arrange a lorry, since already A1 had a lorry TDB 9635, which was sold about four months later. 181. PW-39 categorically denied knowledge of conspiracy. He even denied having gone to Karaikudi at the request of A1. 182. Apart from the fact that PW-10 and PW-39 have categorically denied their presence at Karaikudi on 21.6.1990, there are patent inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-44 in this regard. If A3 was present at the Malar Lodge Hotel, Karaikudi at the time of the conspiracy on 21.6.1990, there could be no reason for PW-10 or PW-39 to go to A3's house and tell him about the conspiracy. Nor would A3 advise PW-10 and PW-39 not to divulge the conspiracy to others. 183. Even otherwise, it is inconceivable that the Accused should hatch a conspiracy to commit murder, in the presence of witnesses who were not part of the conspiracy. 184. It is also difficult to fathom why PW-10 and PW-39 were never arrayed as co-Accused, if they were present at the time of the conspiracy and they chose to keep quiet about the conspiracy. No credence can be given to the evidence of PW-44. 185. It is well settled that statements made to the police Under Section 161....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alent in this country an Accused is presumed innocent, unless proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. As held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793, "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the Accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." For conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should fully be established. The circumstances should be conclusive. The circumstances established should definitely point to the guilt of the Accused, and not be explainable on any other hypothesis. The circumstances should exclude any other possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 190. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 the Supreme Court held that where there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence, the normal principal is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and fir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f acquittal if the Court finds that no person properly instructed in law could have upon analysis of the evidence on record found the Accused to be 'not guilty'. When there is circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of the Accused, it is necessary to prove a motive for the crime. However, motive need not be proved where there is direct evidence. In this case, there is no direct evidence of the crime. 194. In Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. 2016 (4) SCC 357, this Court observed that an appeal against acquittal has always been on an altogether different pedestal from an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal, where the presumption of innocence in favour of the Accused is reinforced, the Appellate Court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity. In this case, it cannot be said that the reasons given by the High Court to reverse the conviction of the Accused are flimsy, untenable or bordering on perverse appreciation of evidence. 195. Before a case against an Accused can be said can be said to be fully established on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must fu....