Life sentence for muder case Counsel for the Complainant Ms.B.Aarathi, B.A., B.L., Special Public Prosecutor. Counsel for the Accused M/s. R. Vijayan, D. Chittrarasi and P. Kumaravel Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq, Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.

J.F.No. 61 – Page
Judicial Form No. 61
(Cr.R.P 106)
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM ALLIKULAM, CHENNAI – 600 003.
Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai
Dated, Thursday, the 3rd day of March, 2022
2052 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. khrp jp’;fs; 19k; ehs; tpahHf;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No.106/2018
CNR NO. TNCH01- 003668 -2018)
ON TH FILE OF MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM, CHENNAI
(P.R.C. No.107/2014 in (Crime No.437/2014-K-9, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar Police Station) on the file of the Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, committed to the Court of Principal Judge, Chennai for the offences under Section 302 and 380 IPC and made over to this Court for enquiry and trial)
Complainant The Inspector of Police,
K-9, Thiru.Vi Ka Nagar Police Station, Chennai – 600 011.
(Crime No.437/2014)
Name of the Accused A1. Karthick, M/A.24/2014,
S/o. Jayapaul
A2. Karthick @ Kishnal Karthick, M/A.23/2014 S/o. Muniyandi
Offence charges Section 302 and 380 IPC
Plea of accused Not guilty
Finding In the result the accused A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offences under Section 302 and 380 I.P.C.
J.F.No. 61 – Page
Sentence The accused A1 and A2 are convicted under
Sections 302 and 380 of IPC and the accused A1 and A2 each are sentenced as below;
The accused A1 and A2 to undergo
IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE each and to pay a
Fine of Rs.10000 /- each, in default to undergo
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS
each under Section 302 IPC;
The accused A1 and A2 to undergo RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT FOR SEVEN YEARS each , and to pay of Fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo
THREE MONTHS Rigorous Imprisonment each, under Section 380 IPC;
The period already undergone by the accusedA1 from 27.03.2014 to 27.06.2014 and accused-A2 from 27.03.2014 to 03.07.2014 shall be set off u/s. 428
Cr.P.C.;
The sentence imposed shall run concurrently; Total fine Rs.30,000/-.
Order U/s. 452 Cr.P.C. The prosecution has marked M.Os. 1 to 11. Out of which M.Os. 1 to 5 and an unmarked nose pin are already given interim custody to P.W.1,
Tmt.Helmalatha. The same shall be retained by P.W.1 and the bond executed by her shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal time or if appeal is filed, after the disposal of the appeal. M.Os. 6 to 11 are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time or if appeal is filed, after the disposal of the appeal.
J.F.No. 61 – Page

Compensation Order U/s. 357 or
357A Cr.P.C In fine, out of the fine of Rs.15,000/- each paid by the accused A1 and A2, Rs.10,000/- each (Total Rs.20,000/-) is ordered to be paid as compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C., to P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 in equal proportion. The compensation amount is to be paid after the expiry of appeal time or after the disposal of the appeal, if any.
Further, recommendation is made under
Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C. to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to P.W.1-Tmt-Hemalatha, P.W.3-Tr.Ramachandran and P.W.4-Tmt.Jayashree, after due enquiry, out of the Victim Compensation Fund created U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C.
The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) CrPC out of the Victim Compensation Fund.

Description of the accused
Seri al
No. Name Father’s
Name Caste or race Occupation Residence Age
1. Karthick Jayapaul Hindu Driver No.166, SS Puram, ‘A’ Block 2nd Street,
Otteri, Chennai – 12. 24/2014
2. Karthick @
Kishnal Karthick Muniyandi Hindu Painter No.218, SS Puram,
‘A’ Block 1st Street,
Otteri, Chennai – 12. 23/2014
J.F.No. 61 – Page

Date
of Occurrence 25.03.2014
Complaint-Final Report 14.08.2014
Apprehension or appearance A1 and A2 -27.03.2014
Released on bail A1 – 27.06.2014 (As per the Order of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl.M.P. No.1681/2014 dated 25.06.2014).
A2 – 03.07.2014 (As per the Order of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl.M.P.
No.1776/2014 dated 30.06.2014).
Commitment 05.03.2018
Commencement of Trial 07.06.2018
Close of trial 24.02.2022
Sentence or Order 03.03.2022
Service of Copy of Judgment or finding on accused 03.03.2022
Explanation of delay Delay in producing witnesses.
Counsel for the Complainant Ms.B.Aarathi, B.A., B.L.,
Special Public Prosecutor.
Counsel for the Accused M/s. R. Vijayan, D. Chittrarasi and P. Kumaravel
Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, MAHALIR NEETHIMANDRAM
CHENNAI – 600 003.

Present : Thiru.T.H.Mohammed Farooq, M.A., M.L.,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Allikulam, Chennai-03
Dated, Thursday, the 3rd day of March, 2022
2052 – jpUts;Sth; Mz;L. gpyt tUlk;. khrp jp’;fs; 19k; ehs; tpahHf;fpHik
JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE No.106/2018
CNR NO. TNCH01-003668 -2018)
The Inspector of Police,
K-9, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar Police Station, Chennai – 600 011.
(Crime No.437/2014) … Complainant
– Vs. –
A1. Karthick, M/A.24/2014,
S/o. Jayapaul, No.166, SS Puram, ‘A’ Block 2nd Street, Otteri, Chennai – 12.

A2. Karthick @ Kishnal Karthick, M/A.23/2014
S/o. Muniyandi, No.218,
SS Puram, ‘A’ Block 1st Street,
Otteri, Chennai – 12. … Accused
This Sessions case is taken on file on 15.03.2018 and came up on
24.02.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Ms. B.Aarathi, B.A.,
….2.
B.L., Special Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of M/s. R. Vijayan, D. Chittrarasi and P. Kumaravel, Advocates for the Accused, and upon hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing the material records and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Final Report:
1. The Inspector of Police (Crimes) K9 Thiru Vi Ka Nagar Police
Station has laid a final report before the Committal Court of the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, alleging that on 25.03.2013 at about
22.45 hours in the house situated at No.37/14 Mathurai Madam East Street,
Perambur, Chennai, the accused committed murder of the deceased Tmt.Durga Devi and committed theft of her gold ornaments and thereby the accused-A1 and A2 have committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 IPC.
2. It is alleged that the deceased Tmt. Durga Devi was residing alone at the above mentioned premises. Her daughters and son are married and residing separately. Her daughters are residing at Ranipet and Villivakkam and her son was residing at Australia. Her husband used to stay in her daughters
….3.
house frequently and so the deceased was residing alone. The accused-A1 used to go and help the deceased for purchasing things required and thereby he got acquainted with the deceased. Seeing the Jewels worn by the deceased, the accused-A1 along with his friend accused-A2 with the common intention to murder and committed theft of the jewels from the deceased, on 25.03.2014 at about 22.45 hours the accused-A1 went to the house of the deceased. Being a known person the deceased opened the door and the accused-A1 went inside and was talking with deceased. At that time the accused-A2 cut the deceased on her neck with a knife and the accused-A1 cut the deceased on her head with a knife. When the deceased fell down the accused took the Thali and ear rings with Jimiki by cutting her ears and also took the rings from right middle and ring fingers by amputating her fingers. Further they took the kolusu (ankle chain) and Metti (toe ring) from the deceased and fled away. Hence the above
final report is filed.
3. Cognizance and Committal: Upon taken cognizance of the
offences by the Committal Court and on appearance of the accused, the copies of all documents relied on the side of the prosecution were furnished to the accused in compliance of section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after in short Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, as the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the
….4.
Learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, vide Order dated 05.03.2018 in P.R.C. No. 107/2014 has committed the case U/S 209 Cr.P.C. to the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, and bound over the accused to appear before the Sessions Court. The same is taken on file as Sessions case by the Learned Principal Session Judge, Chennai and in turn made over to this Court for enquiry and trial in accordance with law.
4. Appearance of accused and framing of charges: Upon
appearance of the accused and their Counsel before this Court, the learned Special Public Prosecutor opened the case of the prosecution U/s.226 Cr.P.C. by describing the charge brought against the accused and the evidence based on which the charge is proposed to be proved. After hearing both sides and perusing the material records, as there were grounds for presuming that the accused has committed offences which is exclusively triable by this Court of Sessions, charges were framed under Sections 302 and 380 IPC. When the charges were read over and explained to the accused and questioned, they pleaded not guilty. Hence, proceedings were issued for trial.
5. Prosecution side evidence: In order to prove the charge against the accused, out of 23 witnesses cited, 13 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and exhibits Exs-P.1 to P.21 and Ex-X.1, and Material Objects M.O.1 and M.O.11 are marked on the side of the prosecution.
….5.
6. The facts set-out through the oral and documentary evidences produced on the side of the prosecution can be deduced as follows:-
6.1. P.W.1/Tmt.Hemalatha is the daughter of the deceased Tmt.Durga Devi. P.W.2/Tr.Kamalahashan is the husband of P.W.1 and son-in-law of the deceased. P.W.3/Tr.Ramachandran is the husband of the deceased and P.W.4/Tmt.Jeyasree is the another daughter of the deceased.
P.W.5/Tr.Govindasamy is the brother of the deceased.
6.2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were residing at Ranipet. P.W.3, the husband of the deceased used to stay with his daughters P.W.1 and P.W.4 in the alternative. P.W.4 was residing at Villivakam. As such the deceased Tmt.Durga Devi was residing separately at the place of occurrence situated at No.37/14, Mathurai Madam East Street, Perambur, Chennai.
6.3. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were constructing a house at R.V. Nagar, Chennai. They used to visit the construction site and at that time they used to visit the deceased. Similarly, on 26.03.2014 at about 5 p.m. P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to visit the deceased at her house. The door was found closed without being latched. They heard the sound of the table fan running and the lights were on. When they went inside at first P.W.1
….6.
saw her mother (deceased) lying in a pool of blood. She noted the right middle and ring fingers were amputated and lying nearby. Further she saw the right ear was fully severed and left ear was half cut. There was cut injuries on the head and neck of the deceased. Seeing this she shouted. Hearing the halloing from P.W.1, P.W.2 also went and saw the deceased lying dead. Further they noted that the Gold ornaments,
Gold Thali with it connections, finger rings, ear Jimiki and Mattal, Kolusu that the deceased used to wear were missing. They inform the incident to P.W.3 to P.W.5, who also came and saw the deceased. The
Police was informed and P.W.1 lodged a complaint with the Police Station, which is marked as Ex-P.1.
6.4. P.W.12/Tr.Jeganathan (Investigating officer- IO), who was working as Inspector of Police at K9 Thiru Vi Ka Nagar Police Station(Crime), on
26.03.2014 at about 6.30 p.m., received the complaint/Ex-P.1 given by P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.437/2014 under Sections 302 and 380 IPC. Ex-P.15 is the First Information Report. He sent the complaint and the FIR to Court as express report and the same is received by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate at 10.15 p.m., as per the endorsement made by the Learned Magistrate.
….7.
6.5. P.W.12 (IO) took up Investigation and on the same date at 19.45 hours went to the place of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses P.W.6 /Tr.Joshuva and P.W.7/Tr.Jafer inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar/Ex-P.4 and Rough sketch/ExP.16. Further in the presence of same witnesses at 20.00 hours he collected in the material objects M.O.7 (blood stained cement floor piece), M.O.8 (a sample cement floor piece) and a cotton swab with blood stained (expended during forensic examination), under the cover of the Mahazar/Ex-P.17. Both P.W.6 and P.W.7 have corroborated the evidence of P.W.12 regarding the preparation of observation Mahazar and recovery mahazar. Ex-P.2 and Ex-.P.3 are the signatures of P.W.6 in the mahazars.
6.6. Then, P.W.12(IO) sent the body of the deceased from the place of the occurrence to Government Kilpauk Hospital through Grade-I Police.
On 27.03.2014 at 8.00 a.m., P.W.12 (IO) went to Kilpauk Government Hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayadars and prepared the Inquest report/Ex-P.18. He further recovered the blood stained cloths from the body of the deceased, M.O.9 (blood stained inskirt), M.O.10 (blood stained bra) and M.O.11(blood stained nightie) under the cover of the mahazar/Ex-
….8.
P.19 in the presence of the witnesses Tr.Manohar and Tr.Rajkumar (both not examined).
6.7. Further based on his investigation P.W.12 went in the search of the accused. On the same day 27.03.2014 at 1.15 p.m. when P.W.12 tried to arrest the accused-A2/Karthick @ Krishnal Karthick, he tried to escape and jumped from the Perambur bridge and sustained injuries on his leg. At 1.30 p.m. he was arrested and sent him to Government Hospital for treatment. Thereafter at 3.20 p.m. P.W.12 (IO) brought the accused-A2 to the Police Station and recorded the voluntary confession
given by accused-A2 in the presence of the witnesses
P.W.9/Tr.Dharmalingam and Tr.Loganathan. At that time the accusedA2 confessed and produced a Thalisaradu with it’s connections containing Gold kasu, Pottu, Kuntu and Gnanakuzhai (M.O.1 series) from his trouser pocket. P.W.12 seized the same at the police station in the presence of the witnesses under Form-95. Only a true xerox copy is available in the records and not marked on the side of prosecution.
6.8. On the same day at about 17.15 hours P.W.12 went in search of the accused-A1 (Karthick). On seeing the police the accused-A1 tried to escape and jumped from the Jeeva-bridge and sustained injuries. He was arrested by P.W.12 (IO) and sent to Government Stanley Hospital
….9.
for necessary treatment. Therefore, at 18.30 hours the accused-A1 was brought to the Police Station. On examination, the accused-A1 gave a voluntary confession in the presence of witnesses P.W.8/Tr.Vinoth and Tr.Mathava @ Mathi. The admissible portion is marked as Ex-P.6. In the said confession statement, the accused-A1 disclosed information and that he would produced the weapons and Jewels involved in the commission of the alleged offence from the place of hiding and to the shop where the jewel is pawned.
6.9. Based on his disclosure statement, the accused-A1 took P.W.12 (IO) near S.S.Puram garbage mound and identified and produced two knives (M.O.6 series), which was seized by P.W.12 (IO) under the cover of mahazar in Ex-P.7.
6.10. Further the accused took the Police to his house at S.S. Puram and produced the nose pin without screw, two rings (M.O.3 Series), 1 pair of Silver Kolusu (M.O.4 Series) and 3 toe rings (M.O.5 Series), which were seized by P.W.12 in the presence of same witnesses under the cover of mahazar in Ex-P.8.
6.11. Further the accused-A1 took them to Sree Ganesh Pawn shop at 5th
Street, S.S. Puram and identified the Ear ring with dolak and Mattal
….10.
(M.O.2 series) which was pawned by his wife and the same was produced by the shop owner Tr.Prakash/P.W.10. It was also seized by
P.W.12 (IO) in the presence of same witnesses under the cover of a Mahazar/Ex-P.9. Later, P.W.12 brought to the accused-A1 to the station along with seized properties and the accused were send for remand.
6.12. P.W.1 Tmt. Hemalatha, the daughter of the deceased was informed about the arrest and recovery of the gold ornaments. She went to the Police station and identified the Gold Ornaments seized from the accused A1 and A2 as that of her mother (deceased). At that time she also saw the accused at the Police station. The gold ornaments were given interim custody to P.W.1. During her examination before this Court, P.W.1 produced all the gold jewels and identified them before this Court as those belongs to her mother and they are marked as M.O.1 to M.O.5. It is noted that the nose pin alone is omitted to be marked. However, it is mentioned in the seizure magazar and Form-95.
6.13. P.W.8/Tr.Vinoth has deposed corroborating the evidence of P.W.12, regarding the arrest of the accused-A1, confession and recovery of Knives and Gold Ornaments.
….11.
6.14. P.W.9/Tr.Dharmalingam has deposed corroborating the evidence of P.W.12 regarding the confession given by the accused-A2 and identified his signature in the confession statement, marked as Ex-P.10 and deposed about the recovery of Thali chain with its connections.
6.15. P.W.10/Tr.Prakash, is running Shri Ganesh Pawn Broker Shop. He has deposed that on 26.03.2014, the accused-A1 and his wife Tmt.Neelavathi came to his shop at about 08.45 p.m. and pledged one pair Kammal, Dolak and Mattal for a sum of Rs.21,000/- (Twenty One thousand) for which he issued the receipt, which is marked as Ex-P.11. P.W.10 has further deposed that later the Police came with the accused -A1 and recovered the said Gold Ornaments.
6.16. The accused filed the petition in Cr. No.4688/2021 to send for the pawn receipt book with the counterfoil from P.W.10. The same was allowed by order dated 29.04.2021 and P.W.10 was re-examined for producing the said receipt book. P.W.10 during his re-examination produce the entire book with the counterfoil for Ex-P.11. As, P.W.10 required the original book for his daily business purpose, the Learned Counsel for the accused reported that it is sufficient to mark copy of the counterfoil receipt No.1402 found in the said book and it is not necessary for the entire book to be retained. Accordingly the xerox
….12.
copy of counterfoil receipt found in the pawn receipt book produced by P.W.10 is marked as Ex-X.1, which is attested as true copy by P.W.10.
6.17. P.W.12, the Investigating Officer, in continuation of the investigation examined P.W.1 on 26.02.2014 and 27.02.2014 and recorded her further statements. Further he examined the other witnesses
P.W.2/Tr.Kamalahashan, P.W.3/Tr.Ramachandran, P.W.4/Tr.Jeyashree,
P.W.5/Tr.Kovindasamy, Tmt.Selvi, Tmt.Devi, Tr.Ravi, Tr.Boopathy, Tr.Karthick, Tr.Rajendran, Tr.Kutty, Tr.Syed Ali @ Gulsan,
P.W.6/Tr.Joshuva, P.W.7/Tr.Jafar, P.W.8/Tr.Vinoth, Tr.Mathava @ Mathi, P.W.9/Tr.Dharmalingam P.W.10/Tr.Prakash and recorded their statements.
6.18. Further he examined post-mortem Doctor P.W.11 who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased at Kilpauk Medical Collage Hospital and recorded his statement and received the post-mortem report.
6.19. P.W.11 Dr.Shankar has deposed that on 27.03.2014 while he was working as Assistant Professor, Government Kilpauk Medical Collage, Department of Forensic Medicine, he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Tmt.Durga Devi concerned in Cr.No.437/2014 based
….13.
on the requisition dated 26.03.2014 given by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiru Vi Ka Nagar Police Station and issued of the postmortem report marked as Ex-P.12, which reads as below:
“The body was first seen by the undersigned at 12.55PM on
27.03.2014.Its condition then was Rigor Mortis Passed Away. PostMortem commenced at 12.55 PM on 27.02.2014. Appearance found at the Post-Mortem Decomposed Female Dead Body
Decomposition Changes: Peeling of cuticles seen over Forehead, left side of face, chin, neck, upper part of both sides of chest, back of the right side of chest, right arm. Loosening of scalp hair seen eyes bulged out, post mortem fluid mixed with blood oozed from both nostrils and mouth. Abdomen distended. Post mortem blisters seen in front of upper part of chest. Post mortem ant bite marks seen over both arms, front of lower part of chest, over front and back of abdomen (upper and lower) over front of both thighs and legs.
….14.
INJURIES:
1) Oblique cut injury of measuring 14 x 3 cm x cavity deep seen overfront and left side of the lower half of the neck. The upper border is 8 cm below the chin; lower border is 4 cm above the sternal notch. The left end is 10 cm below the left mastoid process. The right end of injury lies 4 cm to the right of the midline. The margins are clean cut.
On dissection: superficial neck muscles and superficial blood vessels and 4th 5th tracheal cartilage found served along the line of injury. On further dissection left carotid artery found severed partially.
Extravasation of blood seen in the surrounding soft tissue.
2) Laceration of size 2x1x0.5 cm seen over right side of lower lip.
3) Right ear lobe found severed and not seen along with the body.
4)Two fingers (middle and ring fingers) were found severed completely and brought along with the body. The severed ends shows
extravasation of blood in the surrounding soft tissues. All the muscles, vessels and nerves are severed completely. Proximal phalanx found completely severed and exposed outside. Both fingers can be easily aligned with the served portioned of the right hand.
….15.
5) Linear cut injury seen in the mid parietal region of scalp close to the midline measuring 9×0.5×0.4 cm. On further dissection: Scalp: bruising of size 5X2 cm seen over right mid parietal region, 6×5 cm seen over right occipital region. Cut fracture of size 3 cm long along the line of injury over right parietal bone.
Brain: soft.C/s. Decomposing. Base of Skull: Intact.
On Dissection of Thorax:
Ribs Cage: Intact.
HEART: Enlarged, Flabby, C/S: Chambers Empty, Valves : NAD, Coronary Vessels: Thickened few atheromatous plaques seen over root of aorta.
LUNGS. Both lungs collapsed C/s: Pale & Decomposing.
On Dissection of Abdomen:
STOMACH: 200 gms of Semi solid food present. Mucosa: Decomposing.
No Definite Smell. INTESTINE: Distended with gas.
LIVER, SPLEEN AND KIDNEYS: normal in size, C/s. Decomposing.
BLADDER:Empty. UTERUS: Not found.
PELVIS AND SPINAL COLUMN: INTACT.
VISCERA SENT FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
….16.
Opinion as to cause of death:
(a) Reserved pending report of CHEMICAL ANALYSIS.
(b) The deceased would appear to have DIED OF SHOCK & HEMORRHAGE DUE TO CUT INJURY TO THE NECK”.
6.20. Further, P.W.11 has preserved the viscera and send it for Chemical examination and received the toxicology report/Ex-P.14 with the opinion that poison was not detected in the viscera. Based on the post-mortem examination he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to cut injury to the neck.
6.21. It is noted that the report of the Biology examination done on the material objects namely M.O.’s Cement plaster piece, Inskirt, Brassiere, Nightie and knife, which was sent to the Forensic Lab is marked through Doctor
(P.W.11) as Ex-P.13. The Scientific officer Tmt.Bhavani, then Assistant
Director of the Forensic Sciences Department is examined as P.W.13.
She has deposed about receiving the blood sample from the professor of Forensic Medicine, Kilpauk Medical College Hospital. She conducted examination of the same and gave the Serology report with the opinion that blood group as “AB”, which is marked as Ex-P.20. Further P.W.13 has deposed about examining the material objects in M.O.6 (knives) and
….17.
the items cement slaps and cloths of the deceased in M.Os. 7 to 11. She has given the Biology report (Ex-P.13) and Serology report (Ex-P.21) with the opinion that human blood was detected in item No.1, 5 to 8 [ M.Os. 7 (cement piece), 10 (Brassiere) and 11 (Nighty) and M.O.6 (2 knives)], and the group of the blood found in items 1, 5 and 7 (M.Os. 7 and 10 and one of the knife in M.O.6) are of blood group “AB”. In the other item 4, 6 and 8 ( M.Os. 9 and 11, and one of the knife in M.O.6 series) the blood group was disintegrated and result was inconclusive.
6.22. P.W.12 (IO), in continuation of his investigation examined P.W.13 and recorded the statement after receipt of the report mentioned above. Thereafter, he completed the investigation and filed the Final Report as against the accused.
6.23. With the examination of the above witnesses, the prosecution closed its side.
Examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and his defence:
7. Upon closing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution side evidence as against the accused were put to the accused and examined U/s.313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The defence of the accused is that of total denial. When the accused-A1 was questioned regarding
….18.
the arrest and recovery, he has stated that “பபபலலசபபச கடசடசச சசனசற அவபசகபள
சபபரடசகளள வபஙசககனபபசகளச. அவபசகபள கபலசவபயகலச இரநதச எடகசக சசபனசனபபசகளச. எனச மளனவகளய அளழதசதசச சசனசறபபசகளச. அவபசகபள நளககளள வபஙசககனபபசகளச. வலடசடலச இரநதச எனளசன கடசடசச சசனசறபபசகளச. இனசறவளர எதறசகபக பகடதசதபபசகளச எனசபற சதபகயபத. களடசகயபக கபளல ஒடதசத சஜயகலகசக அனபசபகனபபசகளச.” Both the accused didn’t choose to
examine any witnesses on their side and closed their defence.
8. Point for determination: Now the point that arise for
determination is;
Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under section 302 and 380 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt or not?
On the Point :
9. Heard the arguments submitted on the side of the prosecution and on the side of the accused. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor also filed written arguments on behalf of the Prosecution.
10. This Court gave careful consideration to the rival contentions and examining the oral and documentary evidence in detail. The identity of the deceased is proved by the prosecution by examining P.Ws. 1 to 5. P.W.1/
….19.
Tmt.Hemalatha, daughter of the deceased, P.W.2/Tr.Kamalahashan, sons-in-law of the deceased, P.W.3/Tr.Ramachandran, husband of the deceased, P.W.4/Tmt.Jayashree and P.W.5/Tr.Govindasamy, brother of the deceased, have identified that the deceased as Tmt. Durga Devi. The accused has not denied the identify of the deceased during cross-examination of the above witnesses.
11. The fact that the deceased was residing alone at the place of occurrence is also spoken by these witnesses and proved.
Death and Cause of Death of the deceased:
12. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 would further establish that on
26.03.2014 when P.W.1 and P.W.2 came to the house of the deceased at 05.00 p.m. from Ranipet, they found the door opened and when they entered inside they saw the deceased pool of blood with injuries on the neck and dead. They also found the middle and ring fingers were amputated and ear lobes were severed and cut. Immediately, P.W.1 has lodged a complaint in Ex-P.1 and F.I.R,/Ex-P.15 is registered by 18.30 hours on 26.03.2014. Further, the fact that the deceased was found dead and seen by P.Ws. 1 and 2 is also proved by the evidence of P.W.3, husband of the deceased and P.W.4, another daughter of the deceased. P.W.5/Tr.Govindasamy, the brother of the deceased also corroborates the facts that upon receiving intimation, he went to the place of occurrence and
….20.
found the deceased murdered. P.W.12, the Investigating Officer has deposed about conducting inquest and preparing the inquest report in Ex-P.18 which corroborates the facts deposed by P.Ws 1 to 5 regarding the deceased being found death at her house by P.W.1 and P.W.2 on 26.03.2014 at about 05.00 p.m.
13. Further, the prosecution has proved the cause of death by examining the Medical Officer/P.W.11. P.W.11/Dr.Shankar, who conducted Post-mortem on the body of the deceased and given his opinion in Ex-P.12 Post-mortem Report that the deceased had died due to Shock and Hemorrhage due to cut injuries to the neck. The medical evidence and the nature of injuries found on the deceased would prove beyond any iota of doubt that the death is homicidal in nature. Hence from the above oral and medical evidence, the prosecution has proved the cause of death beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Further, the injuries found on the body of the deceased as well as the oral testimony of the witnesses would established that when the deceased was found death her right ear lobe was fully severed and middle and ring fingers were also fully amputated and found in the place of occurrence, which was brought along with the body at the time of Post-mortem. The Post-mortem report shows that the severed fingers matched with the right hand of the deceased. P.W.1 and the corroborating witnesses have categorically deposed before this Court that the jewels worn by the deceased were missing. Hence,
….21.
from the nature of the injuries and the missing of jewels it is established that it is a murder for gain.
Time of occurrence:
15. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that, the deceased was last seen alive by one Tr.Syed Ali, who resides in the upper floor of the same building at about 22.30 hours (10.30 p.m.). Thereafter the deceased was found dead, when P.W.1 saw on the next day on 26.03.2014 at 05.00 p.m. The
Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that though the said witness Tr.Syed Ali is not examined, the evidence of P.W.3, the husband of the deceased is sufficient to prove that he has last spoken with the deceased over phone on 25.03.2014 at about 07.00 p.m. So, only thereafter the occurrence would have taken place.
16. Per contra, the Learned counsel for the accused submitted that, as per the Post-mortem Report the body was decomposed and P.W.11, Dr.Shankar would admit that the death would have occurred between 36 to 72 hours prior to the Post-mortem. Hence, he submitted that the death should have occurred on 26.03.2014 sometime prior to 12.55 a.m, but, the complaint and the F.I.R. are lodged on 26.03.2014 at 6.30 p.m. after the long delay which would show that the complaint and FIR has been fabricated belatedly. He further submitted that
….22.
in the complaint and the FIR it is mentioned that the deceased was in the habit of lending money to others and therefore the Investigating Officer has not initiated his investigation in that direction and suddenly come up with the case by arresting the accused based on some secret information without disclosing as to how the involvement of the accused was found out. Hence he submitted that the time of death and delay in the FIR would raised suspicion in the prosecution case.
17. On examining the above rival contentions, no doubt the prosecution has not examined the witness Tr.Syed Ali who is said to have been seen the deceased alive lastly on 25.03.2014 at about 10.30 p.m. But there is evidence of P.W.3, the husband of the deceased who was categorically stated that he called his wife over phone and spoke with her on 25.03.2014 at about 07.00 p.m. and enquired about her health and taking tablets. This fact is not discredited in the cross-examination of P.W.3. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to prove the deceased was alive on 25.03.2014 at about 07.00 p.m. when P.W.3, the husband spoke with her. Hence the occurrence should have taken place only thereafter.
18. The medical evidence through P.W.11 and the Post-mortem report in Ex-P.12 would disclosed that Post-mortem was conducted on 27.03.2014 at 12.55 p.m. and the death should have occurred between 36 to 72 hours prior to post-mortem. Then, the death must have occurrence prior to 12.55 a.m. on
….23.
26.03.2014 and after P.W.3, the husband has lastly spoken to her at 7.00 p.m. on 25.03.2014, which falls with the time period of 36 to 72 hours. Only on the next date 26.03.2014 at about 5.00 p.m., P.W.1 and P.W.2 have gone to the house of deceased, where she was found dead. Hence the prosecution has proved the time of death both through oral and medical evidence that it should have occurred on the intervening night between 25.03.2014, 7.00 p.m. and 26.03.2014, 12.55 a.m.
19. The contention on the side of the accused regarding the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be sustained. Because, after seeing the deceased dead on
26.03.2014 at 5.00 p.m., the Complaint/Ex-P.1 is given at 6.30 p.m. and the
FIR/Ex-P.15 is lodged and reached the Court at 10.30 p.m. on the same date. In Ex-P.1 and Ex-P.15 it is clearly mentioned that the gold ornaments worn by the deceased were missing. Hence, this is no substantial delay in lodging the complaint that would raise any doubt.
20. Further, in the complaint it is mentioned that the deceased was doing money transactions. But, the investigation has revealed the involvement of the accused in the committing the crime. So, the absence of any materials to show that the investigation was not done in the direction that the deceased was doing money transaction cannot be ground to raise doubt upon the prosecution case.
….24.
Circumstantial Evidence – Arrest, confession and recovery:
21. Nextly, there is no direct eye witness for the occurrence. The prosecution relies upon circumstantial evidence.
22. According to the prosecution, on 27.03.2014, P.W.12, the
Investigating Officer got hint regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence. Upon arrest of the accused A1 and A2, they gave disclosure statements separately. M.O.1, Thaali chain with saradu, guntu, kasu, pottu and gnanakuzhai was seized from the possession of the accused-A2 and
M.O.3, 2 finger rings, M.O.4, a pair of golusu and M.O.5, toe rings and nose pin (not marked) were seized from the possession of the accused-A1, and M.O.2, ear ring set with doluk and matal was seized from pawn shop pursuant to the disclosure statement given by the accused-A1.
23. Further the prosecution relied upon the recovery of blood stained knife used in the commission of the offence (M.O.6 series). When the knife along with the blood stained cloths of the deceased were subjected to Forensic Science Examination, it is found that the knife seized from the accused-A1 was containing human blood group “AB” which is that of the blood group of the deceased found on the dresses of the deceased and the blood sample taken from the body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem.
….25.
24. Based on the above materials, the Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the arrest, confession and recovery made by P.W.12, the Investigating Officer is clearly and cogently corroborated and proved by the witnesses P.W.8 and P.W.9. Further it is submitted that one of the jewels (M.O.2) which was pawned by the wife of the accused-A1 at the pawn shop of P.W.10 is recovered from the pawn shop and this fact is also corroborated and proved by P.W.10. Hence, it is submitted that the prosecution has clearly proved the chain of circumstances against the accused that undoubtedly and unambiguously proves the culpability of the accused in committing the murder for gain. The Learned Special Prosecutor submitted that the accused has not given any explanation for the possession of the gold ornaments, that belongs to the deceased, which are identified and proved to be that of the deceased by her daughter P.W.1. Hence it is submitted that the charge against the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
25. Per contra, the Learned counsel for the accused raised serious objection for placing reliance upon the evidence produced on the side of the prosecution to prove the arrest and recovery. He submitted that there is material contradiction regarding the place where the knife was recovered. He contended that P.W.8 has stated that it is from S.S.Puram Canal (கபலசவபயச), whereas P.W.12 (IO) would state that he recovered from S.S.Puram Garbage Mound
….26.
(கபசளபபமட). He further submitted that P.W.8, Thiru.Vinoth, witness for the alleged arrest and recovery of knife and gold ornaments from accused-A1 has deposed that he had consume alcohol at that time and therefore he is unable to clearly state about the things recovered. Further, it is argued that P.W.8 has deposed that he has not seen the accused taking the knife and handing over and also the recovery of gold ornaments and that also there is contradiction regarding the jewels that was recovered.
26. Further the Learned counsel for the accused submitted that, P.W.9, who is the witness for the arrest and recovery of gold ornaments from the accused-A2 would state that he has not seen the condition the Thali chain, whether it was found intact or not, at the time of recovery. Therefore, the Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the alleged confession and recovery are doubtful.
27. Further, the Learned counsel for the accused submitted that, P.W.1 has given evidence that on the date of lodging the complaint i.e. on 26.03.2014 itself at 09.00 p.m. she was asked to come to the Police Station, where she was told that the accused were the culprits who committed murder of her mother and they showed the gold ornaments, which was identified by her. But, according to the Investigating Officer, the arrest has taken place only on 27.03.2014 on the next day. Hence he submitted the arrest itself becomes doubtful.
….27.
28. Further, the Learned counsel for the accused argued that the alleged recovery at the pawn shop is artificial and created. He further submitted that the Police has to give acknowledgment to the pawn shop at the time of making the recovery from the shop. He further contended that in Ex-P.11, there is no endorsement made by the Investigating Officer to show that such recovery was made at the pawn shop. Instead he would point out that in Ex-X1, xerox copy of the counter foil pawn slip/receipt, it is found. So, he submitted that has been subsequently created as if the Inspector of Police has made an endorsement for making the seizure. Therefore, he submitted that the pawn receipts have been later fabricated for the purpose of the case.
29. Further, the Learned counsel for the accused raised doubt upon the reliability of the Forensic evidence regarding the presence of blood in the knife. He submitted that as per the opinion of P.W.13/Scientific Officer in certain materials the blood group could not be concluded as it is disintegrated and the result was inconclusive. He submitted that the Forensic examination is done belatedly in the year 2015 and therefore it is difficult to identify the grouping of the blood after lapse of such time. Hence the result of the Forensic expert cannot be relied upon.
30. Based on the above contentions, the Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of
….28.
circumstances. He further submitted that as per the FIR suspicion was directed upon some person who were having money dealing with the deceased, which was omitted to be investigated and subsequently without any basis the accused has been made as culprits in this case. Hence, it is submitted on the side of the accused that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances and complicity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
31. On careful examination of the materials on record in the light of the above rival contentions, as mentioned supra the prosecution case heavily rests upon the arrest, disclosure statements made by the accused and the recovery of gold ornaments made pursuant thereto.
32. In a recent decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CDJ 2021 SC 884 Bijender @ Mandar Versus State of Haryana, when the question whether the conviction of an accused based on the disclosure statement and recovery can be sustained in the absence of corroborative evidence, it is held as below;
“15.The short question that falls for our consideration thus is whether the conviction of the Appellant on the strength of the purported disclosure statement (Ex. PD) and the recovery memo (Ex. PD/2), in the absence of any corroborative evidence, can sustain?
….29.
16.We have implored ourselves with abounding pronouncements of this Court on this point. It may be true that at times the Court can convict an accused exclusively on the basis of his disclosure statement and the resultant recovery of inculpatory material. However, in order to sustain the guilt of such accused, the recovery should be unimpeachable and not be shrouded with elements of doubt. (Vijay Thakur vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 609) We may hasten to add that circumstances such as (i) the period of interval between the malfeasance and the disclosure; (ii) commonality of the recovered object and its availability in the market; (iii) nature of the object and its relevance to the crime; (iv) ease of transferability of the object; (v) the testimony and trustworthiness of the attesting witness before the Court and/or other like factors, are weighty considerations that aid in gauging the intrinsic evidentiary value and credibility of the recovery. (See: Tulsiram Kanu vs. The State (AIR 1954 SC 1); Pancho vs. State of Haryana ((2011) 10 SCC 165); State of Rajasthan vs. Talevar & Anr ((2011) 11 SCC 666)and Bharama Parasram Kudhachkar vs. State of Karnataka ((2014) 14 SCC 431))
33. Thus, the recovery should be unimpeachable and not be shrouded with elements of doubt, the time period between the malfeasance and the disclosure, commonality and its availability in the market, nature of the object and its relevance to the crime, ease of transferability of the object and the testimony and trustworthiness of the attesting witness before the Court and/or other like factors, are to be taken in to consideration before gauging the intrinsic evidentiary value and credibility of the recovery.
….30.
34. On examining the evidence on record, P.W.12, Tr.Jeganathan is the Investigating Officer, who arrested the accused, recorded the confession and seized the gold ornaments. He has no previous enmity and vengeance against the accused to falsely foist the case against him. During cross-examination of P.W.12 the accused has not elicited any fact to show that the accused were previously known to the Investigating Officer (P.W.12) and that the Investigating Officer was having any vengeance against the accused. Therefore, there is no material to show that P.W.12 had any animosity to avenge the same against the accused by foisting a false case against them.
35. P.W.12 categorically stated that on 27.03.2014 based on information at about 1.15 p.m. he went in search of the accused-A2 (Karthick @ Kishnal Karthick), on seeing them he jumping from Perampur Bridge and tried to escape and sustained injuries. He further say the accused-A2 was treated at the hospital and then taken to the Police Station and at 15.20 hours the accused-A2
gave voluntary given a confession statement in the presence of P.W.9/Tr.Dhamalingam and Tr.Loganathan, wherein the accused has produced from his pant pocket and from his possession a gold ornaments M.O.1 namely, Thaali chain, saradu, gundu, kinni pottu, gnanagulal etc., which belongs to the deceased. P.W.9, Tr.Dharmalingam has clearly corroborated the arrest and recovery of gold ornaments from accused-A2. The disclosure is proved by
….31.
P.W.12 and P.W.9. Hence, the recovery of M.O.1 from the possession of the accused-A2 is proved with cogent evidence. The contention on the side of the accused that P.W.9 is unable to say whether the said Thaali saradu was intact of not at the time of recovery cannot be a reason to disbelieve his evidence. As rightly submitted by the Learned Special Public Prosecution in her reply, P.W.9 is examined on 09.12.2020 after a lapse of nearly 6 years. There is possibility of fading memory due to which P.W.9 is unable to state the condition of M.O.1 at the time of recovery. The most vital link is that P.W.1, the daughter of the deceased, has identified before this Court that M.O.1 belongs to her mother. Therefore, the prosecution has clearly established the recovery of M.O.1 Thaali saradu and its connections that belongs to the deceased from the possession of the accused-A2.
36. On the same day on 27.03.2014, P.W.12, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused-A1 at 17.15 hours, who also tried to escape and jumped from the Jeeva Bridge and sustained injuries, he was also given medical treatment and taken to Police Station. During enquiry, the accused-A1 also given a voluntary confession statement disclosing that he would produced the knife from S.S.Puram Garbage Mound (கபசளப பமட ) and further the gold ornaments and also about pawning the gold ornaments by his wife. Based on his disclosure statement P.W.12 has recovered M.O.6 (series) knives that was
….32.
identified and produced by the accused-A1 from S.S.Puram Garbage Mound (கபசளபபமட). The Learned counsel for the accused raised suspicion based on the discrepancy found in the evidence of P.W.8 Tr.Vinoth stating the places of recovery of knife as S.S.Puram Kalvai (Canal) and that he has not seen the accused taking the knife. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor in reply would contend that the occurrence has taken place in the year 2014 and P.W.8 was examined in the year 2020, after lapse of 6 years, so there is possibility of faded memory due to which such minor discrepancies are inevitable.
37. As rightly pointed out by the Learned Special Public Prosecutor, it is quite nature that due to lapse of time, due to fading human memory, such minor discrepancy are inevitable. P.W.8 has clearly identified the accused-A1 before this Court and he has also stated about the accused giving a confession statement and the recovery of two knives, gold jewels and the jewels from the pawn shop under the cover of mahazar in Ex-P.7 to Ex-P.9. Further, it is proved from the evidence of P.W.12 and P.W.8 that the accused has accompanied the investigating officer and P.W.8 at the time of seizure. The presence of accused is clearly spoken by P.W.8. Further, the accused-A1 has taken them to that place from where the knife was recovered. It is only based on the disclosure statement the Police came to know about that place, where the knife was found. It is not the evidence of P.W.8 that he was taken to the place in the absence of accused.
….33.
So, mere omission by P.W.8 to say that he didn’t see the accused picking the knife cannot discredit his evidence when he has clearly stated that knives were brought from the place shown by the accused and then shown to them. Further, the fact that the accused-A1 also took them to his house and then to the pawn shop, from where the gold ornaments were identified and produced by the accused are materially corroborated by P.W.8. Therefore, the discrepancies found in the evidence of P.W.8 cannot be considered as material discrepancies to totally discredit or disregard his evidence. Though P.W.8 says he had consumed alcohol at that time, he has denied that he was fully drunk. There is no material to show that P.W.8 was under the influence of alcohol and was unable to understand the happenings around him. In fact, the evidence of P.W.8 corroborated the evidence of P.W.12 (IO) in all material particulars with respect to the arrest, confession and recovery in a cogent and clear manner. Hence the contention on the side of the accused that the evidence of P.W.8 cannot be relied upon to prove the prosecution case cannot be sustained. The testimony and trustworthiness of the attesting witness before the Court is established by the prosecution to prove the disclosure and recovery from accused-A1.
38. The vital link between M.O.1 to M.O.5 the gold ornaments and the nose pin, which were recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement given by the accused-A1 and the occurrence is established through P.W.1. who has
….34.
identified that M.Os. 1 to 5 belongs to the deceased. Hence the recovery of M.Os. 1 to 5 pursuant to the disclosure statements given by the accused gains significance to establish the complicity and involvement of the accused in the committing the crime.
39. Further, the disclosure statement given by the accused led to the shop of P.W.10/Tr.Prakash, the pawn shop owner, where M.O.2 is pawned in the name of the wife of the accused-A1. P.W.10’s evidence is very clear and cogent and unperturbed to prove the fact that the accused-A1 along with his wife came and pledged the ear rings with dolak and mattal for Rs.21,000/-. ExP.11, the pawn receipt/slip is be produced for proving this fact. The accused suspecting the correctness and genuineness of the pawn receipt (Ex-P.11) filed a petition to send for the counter foil of the pawn receipt in Ex-P.11 along with book. The same was allowed and P.W.10 produced the Pawn receipt book containing the counter foil for Ex-P.11. The xerox copy of the pawn receipt counter foil in Ex.X1 which would clearly established the genuineness and correctness of the original pawn receipt/Ex-P.11, and that it is not a fabricated document.
40. The Learned counsel for the accused raised suspicion that the
Investigating Officer not given any acknowledgment for making the seizure in
Ex-P.11. One can infer that Ex-P.11 is the original pawn receipt that is given to
….35.
the accused at the time of pledging the jewel. Based on the disclosure statement, the Investigating Officer has gone to the pawn shop and recovered the jewels from the possession of P.W.10 as identified by the accused-A1. At that time, the Investigating Officer (P.W.12) has given an acknowledgment in the counter foil of the pawn receipt (Ex-X.1) by affixing his seal. The same cannot be found in the original receipt in Ex-P.11, because it would be in the possession of the accused. Therefore, it is clearly found from Ex-X.1 that at the time of seizure P.W.12 (I.O.) has given necessary acknowledgment to P.W.10 for seizing the gold jewels (M.O.2). During cross-examination P.W.10 would clearly stated that “இதபபபனசற நளக ளகபசபறசறகனபலச தனகயபக கடதமச நபனச சகபடபசபத இலளச ல எனசறமச பபபலலசபரமச நளக ளகபசபறசறகயதறசக கடதமச சகபடபசபதகலசளல எனசறபலமச சபகதபனச. சபடசசக தபனபக நளக வபஙகசகயதறசக சலலச பபபடசட ளகசயபபசபமச
வபஙகசகயகரபசபதபக கறககறபபச . Further P.W.10 has clearly explained why he has cancelled the counter foil of the pawn receipt. He has stated that the gold was not available after the seizure made by the Police, so, for the purpose of accounting, he has cancelled the pawn receipt. Therefore, there is no sufficient material to discredit or disbelieve the evidence of P.W.10. Hence the evidence of P.W.10 is credible and sufficient to establish that the accused-A1 has pledged the M.O.2, gold ornaments that belongs to the deceased and the same is recovered pursuant to the disclosure statement given by the accused-A1.
….36.
41. One other factor to be considered is the period of interval between the malfeasance and the disclosure. The occurrence has taken place on the intervening night between 25.03.2014 and 26.03.2014. The FIR is lodged at 6.30 p.m. on 26.03.2014. The accused are arrested and the recoveries are made on the next date 27.03.2014 within 24 hours after lodging the FIR. P.W.1 would state that she went to the police station and identified the gold jewels of the deceased. It is contended on the side of the accused that P.W.1 has deposed that on 26.03.2014 after lodging the complaint she was informed at 9.00 p.m. about the recoveries and she went to the Police station and identified the same, so the entire recovery becomes doubtful. But, on carefully perusing the evidence of P.W.1, she has corrected her version during cross-examination. She would clearly say that police showed the jewels on 27.03.2014. She would further add that due to tension she mistakenly told that on the same date of complaint she was asked to come to the police station to identify the jewels. The fact the they were called to identify the jewels on 27.03.2014 is also spoken and corroborated by P.W.2, who has deposed that on 27th police called him and his wife (P.W.1) to come to the police station and when they went there, the police showed the jewels which was identified by P.W.1.
42. It is argued on the side of the accused that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that they got the photos showing the deceased wearing the jewels
….37.
recovered, which is not produced, so, the prosecution has not proved that the jewels belongs to the deceased. P.W.1 and P.W.2 has clearly stated that they have photos and if necessary they will produced it. This would show that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are very confident and rest assured that M.Os. 1 to 5 belongs to the deceased. The deceased being the mother of P.W.1, they would be keen to see that the real culprit is punished. There is no necessity for them to falsely identify the jewels. Moreover, the details of missing of the gold ornaments was mentioned at the first instance itself, while lodging the complaint and FIR. P.W.1 being the daughter of the deceased it is highly possible that she is aware of the jewels that belongs to the deceased. Hence, mere omission to produce the photos of the deceased wearing the jewels cannot be a sole ground to reject the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Hence, on careful examination of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, it inspires the confidence of this Court to prove the identity of the gold ornaments M.Os. 1 to 5 and that it belongs to the deceased.
43. One other vital link that establish the reliability of the disclosure statement and recovery from the accused-A1 is the seizure of the knives/M.O.6(Series). The knives (M.O.6 series) along with the M.Os. 7 to 11, the blood stained cement floor from the scene of occurrence and the blood stained cloths are subjected to forensic examination. Further, during postmortem the gaada cloth with blood stain taken from the deceased is sent to
….38.
forensic examination. Ex-P.20 the serology report given by P.W.13 would prove that the blood group of the deceased is of “AB”.
44. Ex-P.13/Biology report would prove that blood was detected in M.Os. 7, 9 to 11 and in the knives (M.O.6 series). Ex-P.21, the serology report for the examination on the material objects M.Os. 7, 9 to 11 and the knives (M.O.6), would prove that human blood with “AB” group is detected in one of the knife in M.O.6, that was seized pursuant to the disclosure statement given by the accused-A1. Thus, the blood stains found in the knife match with the blood group of the deceased, which is a very vital link to prove the complicity of the accused-A1 in committing the crime. The contention on the side of the accused that the forensic report is not reliable as the examination is done after delay and in some of the items i.e., inskirt, nightie and another knife, the blood grouping is not ascertained would cause doubt upon the reliability of the forensic report cannot be sustained. P.W.13 has clearly stated that it is possible to ascertain the blood group of the samples if it is preserved properly. The failure to identify the blood group in the inskirt, nightie and another knife as it is disintegrated and the result of the grouping test is inconclusive cannot be ground to disbelieve or reject the forensic examination in it entirety.
45. In the case of R. Shaji v. State of Kerala, (2013) 14 SCC 266, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed:
….39.
“31. A failure by the serologist to detect the origin of the blood due to disintegration of the serum does not mean that the blood stuck on the axe could not have been human blood at all. Sometimes it is possible, either because the stain is insufficient in itself, or due to haematological changes and plasmatic coagulation, that a serologist may fail to detect the origin of the blood in question. However, in such a case, unless the doubt is of a reasonable dimension which a judicially conscientious mind may entertain with some objectivity, no benefit can be claimed by the accused in this regard. Once the recovery is made in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by the accused, the matching or non-matching of blood group(s) loses significance.”
46. Further in CDJ 2019 SC 875 (Balwan Singh & Another Vs. The
State of Chhattisgarh & Another)
“12. The cases discussed above highlight the burden that the prosecution would ordinarily have to discharge, depending on the other facts and circumstances of the case, for the evidence relating to recovery to be considered against the accused. At the same time, as mentioned above, we are conscious of the fact that it may not always be possible to inextricably link the bloodstains on the items seized in recovery to the blood of the deceased, due to the possibility of disintegration of bloodstains on account of the timelapse in carrying out the recovery. For this reason, in Prabhu Dayal v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 8 SCC 127, where one of us (Mohan M. Shantanagoudar J.) had the occasion to author the judgment, this Court, relying on Teja Ram (supra), had held that the failure to determine the
….40.
blood group of the bloodstains collected from the scene of offence would not prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. In Prabhu Dayal case (supra), although the FSL report could not determine the blood group of the bloodstains on account of disintegration, the report clearly disclosed that the bloodstains were of human origin, and the chain of circumstantial evidence was completed by the testimonies of the other witnesses as well as the reports submitted by the Ballistic Expert and the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the weapon used to commit murder.
13. From the aforementioned discussion, we can summarise that if the recovery of bloodstained articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, and if the investigation was not found to be tainted, then it may be sufficient if the prosecution shows that the blood found on the articles is of human origin though, even though the blood group is not proved because of disintegration of blood. The Court will have to come to the conclusion based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and there cannot be any fixed formula that the prosecution has to prove, or need not prove, that the blood groups match.”
47. Thus, applying the above ratio to the fact on hand, mere failure to ascertain the blood group in some of the items due to disintegration or otherwise cannot be a ground to reject the forensic report in its entirety. In fact, Ex-P.13 and Ex-P.21 would prove that human blood was detected in both the knives (M.O.6 series) and in one of the knife the blood group ‘AB’ tally with the blood of the deceased. In the absence of any material to show that the investigation
….41.
was tainted, the prosecution has overwhelmingly established the link between the recovery and the crime.
48. Therefore, applying the ratio in CDJ 2021 SC 884 Bijender @ Mandar Versus State of Haryana mentioned supra to the case on hand, the prosecution has established that the recovery is unimpeachable and it is not shrouded with elements of doubt. The vital and complete chain of link between the disclosure and recovery with the commission of the crime are sufficiently proved by the prosecution without any break. Hence, disclosure and seizure from the accused are sufficient circumstantial evidence to form the basis for conviction.
49. From the above discussion the seizure of M.Os. 1 to 5, the gold ornaments that belongs to the deceased from the possession of the accused is proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no proper explanation putforth by the accused explaining how they came into possession of the gold ornaments that belongs to the deceased. In fact, accused-A1 would state during his examination under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. that the police took him at the time the knives and jewels were recovered. So, his presence at the time of recovery is proved. P.W.12 (IO) has got no axe to grind against the accused.
….42.
50. It is observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), (2003) 5 SCC 291 that, the testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses, their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not proper judicial approach to disbelieve and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down.
51. Further in the case of State Government of NCT Delhi vs. Sunil, 2001 (1) SCC 652=2000 AIR SC 4398 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that;
“20. Hence it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the investigating officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be attested by the independent witnesses. Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any article it is open to the investigating officer to take the signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The court has to consider the evidence of the investigating officer who
….43.
deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth.
21. We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of thepolice officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during the British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hangover persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions.
22. In this case, the mere absence of independent witnesswhen PW 17 recorded the statement of A-2 Ramesh and the knickers were recovered pursuant to the said statement, is
….44.
not a sufficient ground to discard the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.”
52. Thus applying the above propositions, the evidence of P.W.12, the investigating officer is not discredited in any manner. His evidence is corroborated in material particulars by the independent witnesses P.W.8 and P.W.9. Further, soon after lodging the FIR, on the next date the accused are arrested and the properties are seized pursuant to the disclosure statements. Hence, considering all the material placed on records, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has established the complicity and culpability of the accused in committing the crime beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence the point for determination is answered in the affirmative.
53. Result: In the result the accused A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offences under Section 302 and 380 I.P.C.
//Dictated to the steno-typist, transcribed and typed by her in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 3rd day of March 2022//
Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….45.
S.C No. 106/2018 ( State by The Inspector of Police Vs. Karthick and another)
Examination u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C. Date: 03.03.2022 at 11.00 a.m.
54. After pronouncing the verdict of guilty in the open Court, the accused were examined under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. regarding the question of sentence. The accused pleaded as below;
A1- சநசபதகமச அடபசபளடயகலச அளழததச சச சசனசறபபசகளச .
A2- சநசபதகமச அடபசபளடயகலச அளழததச சச சசனசறபபசகளச .
55. Recorded the answers given by the accused. For hearing both side on question of sentence and for orders on sentence, the matter is adjourned to
2.30 P.M. today.
Pronounced in open Court on this 03rd day of March, 2022.
Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.
….46.
ORDER OF SENTENCE IN S.C. No. 106/2018 – DATED: 03.03.2022 AT
2.30 P.M.
56. Heard both sides on the question of sentence. Upon considering the contentions and the plea of the accused and the facts and circumstances of this case, the offence is of grave nature. The aggravating circumstances overpower the mitigating circumstances. The deceased aged about 52 years, who was residing alone is murdered in a brutal and barbaric manner for gain. In fact, the accused-A1 having acquainted with the deceased by helping her, gained her confidence and misusing the same, entered inside the house and engaged in such brutal act along with the accused-A2 to murder and take away the gold ornaments from the deceased. It will knock the conscious of the society when a known person commits such brutal act. However, the mitigating circumstances that the accused A1 and A2 are young men aged 24 and 23 years respectively at the time of occurrence and they remorse for their ghastly act and the probability of their reformation in the long run are the circumstances favoring the accused. Further, there is no report of any previous bad antecedents which also weighs importance while deciding the question of sentence. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence only. The prosecution has not placed on record
….47.
any material to show the improbability of reformation and rehabilitation. Hence, applying the law laid down in CDJ 2018 SC 1277 = 2019 AIR(SC) 1 (Rajendra
Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State Of Maharashtra), to the facts and circumstances and considering the probability for reformation and rehabilitation, this Court is of the view that this case would not fall under the category of rarest of rare for imposing capital sentence.
57. Accordingly, the accused A1 and A2 are convicted under Sections
302 and 380 of IPC and the accused A1 and A2 each are sentenced as below;
(i) The accused A1 and A2 to undergo IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE
each and to pay a Fine of Rs.10000 /- each, in default to undergo
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR SIX MONTHS each under
Section 302 IPC;
(ii) The accused A1 and A2 to undergo RIGOROUS
IMPRISONMENT FOR SEVEN YEARS each , and to pay of Fine of Rs.5000/- each, in default to undergo THREE MONTHS Rigorous Imprisonment each, under Section 380 IPC;
….48.
(iii) The period already undergone by the accused-A1 from 27.03.2014 to 27.06.2014 and accused-A2 from 27.03.2014 to 03.07.2014 shall be set off u/s. 428 Cr.P.C.;
(iv) The sentence imposed shall run concurrently; (v) Total fine Rs.30,000/-.
Order under Section 452 Cr.P.C.:
58. The prosecution has marked M.Os. 1 to 11. Out of which M.Os. 1to 5 and an unmarked nose pin are already given interim custody to P.W.1, Tmt.Helmalatha. The same shall be retained by P.W.1 and the bond executed by her shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal time or if appeal is filed, after the disposal of the appeal. M.Os. 6 to 11 are ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time or if appeal is filed, after the disposal of the appeal.
Compensation Order U/s 357 or 357A Cr.P.C.:
59. Perused the oral and documentary evidence. The deceased
Tmt.Durga Devi is the mother of P.W.1/Tmt.Hemalatha and
P.W.4/Tmt.Jayashree and wife of P.W.3/Tr.Ramachandran. The deceased is
….49.
brutally murder for gain and a serious grave offences is committed against her. Due to the death of the deceased, her family member have been put to severe mental and physical trauma. P.W.1 and P.W.4 are lost the love and affection of their mother and P.W.3 lost his life partner. Hence to meet the ends of justice it is necessarily to restitute their loss and injury suffered by them by means of fair and reasonable sufficient.
60. Hence, out of the fine amount of Rs.15,000/- each paid by
the accused-A1 and A2, a sum of Rs.10,000/- each out of the fine amount paid by accused A1 and A2 are ordered to be paid as compensation to P.W.1Tmt.Hemalatha, P.W.3-Tr.Ramachandran and P.W.4-Tmt.Jayashree, in equal proportion, under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C.
61. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of
the view that the compensation awarded under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C. is only a pittance and not adequate to fully compensate them. Hence, it is necessary to recommend to The District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to conduct enquiry and award adequate compensation to P.W.1, P.W.3 and
P.W.4, out of the Victim Compensation Fund created under Section 357A(1) Cr.P.C.
62. In fine, out of the fine of Rs.15,000/- each paid by the accused A1 and A2, Rs.10,000/- each (Total Rs.20,000/-) is ordered to be paid as
….50.
compensation under Section 357(1)(c) Cr.P.C., to P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 in equal proportion. The compensation amount is to be paid after the expiry of appeal time or after the disposal of the appeal, if any.
63. Further, recommendation is made under Section 357A(3) Cr.P.C.
to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai, to award adequate compensation to P.W.1-Tmt-Hemalatha, P.W.3-Tr.Ramachandran and P.W.4-Tmt.Jayashree, after due enquiry, out of the Victim Compensation Fund created U/s 357A(1) Cr.P.C.
64. The Copy of this Judgment is ordered to be sent to the District Legal Services Authority, City Civil Court, Chennai for necessary enquiry and awarding compensation under Section 357(A)(1) CrPC out of the Victim Compensation Fund.
//Directly typed to my dictation in Computer, printed out, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 3rd day of March, 2022//

Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai. List of Witnesses examined:
On the side of the prosecution:-

….51.
P.W.1 :: Tmt. Hemalatha (Daughter of the deceased)
P.W.2 :: Tr. Kamalahasan (Son­in­law of the deceased)
P.W.3 :: Tr. Ramachandran (Husband of the deceased)
P.W.4 :: Tmt. Jeya Shree (Daughter of the deceased)
P.W.5 :: Tr. Govinthaswamy (Brother of the deceased)
P.W.6 :: Tr. Joshuva
P.W.7 :: Tr. Jafar
P.W.8 :: Tr. Vinoth
P.W.9 :: Tr. Dharmalingam
P.W.10 :: Tr. Prakash
P.W.11 :: Dr. S. Shankar (Post-Mortem Doctor)
P.W.12 :: Tr. Jeganathan (Investigation officer)
P.W.13 :: Tmt. Bhavani (Scientific Officer)
On the side of the accused: Nil
List of Exhibits Marked
On the side of the prosecution:
Exhibit Date Particulars
Ex-P. 1 26.03.2014 Complaint given by P.W.1
Ex-P. 2 26.03.2014 P.W.6’s Signature in the Seizure Mahazar
Ex-P. 3 26.03.2014 P.W.6’s Signature in the Observation Mahazar
Ex-P. 4 26.03.2014 P.W.7’s Signature in the Observation Mahazar
Ex-P. 5 26.03.2014 P.W.7’s Signature in the Seizure Mahazar
Ex-P.6 27.03.2014 Admissible portion of the confession statement given by accused­A1
….52.
Ex-P.7 27.03.2014 Seizure Mahazar (2 Knives with iron and wooden handle)
Ex-P.8 27.03.2014 Seizure Mahazar (Small nose stud­1 pair, ring with elephant hair­1, gold Kambi ring­1, Silvar golusu­1 pair and 3 metti)
Ex-P.9 27.03.2014 Seizure Mahazar (Kammal Dolak with mattal­ 1 pair)
Ex-P.10 27.03.2014 P.W.9’s signature in the confession statement given by the accused-A2
Ex-P.11 26.03.2014 Pawn Receipt
Ex-P.12 27.03.2014 Post-Mortem Certificate (PM.No.721/14)
Ex-P.13 09.06.2014 Biology Report (T.No.2981/2014)
Ex-P.14 28.04.2014 Toxicology Report (Tox.H. No.733/2014)
Ex-P.15 26.03.2014 First Information Report (FIR)(C 4457754)
Ex-P.16 26.03.2014 Rough Sketch
Ex-P.17 26.03.2014 Seizure Mahazar (Blood stained cement floor piece and sample cement floor piece)
Ex-P.18 27.03.2014 Inquest Report
Ex-P.19 27.03.2014 Seizure Mahazar (Blood stained Inskirt­1, Bra­1 and Nightie­1)
Ex-P.20 24.11.2015 Serology Report (T.No.2767/2014)
Ex-P.21 24.02.2015 Serology Report (T.No.7600/2014)
Ex-X1 26.03.2014 True copy of the Pawn receipt
On the side of accused: NIL
List of Material Objects Marked:
….53.
On the side of Prosecution:
Exhibit No. Particulars
M.O.1 Gold Thaali Saradu with its connection Kundu, Kasu and Gnanakuzhai (series)
M.O.2 Gold Kammal Dolak with mattal­ 1 pair (series)
M.O.3 2 Gold Rings (series)
M.O.4 Golusu- 1 fair (series)
M.O.5 3 Metti (series)
M.O.6 Blood stained 2 Knives with iron and wooden handle
M.O.7 Blood stained cement floor piece
M.O.8 Sample cement floor piece
M.O.9 Blood stained Inskirt-1
M.O.10 Blood stained Bra-1
M.O.11 Blood stained gray colour Nightie-1
On the side of the Accused: Nil
Sd/- T.H. Mohammed Farooq,
Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai. // TRUE COPY //

Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram,
Chennai.

….54.