http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  182 of 2005

PETITIONER: Krishnamoorthy & Anr

RESPONDENT: State by Inspector of  Police & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/03/2007

BENCH: Tarun Chatterjee & R. V. Raveendran

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

RAVEENDRAN, J.

       This appeal  is preferred by Accused 3 & 4 against the judgment dated  17.6.2004 of the Madras High Court dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 273 of  2001 filed by accused 1 to 4 against the judgment dated 28.2.2001 passed by  the Addl. Sessions Judge, Vellore in Sessions Case No. 187 of 1998.  

2.      The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Dhanabagyam, a  resident of Thippasamudram Village, went to her groundnut field on  5.10.1996. Mahadevan  (PW-2) who was doing some work in a nearby field  heard some noise in Dhanabagyam’s field and saw A-1 (Vijayan) running  from that field. PW-6 (Manavalan) who also belonged to Thippasamudram  village, while going towards  Kuchipalyam on a bicycle at about 12 Noon,   saw two persons, each holding a stone running from east to west. He also  saw two others running from West to East. At that time, he did not know that  any mishap had occurred. At about 2.30 p.m., Suresh Kumar (PW-1), son of  the deceased, went to the field with food for his mother. As he did not find  her, he shouted her name and searched for her. As he could not find her, he  came back to the house and searched for her. Thereafter around 4 to 4.30  p.m., he went back to the field along with one Padma (who was from the  neighbouring field) and again searched for her mother. Then he found his  mother lying dead on her back in the portion of the field containing some  Toor (Thuvarai) plants. He noticed head injuries and blood oozing out. He  also noticed that her Mangalsutra and ear-rings were missing. The bruise  marks caused by snatching/pulling the Mangalsutra were visible on her neck  and her ear was torn. He informed the incident to the villagers and thereafter  the Pallikonda Police Station. On the strength of the complaint (Ex.P.1), the  Inspector of Police, Pallikonda - Jothimani (PW-13) registered the First  Information Report and took up investigation. In the presence of PW-3 and  Subramani, he prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P.2 and rough sketch  (Ex.P.22). Inquest Report was prepared as per Ex.P.31 and statements of  some witnesses were also recorded. In the meanwhile, at about 5 p.m., while  returning to the village, PW-6 learnt about the incident and saw the body.  PW-6 went to Bangalore on the same day, and returned after four days and  was questioned by the police. He told them about the four persons he saw on  the day of the incident near the field of the deceased and that he knew them  as they were from the neighbouring village.  

3.      Dr. Chandra (PW-8) attached to Government Hospital , Vellore,  performed autopsy on the dead body on 6.10.1996 and recorded the  following injuries on the body of Dhanabagyam : -  

(1)     A lacerated bone deep wound extending from the left parietal  region upto the right ear - 15 cm x 2.3 cm.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

(2)     A lacerated bone-deep wound over the occipital region on the left  side 4 cm x 2 cm.

(3)     A lacerated wound on the left side of the neck 4 cm x 1 cm.  (4)     A lacerated wound on the back of the left ear 2 cm x 1 cm.  (5)     Multiple irregular wounds on both the earlobes.  (6)     Ligature mark 3 mm breadth around the neck with small multiple  irregular abrasions over the back of the neck and contusion of the  tissues underneath. Thyroid bone normal.  

He also found blood clots present beneath the scalp and a linear fracture 2.5  cms over the left parietal bone; and on opening the skull, he found blood  clots over the surface. PW-13 issued a post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.18) and  opined that Dhanabhagyam had died of shock and haemorrhage due to head  injuries.  

4.      On 9.10.1996, PW-13 examined PW.1 and recorded his statement in  regard to the details of the missing jewels \026 that is ’Mangalasutra’ (with one  golden piece, one pair of gold quarter coins and four silver coins) and ear  studs. On 8.12.1996, A-3 surrendered before Venkatesan -- Village  Administrative Officer, North Virinjipuram (PW-4) and made an extra- judicial confession that he and other accused robbed Dhanabagyam and  killed her and shared the jewels. PW-4 recorded the said confession (Ex.P.4)  and produced A-3 before the Inspector of Police (PW-13). A-3 produced  four silver coins (MO2). PW-13 recovered the silver coins under mahazar  Ex.P6 and recorded his confession. Ex.P.33 is the admissible portion of the  confessional statement of A-3.  

5.      Thereafter, on the information furnished by A-3, PW-13 and PW-4  along with A-3 went for recovering the stones used in the offence. On the  way, A-3 identified A-1 and A-4 near the Forest Check Post, who were  arrested by PW-13. A-1 and A-4 gave confessional statements voluntarily  which were recorded as per Ex. P4 and P8 respectively. In pursuance of it,  they were taken to their houses. A-1 produced the ear studs (MO3), which  was recovered  under mahazar Ex.P.10. A-4 produced the two gold coins  (MO.4) from his house which were recovered under a mahazar Ex.P.11. At  about 2 p.m., A-1, A-3 and A-4 identified A-2 who was arrested by PW-13.  A-2 also gave a confessional statement voluntarily and admissible portion  thereof was marked as Ex.P.9. A-2 produced the Mangalsutra Golden  attachment (MO1) which was recovered by PW-13 under Ex. P-12. A-2 and  A-3 also showed the stones (MO.7 and MO.8) used by them against the  deceased from near a cinema-theatre which was recovered under mahazars --  (Ex.P.13 and P.14).  

6.      On 27.12.1996, M. Vijayan, Judicial Magistrate (PW-7) conducted  test identification parade in which PW-2 and PW-6 identified the accused.  On 13.12.1996, PW-1 and one Doraiswamy identified MOs. 1 to 4 recovered  from the accused. PW-14 the successor of PW-13 took up further  investigation  and recorded the statements of some more persons. A final  report was filed under section 302 read with 34 and 392 read with 397 IPC  against all the four accused.  

7.      The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-14, marked Ex. P1 to P33 and  exhibited MOS.1 to 13. On completion of evidence, the statements of A-1 to  A-4 were recorded under section 313 Cr.PC. Accused did not examine any  witnesses but marked Exs.D1 and D2. The trial court by judgment dated  28.2.2001 found all the accused guilty and convicted them. It held that A-2  and A-3 attacked the deceased with stones and all four accused participated  in the robbery. The trial court convicted A-2 and A-3 under section 302 IPC  and section 392 read with 397 IPC and sentenced them to  life imprisonment  under section 302, and 7 years RI under Section 392 read with 397 IPC, in  addition to fine. The trial court also convicted A-1 and A-4 under section  302 read with 34 IPC and section 392 IPC, and sentenced them to life  imprisonment under section 302 read with section 34, and 5 years RI under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

section 392 apart from fine. All the four accused appealed and the High  Court dismissed the appeal affirming the decision of the trial court. Feeling  aggrieved, A-3 and A-4 (Krishnamoorthy and Murugan) have filed this  appeal by special leave.

8.      The trial court has considered and analysized the evidence  exhaustively. The High Court has also  examined the evidence in detail.  There are no eye-witnesses to the crime. The case against the accused solely  rests on circumstantial evidence. The trial court and High Court held that the  evidence shows a complete unbroken chain of circumstances unerringly  leading to an inescapable conclusion that the accused 1 to 4 had committed  the crime. The circumstances were :-  

(a)     The dead body of Dhanabagyam being found in the field with head  injuries, her jewels having been robbed.  

(b)     The ligature marks around the neck with multiple irregular  abrasions showed that her Mangalsutra had been snatched from her  neck. The abrasions/tearing of the earlobes showed her ear-studs  being robbed. Her head injuries made it clear that she had died of  homicidal violence.  

(c)     All the accused were last seen near the filed of the deceased (scene  of occurrence) by PW-6 and one of the accused was also seen near  the field by PW-2. The accused were identified in the test  identification parade conducted by PW-7 (Judicial Magistrate).  

(d)     On the information furnished by PW-2 and PW-6 who knew the  accused the police were searching for the accused who belonged to  a nearby village. As a consequence of the pressure built on account  of such search, A-3 surrendered before PW-4 and gave an extra- judicial confession. On his identification, A-1 and A-4 were also  arrested and they also gave their voluntary confessional statements  and on their information, A-3 was also arrested and he also gave  his voluntary confessional statement.  

(e)     On information furnished by the accused, the stones used in the  murder and jewels robbed from the deceased were recovered,  which were identified by PW-1 (son of the deceased).  

9.      From this chain of circumstances, both courts have held that only  possible conclusion is that A-1 to 1-4 had committed the murder of the  deceased. Though the confessions made to Police are to be excluded and  though extra-judicial confession to others in its very nature, is a weak piece  of evidence, when examined with reference to the other proved  circumstances, and the recoveries made on the information furnished by the  accused, the guilt of the accused stood established. We find no infirmity in  the reasoning or conclusions of the trial court or the High Court.  

10.     The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants  (A-3 and A-4) is that there is no direct evidence to connect them with the  incident and the offence. As noticed above, the prosecution case is not based  on direct evidence of eye-witnesses but purely on circumstantial evidence.  The accused 3 and 4 as also the other two accused, are linked to the offence  by their being sighted in the field of the deceased on the day of the incident  and on account of the recovery of the jewels of the deceased as also recovery  of the stones used for committing the offence, on the information furnished  by them.  11.     Learned counsel for the appellants next contended that the question of  PW-2 identifying all four accused did not arise. She pointed out that PW-2  had stated in his examination-in-chief that on the day of the incident, he only  saw A-1 (Vijayan) running away from the field of the deceased. In his cross- examination, he admitted that even in his statement under section 161  Cr.PC, he had stated that he had seen only Vijayan (A-1) running away. It is  true that if PW-2 had seen only A1 near the scene of incident, the question

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

of his identifying all the four accused in the test identification parade is  unexplained. But the fact remains that PW-6 has clearly stated that he saw  all the four accused on the date of the incident running from the field of  deceased and he had informed the police that he had seen them on the date  of the incident. He also identified them in the test identification parade.  Therefore, the discrepancy in the evidence of PW-2 by itself, will not affect  the case of the prosecution. Nor is it sufficient to displace the chain of  irrefutable inferences flowing from the chain of circumstances established  by evidence.   

12.     The learned counsel for the appellants lastly contended that PW-1 son  of the deceased had not given description of the jewels in the FIR. As rightly  noted by the High Court, PW-1 who found the dead body of his mother,  ran  to the police station and reported the death and the fact that the jewels were  missing. The mere fact that he did not refer to the jewels in detail in the FIR,  will not in any way affect the identification of the jewellery seized from the  accused as those belonging to his mother. A faint attempt was made to  contend that the jewels were not of such great value as to lead to murder. It  is submitted that the accused were falsely implicated. It is not possible to say  that unless the jewels are of a particular value, robbery and murder would  not be committed. There is also no apparent reason for the Police to falsely  implicate the accused.       13.     No other contention is urged. We find no reason to interfere with the  judgment of the High Court affirming the well reasoned judgment of the trial  court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.