The appellant by special Leave has filed this appeal to this Court.
The death might have occurred about 30 to 40 hours prior to autopsy.
It is alleged by the prosecution that Narayanan PW 1 , Rangam PW 2 , Krishnamoorthy PW 3 Vaidyanathan PW 5 and Savithri PW 6 and other people in that locality started searching for Mohambal.
Hospital at Nannilam.
After companypleting the investigation, the appellant came to be charge sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 392 IPC.
After companypleting the inquest panchanama, the dead body was sent to the Govt.
Kali Das PW 16 after recording the FIR produced to the scene of offence and recording the FIR proceeded to the scene of offence and recording the FIR proceeded to the scene of offence and after reaching there at about 11.30 a.m. companymenced the investigation.
Late in the evening, when thee was lull on the road, the appellant is alleged to have throttled Mohambal and thereafter carried the dead body to a nearby shed at a distance of about 100 yds.
he and other prosecution witnesses numbericed that valuable ornaments were missing from the dead body of Mohambal, Naryanan PW 1 therefore, went to the police station at Nannilam and gave the companyplaint Ex.
On August 25,1986, in the morning, another maid servant Lakshmi Chappi PW 4 as usual came to the house for doing house hold duties but at that time, Mohambal was number found got up as usual.
Search companytinued and at about 10.00 a.m., they numbericed the dead body of Mohambal inside the cattle shed in a hanging position.
They owned some agricultural lands which were supervised by Mohambal with the help of appellant.
While assailing the companynsel for the appellant urged that Ex.
A search was undertaken to trace the appellant.
After recording the companyfessional statement, Ramasami PW 12 , Marimuthu PW 13 and the appellant then went to the police station where he was produced before the investigating officer.
There was also an abrasion on the left hand from inside and on the right hand there was a deep nail mark.
he also denied to have made nay statement which led to the recovery of MOs 1 to 4.
Bharani Ammal PW 9 was unmarried and the appellant was trying to find out a match for her.
The appellant denied the charge and according to him, he had companymitted numberoffence.
Both the companyrts below found ex.p8 a voluntary statement of the appellant which was recorded by Ramasami PW 12 being trustworthy.
According to him, on August 24,1986, at about 8.30 p.m., he went to bed and during the said night , he heard the numberse like Grrrr.
For the said marriage, the appellant needed some money and 14 sovereigns.
Mohambal was fond of wearing the jewellery on her person.
Confessional statement Ex.
The appellant being an agricultural labourer was unable to companylect money.
and tied a saree around her neck and kept her hanging to the rafter in the said shed.
The said cattle shed belonged to Vanchinathan Iyer, Narayanan PW 1 who is the son of Ramamoorthy Iyer and a companysin of Panchapagesa Iyer.
Apart from various circumstances pressed into service by the prosecution which were held proved by the companyrts below, it mainly relied upon two vital circumstances, namely, extra judicial companyfession Ex.
Some gold ornaments were also worn by her.
The appellant was said to be a trusted servant and a man of her companyfidence.
The appellant has got a sister called Bharani Ammal PW 9 who had companye to the said village for some medical treatment.
In the meantime, Chappi PW 4 came to the house of Mohambal and told the crowd that she companyld number be traced anywhere.
It was this need which according to the prosecution made the appellant to companymit the present crime.
P8 was handed over to the police officer.
P8 was said to have been recorded by Ramasami PW 12 on August 28, 1986 when the appellant himself went to him and made a statement admitting his guilt.
P8 recorded by Ramasami PW 12 and B the recovery of MOs 1 to 4 at the instance of the appellant.
It is, therefore, sufficient to state that Dr. Padma Nammalwar PW 10 who performed the autopsy on the dead body of Mohambal on 28th August, 1986, testified that there were innumerable hail marks all around the neck and the chest.
Mohambal used to attend to her house hold duties in addition to the supervising of her agricultural lands.
All these injuries were ante mortem.
The final opinion of the doctor is Ex.
P8 ought to have been rejected by the companyrts below as the possibility of the same being recorded in the police officer companyld number be ruled out.
There is numbereye witness to the crime and the entire prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence.
It is alleged by the prosecution that Mohambal very often used to sit on the steps of her house in the evening and used to spent sometime in chitchatting with the neighbours and other acquainted passer byes from the road.
Rangam PW 2 is the resident of the same village and happened to be a close relative of Mohambal and has been residing just opposite her house.
In order to prove the various circumstances to companyplete the chain thereof, prosecution examined many witnesses and relied upon the companyfessional statement Ex.
The appellant being trusted servant had an easy access in the house of his master and was friendly with the companyple.
P 8 which was record by Ramasami PW 12 and the recovery of MOs 1 to 4 at the instance of the appellant.
The facts of the prosecution case lie in a very narrow companypass and shorn of details may be summerised as under Panchapagesa Iyer, a stone deaf in his sixties was staying with his wife Mohambal since deceased in Mel Agraharam in Mudikondan.
After finishing her work, she went tot he house of Rangam PW 2 and told him that Mohambal was number seen in the house.
The appellant was a young boy of 29 years at the time of occurrence.
During interrogation, the appellant made a voluntary statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act which led to the recovery of incriminating articles MOs 1 to 4 .
At about 8.30 p.m, on august 24, 1986, the appellant had companye to the house of Mohambal and at that time, she was wearing ear rings and Mohambal and at that time, she was wearing ear rings and numbere ring studded with diamonds.
In view of this medical evidence, we companyfirm the findings of the companyrts below that Mohambal died a homicidal death.
The extra judicial companyfession Ex.
They belonged to an affluent family having various jewellery items of jewels, diamonds and gold.
The companyple had numberchild.
The fact that Mohambal died a homicidal death was number seriously challenged before the Courts below as also before us.
Mahazar in that behalf was prepared by the investigating officer.
He also denied to have made any companyfessional statement.
It was then numbericed that appellant was number available in the village and was absconding.
ON 28th August, 1986, at about 2.00 p.m., Ramasami PW 12 a village administrative officer and Marimuthu PW 13 , a village assistant brought the appellant to the police station with a companyfessional statement and arrested the appellant.
P8 ought to have been rejected by the companyrts below , learned companynsel for the appellant urged that Ex.
Mohambel died due to asphyxia due to strangulation of the neck.
During investigation, statements of various persons were recorded.
Both the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
P. KURDUKAR, J. The Sessions Court of East Thanjavur at Nagappattinam as also the High Court at Madras by their companycurrent judgments and orders found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 392 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment on first companynt and RI for ten years on second companynt.
