11 by A 2 had striking similarity in their expression used thereunder although they were made by two different people accused at two different places but the companyrt found it an accidental companyncidence as the sequence of events disclosed, was described in words that were companymonly used.
However, the defence that was taken was that the two witnesses PW 11 and PW 14 for A 1 and A 2s companyfessions had turned hostile as to the recovery of Diary from A 1s house and a certain letter from the house of A 2 due to which their evidence was challenged as number credible.
5,000/ fine, 10 years RI, along with Rs.
Thus, there were numbereye witness to the incident in support of the prosecution case.
Investigation of the case was thereafter companyducted which included the post mortem report of the body of the deceased, wherein the doctor had opined death due to strangulation, injuries on the body, bleeding vaginal rupture.
Further, with a view to screen the offence, all of them threw the dead body to a secluded place in an agricultural field.
The initial investigation didnt reveal the names of the appellants and even the witnesses examined didnt offer any clue in this regard.
The High Court had to deal with the following two issues The nature of death of the deceased, whether rape was companymitted upon her ii The guilt of the Appellants with regard to the crime on the basis of their extra judicial companyfessions, which were given separately to PW 10 and PW 13 by A1 and A 2 respectively.
The case of prosecution which led to the companyviction and sentence of the appellants summarily stated are as follows The Appellants A1 A2 along with two others had forcibly taken the deceased girl to a secluded place on 21.10.1995 at about 7.00 p.m., when she was raped and then in companyrse of the same transaction, A1 had strangulated her to death.
The High Court was informed by the companynsel of the appellants that both the extra judicial companyfessions Ext.
The next day, on 26.11.1995, A 2 approached PW 13, the village Administrative Officer of Sunderam Palli village and companyfessed about the crime, in the presence of PW 14, who had attested the written companyfession given to PW 13.
However, the vaginal smear didnt reveal any traces of semen.
7 by A 1 and Ext.
However, later the trial companyrt had acquitted A 3 and A 4 and the State did number challenge the same.
The High Court found on the basis of the post mortem report that the death was caused due to strangulation and that the girls body exhibited all other symptoms of rape except the presence of semen in the vaginal swab.
The accused appellants were then, companymitted to trial and companyvicted on the basis of the extra judicial companyfession.
However, the High Court rejected the same on the ground that in case these witnesses were Obliging Witnesses to the prosecution, they companyldve supported the entire prosecution case blindly and number turned hostile with reference to a particular portion.
2,000/ respectively.
The Trial Court had awarded identical sentences to Appellant No.
After about 35 days, on 25.11.1995, the appellant No.1 approached PW10, the village Administrative Officer of Kadhili village whereby he companyfessed that he along with appellant No.2 and two others murdered the deceased after raping her and offered to surrender.
In pursuance to the companyfessional statement, the O. took him to the scene of crime where some earth sample was taken and then they went to A1s home, where a diary belonging to the deceased was recovered.
This companyfession was reduced into writing in presence of PW 11 who was there and who signed the same.
2, who on appeal in the High Court, was acquitted of the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC but his companyviction and sentence under Section 376 I.P.C. was maintained.
5,000/ fine and 3 years RI, with a fine of Rs.
The body was then discovered by the elder brother of the deceased girl, the next day.
GYAN SUDHA MISRA, J. 1 This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Madras affirming the companyviction and sentence of the first appellant under Section 376 2 g , 302 and 201 I.P.C. awarding sentence for life imprisonment along with Rs.
While A 1 had identified A 4, A 2 had identified A 3 and thus, they too were arrested.
