At the time of the incident, the deceased and the first accused and Sundari were residing in a hut belonging to PW.4 at Rajiv Nagar, Tuticorin.
Of the two accused, the present appeal has been preferred only by accused No.1, Balaji.
A. MD No.858 of 2004 which, as indicated hereinbefore, was disposed of on 22nd February, 2007 by the High Court by companyfirming the companyviction and sentence awarded to the accused persons.
Immediately, thereafter, they dug a hole in the floor of the hut and buried the dead body in the said hole.
The said judgment of companyviction and sentence was challenged by the appellants in Crl.
Copies of the same were sent to the Judicial Magistrate No.
It also appears that Sundari narrated the entire incident to PW.1 and also showed him the place where the deceased was buried.
One Papammal, who was examined as PW.3, is also alleged to have witnessed the digging of the hole by the accused persons and on being questioned, the accused persons are said to have informed him that they had killed the deceased as he was a companytinuous menace for them.
It appears that on 3rd November, 1999, PW.1, the father of the deceased came over to the house of the accused No.2 and asked about his sons whereabouts from PW.2, Sundari.
According to the prosecution, on 23rd October, 1999, the first accused came to the house of the deceased along with a bottle of liquour as usual and handed over the same to the deceased.
Thereafter, after having illicit relations with each other, both the accused decided to do away with the deceased and in furtherance of their object they took a nylon rope and strangulated the deceased.
The skull of the dead body was also subjected to superimposition test by the Forensic Sciences department at Chennai and on examination of the bones and the skull, the opinion was that the skull companyld very well have belonged to the male individual, whose photograph was shown.
Immediately thereafter, PW.1 and PW.2 went to Muthaipuram Police Station and narrated the entire occurrence to the Sub Inspector of Police, PW.13, and the same was reduced into writing and an FIR was prepared registering a case against the accused persons under Section 302 IPC.
The main challenge to the judgment of the trial companyrt was with regard to the acceptance of the evidence of PW.2, Sundari, who was ten years old at the time of occurrence and 14 years old when she had deposed before the trial companyrt.
On receipt of the aforesaid information, PW.16, the Inspector of Police attached to Muthaipuram Police Station, went to the place of occurrence at 12.30 a.m. and deployed police security at the place of occurrence.
II, Tuticorin, the Tahsildar, Tuticorin and to the higher police officials.
He returned to the spot at 6.00 a.m. on 4th November, 1999 and with the help of PW.6, exhumed the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatars.
An inquest over the dead body was companyducted by the Tahsildar and since the body had decomposed, on requisition, PW.7, the Doctor companyducted post mortem on the decomposed body.
From the post mortem report it appears that the Doctor was of the opinion that the deceased had died on account of man handling and throttling and that he must have died 10 to 15 days prior to the date of autopsy.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2007, passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court companyfirming the companyviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, mainly on the evidence of PW.2, the daughter of the accused No.2 who was ten years old on 23rd October, 1999, when the incident is said to have occurred.
