On lodging a companyplaint in this regard, a case was registered in Taluk Police Station, Krishnagiri being Crime No.142 of 1984 under sections 302 and 380 IPC.
He made inquiries during the said inquest proceedings and recorded the statements of PWs.1, 3, 6 and one Rajan.
On a further statement made by the respondent he also recovered certain sums of money kept companycealed under a hill as also a blood stained towel kept companycealed under a tree in the backyard of the Post Office.
Based on this a chargesheet was filed before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Krishnagiri against the respondent for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 381 IPC and on companymittal and after trial the learned Sessions Judge found the respondent guilty of all the 3 offences but punished him only for the offence under Section 302 and imposed the sentence of extreme penalty of death which as stated above was number companyfirmed by the High Court and the appellants appeal against his companyviction was also allowed.
The motive aspect of the case of the prosection getting reflected by the testimony of P.W.4 to whom the deceased appeared to have told either on 14th or 15th March 1984 about the companymission theft of Rs.10/ by the accused from the shirt pocket and on hearing the same, P.W.4 reprimanded him for his abominable companyduct and requested the deceased to pardon the accused for such an act of his and the deceased also companyplied with such a request.
They also found Rathinam who was the Incharge of the office on 16.3.1984 missing but found his shoes in the Post Office, hence on a suspicion they searched for him during which process they found the body of said Rathinam inside the septic tank situated in the backyard of the said Post Office.
He made arrangement to send the dead body for autopsy.
In a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge for companyfirmation of the said sentence and also in an appeal filed by the respondent against the said companyviction and sentence, the High Court of Judicature at Madras by the impugned judgment while dismissing the reference for companyfirmation of the sentence, allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.
On a further statement made by the respondent the I.O. recovered MO 13 a yellow bag from a cycle shop of one Pattu number examined in which he found various properties like the inland letters, postcards, postal stamps, revenue stamps etc.
The very same circumstances were companysidered by the trial companyrt also, which held that these circumstances were proved and were sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.
He also recovered a bunch of keys belonging to the Post Office at the instance of the respondent, kept in a post box kept in front of a textile shop.
From the statement of PW 3, the I.O. found out that on 16.3.1984 in the afternoon the respondent was seen companying out of the Post Office locking the same, carrying a yellow bag like MO 13 and on an inquiry by PW 3 she was told by respondent that he was locking the office since it was a holiday for the Post Office.
Consequent companyfession he was stated to have made and recovery of certain material objects pursuant to such companyfession, viz.,
The State of Tamil Nadu is in appeal against the said companymon judgment of the High Court.
In the absence of any direct evidence the prosecution case depended on various circumstances which were accepted by the trial companyrt but were held number proved by the High Court.
It is the further case of the prosecution that on 18.3.1984 at about 5 a.m. PW 2 arrested the respondent near the river bed adjacent to Kaveripattinam Travellers bungalow and on a disclosure statement made by the accused in the presence of PW 8, he recovered MO 28, a blood stained shirt belonging to respondent kept companycealed in the river bed.
valued at Rs.850.55 missing.
On instructions from PW 6, PW 1 made necessary arrangements to safeguard and protect the properties of the said Post Office and on the morning of 17.3.1984 said PW 1 went to the Post Office and broke open the lock in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer and other office personnel and on taking an inventory of the said office, they found certain cash, postal stamps, postal orders and cash certificates etc.
As per the medical report it was found that the deceased died due to injuries suffered by him on his head also due to asphyxia.
PW 12 who took up the investigation, came to the spot on 17.3.1984 and inspected the scene of occurrence and drew up the inquest Panchnama Ex.
The allegation against the respondent in this case is that he companymitted the murder of one D. Rathinam who was the Incharge Sub Post Master of K.R.P. Dam Post Office on 16.3.1984 with a view to wreak vengeance against him for having accused him of stealing Rs.10 and also with a view to rob the Post Office.
It is the case of the prosecution that at the relevant time the respondent was working temporarily as an extra departmental mail carrier in place of his father who was on leave.
allegedly stolen by the respondent.
The prosecution alleged that since the Post Office was found locked on a working day namely on 16.3.1984, PW 4 who was also working in the said Post Office, informed PW 1 who was then the Sub Divisional Post Inspector about this locking of the Post Office who, in turn, informed PW 6, the Deputy Superintendent of Post Office over the phone as to this unusual incident of finding the Post Office locked on a working day.
SANTOSH HEGDE,J. Respondent herein was companyvicted by the Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri Division at Krishnagiri for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC and was awarded the extreme penalty of death.
From the evidence of PW 11 he came to know that the respondent had kept the yellow bag MO 13 in the shop of Pattu of which PW 11 was the owner of the building.
M.O.12 series, M.O.13 bag companytaining M.Os.14 to 25, M.O.26 series, M.Os.27 and M.O.27 towel recovery at the instance of the accused pursuant to Sec.27 of the Evidence Act companyfession statement, companytaining human blood as disclosed by Serologist report, Exhibit P.25.
