741 of 1990.
Further there was companysiderable gap between the time the witnesses alleged to have seen the accused appellant in the companypany of the deceased and the discovery of the dead body on 22.4.1988.
PW.2 thereafter advised PW.3 to go and search for the deceased at Ranipet.
Background facts as projected in a nutshell are as follows PW.2 is the father and PW.3 is the younger brother of the deceased Rajendran.
They were residents of Valluvampakkam.
P 16, to the companyrt and to the higher officials.
The Doctor PW 11 who examined the dead body found that the same was in an extremely decomposed state.
Accused persons pleaded innocence.
P1 in this case.
On companypletion of investigation the charge sheet was filed, case was companymitted to the companyrt of Sessions for trial.
P 1, registered a case in Crime No.160 of 1988 under Section 174 Cr.
Meanwhile, on 22.4.1988 at 7.0 a.m. PW.1, the Village Administrative Officer of Bagaveli, was informed by his menial that a body is lying in a field.
This is said to be the motive for the occurrence.
Accordingly, PW.3 went to Ranipet and searched for the deceased, but companyld number trace him.
Undisputedly the case at hand is a case of circumstantial evidence.
The appeal was dismissed.
PW.1 thereafter went to Kaveripakkam Police Station where he gave a companyplaint to PW.14, the Sub Inspector of Police, at 11.45 a.m. and the same stands marked as Ex.
On 19.4.1988, PW.2 left Vallugampakkam for Madras to see his daughter and when returned at 8.00 p.m. on 21.4.1988 to the house he found his son Rajendran missing from the house.
the dead body was caused to be photographed and M.O.4 series are the photographs.
The accused were also residing in the same village.
P.C. Ex.
PW.14 on the basis of Ex.
Around the neck of the body, a torn lungi, O.5, was seen tied.
Trial companyrt acquitted A1 while holding appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
After the inquest, PW.14 sent the dead body with his requisition through PW.12 for post mortem.
It is pointed out that all these witnesses were examined after companysiderable length of time.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 8 9 should number have been relied upon.
It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased tried to molest PW.5 the wife of A2.
The companyviction, as numbered above, was challenged before the High Court.
Appellant faced trial alongwith one Doraiswamy who has described as A1.
PW.1 went to the spot and found the body.
He companyducted inquest between 12.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. over the dead body of Rajendran in the presence of Panchayatdars during which he examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 and others.
The deceased was having illicit relationship with the wife of A1 and PW.2 took his son to task and advised him number to have any relationship with the wife of A1.
Judgment dated 3.7.2000 in Criminal Appeal No.
While finding that the evidence is inadequate to fasten the guilt on A1, the trial companyrt held A2, the appellant herein guilty based on the evidence of PWs 3,4,8 9 who claimed to have seen the deceased last in the companypany of the appellant.
P 2 in the presence of PW.1 and also drew a rough sketch, Ex.
It was alleged that both of them were responsible for murder of Rajendran hereinafter referred to as the deceased on 19.4.1988 at about 10 PM.
W.14 reached the scene of occurrence where at 12.10 p.m. he prepared an observation mahasar, Ex.
P He has companyverted the crime to one of suspicious death and sent companyies of express report, Ex.
He also seized M.Os 1 to 3, a shirt, a lungi, and a banian respectively, from the scene under a mahasar Ex.
P 17 is the inquest report.
He questioned his other son PW.3 who then told him that the deceased left in the companypany of A2 for Ranipet and did number return.
117 of 1990, had filed an appeal to challenge his companyviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC before the Madras High Court.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellant, who was described as A2 in Sessions Case No.
P 14 is a companyy of printed First Information Report.
By the impugned judgment the appeal was dismissed.
