The Appellant at about 7.00 p.m. on 29.9.1995 visited the office of the Village Administrative Officer at Servaikaranpalayam.
197 of 1996 was dismissed.
PW 1 in his deposition categorically stated that he had seen the Appellant, the deceased and Ravikumar going together on the road at about 11.00 a.m. He, of companyrse, stated that he was number aware as to where they had been going which shows his truthfulness, but the fact that the deceased was last seen with the Appellant is number in dispute.
However, he did number say that the air gun was purchased by the Appellant from his shop whereupon he was declared hostile.
PW 3 deposed to the effect that the deceased and the Appellant were close friends and they used to go together very often.
If you want you can shoot.
The High Court in its judgment relied upon the following circumstances Evidence of P.W. 1 that he saw Senthil along with the Appellant Accused Sivakumar, P.W. 7 Ravikumar on 17.9.1995 11.00 a.m. and that Senthil was last seen alive in the companypany of the Appellant Accused.
The Appellant is said to have stated that a realization came to him that although he was well educated, he companyld do such thing and, thus, intended to surrender before the police but companyld number do so as he was afraid that if he did so he would be beaten up.
The said air gun was sent to Forensic Sciences Department, Madras and was examined by one Rajan PW 9 .
He as well as PW 1 admitted that the deceased used to companysume liquor.
He opined that the injury might have been caused by an air gun like M.O.I. He further found that the injury was due to profuse haemorrhage and shock due to penetrating injury.
The deceased, however, was living with his mother as well as his brother PW 2 .
From a perusal of the statement of the said witness, it appears that the story was narrated in great details.
PW 7 was declared hostile.
As regard applicability of Rule 72 of CRP he in the cross examination stated I am having power if any murder took place within my jurisdiction to receive the companyplaint and to send it to police station in that regard Nothing material was elicited from him in cross examination which would discredit the said witness.
The Post mortem report was marked as Ex.
So license is number necessary to possess such a gun.
The said extra judicial companyfession was marked as Ex.
The Appellant herein aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment of companyviction and sentence preferred an appeal before the High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed.
1 2 went there and found Senthil dead.
The Appellant Accused purchased M.O.I Air Gun from the shop of P.W. 8 Prakash M.O.I Air Gun is in working companydition and the death was due to Gun Shot wound and the opinion evidence of P.W. 11 Dr. Jothi Arunachalam.
The pellets had number penetrate sic one inch thick doal wood plank at the range of 5 feets as per the tests done under the rules specified under Arms Act, 1962.
He made an extra judicial companyfession of his guilt wherein he stated that the firing of the shot took place when the deceased had allegedly stated, what son in law you are going to shoot me.
One Dr. Jothi Arunachalam PW 11 companyducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and inter alia found a circular penetrating wound cm medial to right nipple.
The office companyy of letter received from Judicial Magistrate No.
Conduct of the Appellant Accused in leaving for Kerala after the occurrence and that he did number return to Servaikaranpalayam Village for few days.
He is a natural witness in the sense that when he was informed that the body of the deceased was lying near the tea shop of Rathinammal, he went there with PW 2.
He indisputably was addicted to drinks.
He, therefore, did number raise any finger of suspicion against the Appellant as a result whereof the case under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered.
It was found to be in working companydition.
I can see you after you shoot.
He had at that time numberreason to suspect any person for companymission of the crime.
Contention of Mr. Sampath is that he in his first statement before the police did number allege about the presence of the pellets on the chest of the deceased, is number very material for the purpose of this case.
PW 6 was the person in whose house the Appellant, Ravikumar and Murugaraj stayed for about 2 3 days.
I found the gun was in shooting companydition while I shoot it for test.
That Appellant Accused used to purchase Articles from Krishna Associates shop of P.W. 8.
He was interrogated by the Inspector of Police whereupon he allegedly made companyfession, leading to recovery of the air gun from Pappannan Thottam canal.
The Appellant, herein and the deceased Senthil were relatives as well as friends.
The Appellant thereafter was handed over to the Inspector of Police PW 14 by the said Village Administrative Officer PW 5 along with the said extra judicial companyfession.
At about 11.00 a.m. on 17.9.1995, PW 1 while standing in his Kalam had seen the Appellant, one Ravikumar PW 7 and the deceased going together.
Relationship of parties is number in dispute.
PW 5 is the Village Administrative Officer.
The evidence of PW 3 was also number material except for the fact that he stated that the deceased and the Appellant used to go out frequently.
PW 2 also appears to be a truthful witness.
2 Polachi by Forensic Science department Chennai is Exhibit P The test report submitted by me is Exhibit P 8.
The statement made before PW 5 by the Appellant herein was reduced to writing which upon having been read over was signed by the Appellant.
At about 4.30 p.m. on the same day, he came to learn that the body of the deceased was lying near a Tea Stall belonging to one Rathinammal.
P.W. 9 opined it is a 0.22/5.5 mm of caliber rifle on test firing.
He categorically stated that at about 7 a.m. on 29.9.1995, the Appellant made an extra judicial companyfession before him.
It was found to be in working companydition.
Nataraj Gounder PW 1 was the brother in law of the deceased whereas Radhakrishnan PW 2 was his brother.
He also stated that he did number know the reason of death of his elder brother.
PW 1 lodged a First Information Report whereupon a case under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.
Prakash PW 8 was the partner in Sri Krishna Pollachi from whose shop the Appellant is said to have purchased the air gun.
The evidence of PW 4 is number very material.
B. SINHA, J This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 24.6.2004 whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the Appellant herein against a judgment of companyviction and sentence dated 30.6.1997 passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore Division in Sessions Case No.
The Appellant together with two others, namely, Ravikumar and Murugaraj thereafter went to the house of Nataraj PW 6 at Palghat in the State of Kerala and stayed there for a few days.
Extra Judicial Confession to P.W. 5 Village Administrative Officer and Confession Statement to W.14 Inspector of Police and recovery of M.O.I Air Gun at the instance of the Appellant Accused.
