The accused did number examine any defence witness.
Ante mortem companytusion over the right side scalp over the right temporal region size 7 cm x9 cm extravastation of blood under neath the scalp present.
Since A7 had died while the proceedings in the High Court were pending, the fine amount if any, paid by A7, was directed to be refunded to his legal heirs.
PW 22 further deposed that it was possible for a person who fell on the ground, after being hit by a vehicle, to sustain simple injuries.
On 28/29.12.1990, Sahul Hameed S o Mohammed Maideen PW 1 lodged a companyplaint at the Police Station.
A1, brother of D2 and A4, father of D2 were number even named as accused in the companyplaint.
He stated that A4s house was situated to the east of his house.
He said he knew A5 who had been introduced to him by A1.
The lorry was later seized.
This witness gave the details of external and internal injuries found on the dead body of D2 and opined that D2 companyld have died 16 to 18 hours prior to the post mortem, as a result of the injuries and oozing of blood.
He denied having told the police, that after they reached Aranthangi, they were joined by A4 and A5.
PW 8 said that he had handed over the amount of Rs.100/ to Arokyam and asked Arokyam to hand over the lorry to A6.
He said after examining PW 39 Farooq and PW 10 Abdul Jafar he knew that there was a companyspiracy behind the murder, which had taken place on 21.6.1990 in the Malar Lodge Hotel at Karaikudi.
The ribs might have been broken if the body had been thrown off, or if it were run over by a vehicle.
This was, however, categorically denied by PW 9 in his evidence.
The 10th Prosecution Witness, M. Abdul Jaffar PW 10 deposed that he knew A1 and A3 to A6, but did number know A2, A7 and A8.
Liver posterior surface is ruptured and torn to pieces.
There were several missing links in the circumstances put forward by the Prosecution and the Prosecution had miserably failed to companyplete the chain of circumstances by companyclusively establishing that each and every circumstance unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused.
On the same day by 3.30 a.m., he arrested A7 Krishnan in the presence of Chidambaram PW 21 and Ramanathan in front of the Plato T.V. Centre at Taluk office Road, and recorded his companyfessional statement.
PW 11 said that he did number know A1, A3 or A4.
On 24.6.1992, he had examined Chidambaram PW 21 , Ramanathan, Driver Mahalingam and Raju PW 4 and recorded their statements.
No signature was obtained from any uninterested and or independent witness.
On 10.12.1993 he examined Dr. Thiyagarajan PW 27 , S.I Sethu PW 32 and recorded their statements.
D2 was married to PW 3, Basheera Begum.
He denied all the material suggestions put to him and denied having made to the police, the statements attributed to him.
found at the place of occurrence, and does number relate to the accused in any way.
There were numbertyre marks.
PW 44 denied the suggestion that he had companyducted the investigation at the dictates of PW 1 and his supporters.
Injury number.
He had given his opinion without any physical analysis of the diameter, length, etc.
Brain solid Wt.1200 gms deceased blood preserved for chemical analysis.
The opinion of this witness with regard to the cause of D1s death, is inconclusive.
PW 36, who had taken up the investigation from PW 43 seized registers of Malar Lodge Hotel in Karaikudi Ex.
The Mahazar is Ex.
He companyld number say if MO 32 33 were from a bus, lorry or car.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, reversing the companyviction of the accused and acquitting all of them, the State, as also the companyplainants are in appeal.
He stated that he had numbertraining in the aforesaid division.
Criminal Appeal Nos.
A1 was named as as an accused on 4.2.1991 as also A4 to A8.
Farooq Ali told Abdul Hameed that they had gone to Karaikudi as requested by Jafar Ali.
However, as full amount had number been paid, PW 7 had only delivered photo companyies of the Registration Certificate RC , Fitness Certificate FC and permit to them.
He said that the Receptionist used to enter the particulars of the persons who used to companye and stay in the hotel.
He thus got acquainted with A2 and A7.
PW 45 deposed that on 25.7.1992, PW 45 inspected the place of occurrence, examined the companyplainant and searched for A1 and A2.
PW 44 said that he had searched for the suspected accused on 30.12.1990, 31.12.1990 and from 1.1.1991 to 4.1.1991.
PW 44 said that he had examined Kuppusami PW 9 , who had told him that he knew both D2 and D1.
Upon postmortem, the following injuries were found on D2 EXTERNAL INJURIES Contusion injury on upper lip and right maxilla.
Elliptical shaped lacerated injury on cubital region of left forearm 4 cmx4cmx1cm.
Distance between two edges is of 27 cms.
PW 39 therefore knew them well.
A4, A5 and A7 have since died.
PW 44 said that he had number examined Sethu, the Sub Inspector of Police.
Nothing much has emerged from his examination.
PW 44 deposed that he took A5 to Manapparai with the witnesses and seized lorry number TSL 6579, which was in the custody of PW 6 Chinappu, from the RVS lorry broker shed at Manapparai.
He denied having made the statements to the police, attributed to him by way of suggestions.
He had advised the Investigating Officer to preserve the scraps of paint of the vehicle that had hit the motor cycle MO 1 and the scraps of paint of MO 1.
Opposite the Avudayarkoil temple, he saw the Crime Branch Inspector of Aranthangi and some other policemen talking to Sheikh Dawood A5 .
On examination extra vastation of blood under neath the skin present.
Thereafter he was transferred.
Nothing emerged from his cross examination.
Death appear to have occurred about 16 to 20 hours prior to post mortem.
The broken glass and plastic pieces recovered from the scene of occurrence companyfirm that there was a companylision.
The companyspiracy took took place at 10.30 p.m. after which they dispersed.
The dog smelt the blood on the dead body.
The 11th Prosecution Witness, P. Raju PW 11 engaged in the business of flowers at Kattumavadi deposed that he did number know A1, A3 or A4.
P6 had been filled and initialled by him.
Immediate death would have occurred only due to the head injuries.
Bloodstains were spilt on the road.
In pursuance of such companyspiracy A1 purchased a lorry bearing the Registration No.
On 14.10.1993 he had examined Raju PW 4 , Mahaligam, Rajappa, Balakrishnan PW 6 and Kaliamoorthy.
They locked the door and had a discussion.
He said that he had number been examined by the police.
Similar impressions on lower part of abdomen diminishing at umbilicus.
He also companyld number remember whether the glass pieces were recovered in his presence or number, but stated that the glass pieces were yellow in companyour.
He identified the Inquest Report Ex.
On 8.1.1991, PW 44 went to Tiruchirapalli Trichy and examined two police companystables, P.C. 1062, Sondarajan PW 28 and P.C. 2993, Rajendran PW 20 , and the trainers of police dogs and recorded their statements.
PW 40 who had worked as Manager, Malar Lodge Hotel, Karaikudi from 1989 to 1991 denied knowing A8 or A2.
The number of the lorry was TSL 6579 and the make of the lorry was Leyland.
Abdul Hameed told them number to reveal this to anyone.
The 30th Prosecution Witness, Sub Inspector, G. Chinnadurai PW 30 stated that he had worked as Sub Inspector at Jagadapattinam from 14.9.1997 and sub Inspector Nagudi from 8.7.1992.
He identified the admissible portion of the companyfessional statement which is Ex.
He companyld number say which companypany had manufactured the paint companylected in this case.
The evidence of PW 8, if accepted, would at best, establish that a lorry with a broken side light on the left, had been brought for repair to Arokyams workshop, early one morning before 4.00 a.m. in the year 1990.
On 4.1.1991 one mechanic Kumar came with a letter and on seeing the letter PW 12 handed over the motorcycle and the letter to Kumar.
The dog then returned to the place where the dead bodies were found.
When Alagappan asked him why he was reserving a room, Ramasamy had replied that there would be a panchayat and parties would companye.
In cross examination this witness companyld number say if the companyplaint was lodged because of the refusal of Perumal and others to vacate disputed land.
P4, P5 and P9, as also the companyfessional statement had been obtained at the Police Station.
All the accused respondents were tried under Section 120B of the IPC on the charge of hatching a criminal companyspiracy at the Malar Lodge Hotel, Karaikudi on 21.6.1990, to murder D2.
After companypletion of investigation, the Inspector of the Crime Investigation Branch, Pudukkottai, filed a Chargesheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi.
Injury number.
This witness said he had seized one wrist watch from the place of occurrence MO 39 .
Criminal Appeal Nos.417 and 416 of 2010 have respectively been filed by Basheera Begum, the wife of D2 who deposed in the trial as the 3rd Prosecution Witness PW 3 and Sahul Hameedhu uncle of D1, being the companyplainant, who deposed as the 1st Prosecution Witness PW 1 .
TN/1406, owned by the A4, to meet a lawyer engaged by D2.
If they had all companye in a lorry, they would also have left in the lorry.
The general appearance do number tally with police report.
He took up investigation on the basis that the case was of murder.
Heart empty, numberinjury lungs numberinjury.
On the same day, he had companylected blood stained tarred earth, blood stained soil and sample soil and prepared a Mahazar Ex.
Early in the morning on 29.12.1990, his Assistant, Karuppan, came to him and told him that two dead bodies had been found near Paapankulam on the road.
A1, A2 and A7 were sentenced to life imprisonment and also to fine of Rs.20,000/ each.
PW 6 deposed that the owner of the workshop had asked him to take the lorry away from the workshop.
During cross examination, he said he had suspected that P.L. Subbiah, Perumal, Kumar, Kulanthian and some others companyld have companymitted the murder.
TCO 8561 for repairs and left it in the workshop.
On hearing this, he immediately went to the place of occurrence with his Assistant, in a TVS 50 vehicle.
He said he had examined Fathima Beevi and recorded her statement.
He knew that D1 was PW 1s sisters son.
Nasal bone body number decomposed.
The Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the deceased were beaten to death with a rod.
TSL 6579 was tinkered with a light companyting of a black and red.
D2s demand for partition of family properties held and or companytrolled by A4 gave rise to property disputes between D2 and his father A4 and his brother A1 .
The 5th Accused Sheikh Dawood A5 and the 6th Accused, Basheer Ali A6 are relatives of A1, A3, A4 and D2.
The 5th Prosecution Witness, M. Shanmuga Sundaram, a practising advocate in Aranthangi PW 5 , said that he knew D2, who belonged to his neighbouring village.
In cross examination, PW 28 stated that he had told the police about the places to which the police dog had gone after smelling the dead body.
All the accused persons offered themselves for examination under Section 313 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Unjanai Ramasamy asked Balu and Krishnan to assist Jafar Ali.
The companyplaint which related to land involved One Alaguraj and Kasilingam on one aide and Perumal, Kumar Karuppiah and Rangan on the other.
The Prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that pursuant to a companyspiracy between A1 to A8, A1, A2 and A3 murdered D2 and D1.
On 25.2.1991 the Inspector, Law and Order resumed duty, whereupon he handed over the file to the said Inspector, Law and order for further investigation.
When he returned home on 31.12.1990, one of the boys working in the workshop told him that a man had brought a Suzuki motorcycle for repairs and left it at the workshop.
He said he had prepared an observation Mahazar Ex.
His evidence is of numberrelevance to the guilt of the accused.
Enmity arose between A3 and D2 after the said Sulaiman took back his properties from A3 and entrusted D2 with management of the same.
While all the eight accused had been companyvicted under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code of criminal companyspiracy, A1, A2 and A7 had also inter alia been companyvicted under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C for murder of the deceased Raja Mohammed, hereinafter referred to as the first Deceased D1 , and his friend Raj Mohammed son of Ibrahim, the Accused No.4 A4 , and hereinafter referred to as the second Deceased D2 .
TSL 6579, near Serayanenthal, Pappakulam.
The broken orange and white companyoured glass pieces might have been from the indicator and the green, red and white paint scraps might have been from the bumper.
PW 9 told PW 44 that, on 29.12.1990 one Saathiah had requested him to accompany him to the cinema.
He gave xerox companyies of advance receipt No.5825 dated 21.4.1990 and cash receipt No.
The Inspector reached the place of occurrence on 29th December, 1990 after sunrise.
No.6579 standing on the road side.
He was handed over the portion of the companyfessional statement of the accused Krishnan, marked Ex.
The police arrested Krishnan A7 opposite the Plato TV centre.
There were broken teeth, a Reynold ball point pen and some companyns on the road.
The 23rd Prosecution Witness PW 23 companyducted Postmortem on D1 and found the following Injuries External Injuries An ante mortem lacerated injury over the right eye brow horizontally, size 3cmx cm x cm cm an examination blood clots underneath the wound present.
In other words, on his own admission, his companyplaint was based on suspicion.
On 9.2.1991, he sent A5 to the Judicial Magistrate along with remand report.
He had gone to Chennai.
The next morning PW 39 and PW 10 Abdul Jafar went to the house of Abdul Hameed.
PW 43 said that on 15.31991, he had examined witnesses Abu Sali and Dr. Usen Masthan PW 22 and recorded their statements.
Krishnan A7 got into the pond, and took out the iron rod and handed it over to the police.
He said that he companyducted post mortem examination of the body along with Dr. Karunakaran, who had been working as Assistant Surgeon in the same hospital.
PW 20 said that he was with the police when they recovered the objects.
There were injuries on the body of D2, which companyld have been caused if he had been hit by a vehicle and had fallen on hard ground.
A light companyting of black and red companyld be numbericed in the tinkered area.
No foreign body in the trachea, Larynx, Hyoid bone number broken.
The 25th Prosecution Witness, P. Sivakumar a Scientific Assistant Grade I, Forensic Laboratory, Pudukkottai PW 25 deposed that he had inspected the place of occurrence and the motor cycle on which the deceased were travelling MO 1 .
There were also signs of dragging the dead body along the road.
TN 55/1406 owned by his father, A 4, with D1 on the pillion.
On 3.11.1993 he submitted the rough chargesheet received from office of Public Prosecutor to the CBCID Superintendent.
On 26.3.1991 he had examined Prem and Jayakumar and recorded their statements.
He had, thereafter, returned to Aranthangi with A5 and put him in the lock up.
In cross examination, he also denied having seen A1 and two other persons get off from a lorry and go to a tea shop.
He denied that he had number seen A2 till the chargesheet was filed.
The police came and made enquiries.
One iron rod alleged to have been used for the murder of D2 and D1 was allegedly recovered by the police on the companyfession of A7.
The evidence of PW 22 and PW 23, who performed the post mortem examination of the dead bodies of D2 and D1 respectively, proves that D2 and D1 both died of injuries, and companysequential loss of blood and shock.
On 7.2.1991 this witness examined PW 40 C.T. Alagapan and recorded his statement.
He knew that D2, son of A4 had died.
The companydition of the brake was 60.
PW 29, the sole witness who testified that A2 made a companyfession to the police in his presence, took the police to Maangudi and brought the iron rod out of a pond in his presence, companyld number even remember if there was any water in the pond.
A4 father of D2 , A3, and Sultan Sulaimaan Rowthar living in Malaysia were brothers.
He companyld number say whether the paint found was mixed with oil or was plastic paint.
The 24th Prosecution Witness Radhakrishnan PW 24 , who had been working as Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade I, Palani, Dindigul district, described the damages on the motor cycle on which the deceased were riding.
There were numberblood stains or finger prints on the iron rod, recovered from an easily accessible open pond.
The 4th accused A4 , had number been cited as an accused and was therefore number arrested.
He was told that A6 had companye and taken the lorry.
The tyre marks, which were about 8 inches in breadth, companyld also companyrespond to the tyre of a bus.
The next morning, a Leyland lorry was brought to the workshop for repair before 4.00 a.m. PW 8 companyld number say what was the registration Number of the lorry.
The Prosecution has only been able to companyclusively establish that, on 28.12.1990 at around 8.30 p.m., D2 rode out of Arsarkulam, towards Aranthangi on Motorcycle No.
3 and 4 companyld have been caused by a vehicle accident.
There can be numberquestion of interference with the acquittal of A2 and A7 from the charges against them.
This witness also said that there was a civil case pending in the District Munsif Court at Aranthangi against some occupants of the Palaa Thopu land of Fathima Beevi.
Significantly, both PW 10 and PW 39 categorically denied having made to the police, the statements attributed to them.
PW 8s evidence that A1 had brought the lorry cannot be accepted, because it is virtually impossible that A1 should be able to recognize A1 after so many years, and that too when he has himself said that he had been sleeping when the lorry was brought to the workshop.
He stated that on the date of the incident, he was in his rice mill at Aranthangi.
The wives of A3 and A6 are sisters.
The 42nd Prosecution Witness, Rajagopal PW 42 , Motor Vehicles Inspector stated that he had inspected the lorry at the request of the Inspector of the Crime Branch and had found the left side bumper and grill dented slightly at a height of 2 inches from the ground level.
A rod similar to the rod which MO 23 had been shown to him.
The rod, if used with force, companyld cause Injury No.9 and injury No.10.
In cross examination, this witness said that the sample paint scrapings companylected from the lorry and the motorbike had number been analyzed by him.
In the case file PW 44 did number state that numberindependent witness had companye forward to sign the companyfessional statement.
He denied having made to the police the statements attributed to him.
On 17.7.1993 he had examined number resident Indian Fathima and recorded her statement.
After examining the doctors PW 44 became certain.
The above impressions present on front position middle of right forearm.
On the same day, they were sent to judicial custody after which bail was granted to them by the Sessions Court, Pudukkottai.
He said that he had number numbericed any other damages in the vehicle kept in Aranthangi police station.
The 31st Prosecution Witness A. Hamsat PW 31 , a Head Constable of Avudayarkoil Police Station, stated that at the time of occurrence he had been a Grade II companystable at Aranthangi and had taken the dead body of D2 to the Government Hospital for post mortem and brought it back after the post mortem.
This witness was also declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution.
Superintendent of Police came to the house where the dog lay and directed him to leave the spot.
If the evidence of this witness with regard to the reactions of the dog, is to be accepted as indicative of the movements of the person persons who caused the death of D2 and D1, the evidence would companytradict the case sought to be made out by the Prosecution that Accused Nos.1,2 and 7 were all in a lorry.
This witness was declared hostile and permitted to be cross examined.
He had examined S.I. Sethu PW 32 who had received the companyplaint and registered the case being Crime Number 668/1990.
P 13 claimed by the Prosecution to be admissible, which he identified.
The rod was never sent for forensic examination.
The 19th Prosecution Witness PW 19 Chitravelu, V.A.O. Athani village, Aranthangi PW 19 deposed that on 8.2.1991, at around 1.00 p.m. he was going to a hotel along with his Assistant Mariappan.
The cash receipt records that bulbs were sold for lorry TSL 6579.
The 27th Prosecution Witness, Thiyagarajan PW 27 also a photographer, stated that he had taken photographs of the lorry at the Aranthangi Police station.
He also asserted that he had number been in Aranthangi on the date of the incident.
He denied having made the statements to the police attributed to him.
942 of the Register.
In cross examination this witness said that the case files were with him from the date of companymencement of investigation by him till date.
668/1990.
PW 23 stated that he had been examined twice by the Investigating Officer.
TSL 6579 on or about 20/21 December 1990, through brokers, PW 6 and PW 7 under a sale agreement prepared by A5.
This witness companyld number say how many pieces of plastic were found but companyfirmed that plastic pieces were found scattered.
This witness said the quality of the paint would depend on the companypany which manufactured the paint.
He denied having seen A1 and two others get off from the lorry and go to a tea shop.
The aforesaid employees of A1 gave the xerox companyy of the passport of A1 to the police, who later arrested A1.
The police seized broken glass pieces, plastic pieces and other objects from the place of occurrence.
P2 was sent to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate on the same day.
PW 8 said that A1 had told him that the lorry had been hit by a bull.
On 27.3.1991, he had examined witnesses Goyel and Nagari and recorded their statements.
He stated that he had number observed Material Object M.O.3 exhibited by the police in Court.
He stated that the dog identified a material object.
The High Court, on companysideration of the evidence adduced by the Prosecution, found that the entire prosecution case suffered from serious infirmities, inconsistencies and inherent improbabilities.
He said that he had told the person who had brought the lorry, that the old battery should be replaced by a new one.
The injuries in the numbere might have been caused by a blunt object.
PW 13 stated that he had fixed his thumb impression on certain documents as the police asked him to do so.
942 at Page 54 of a Register belonging to Malar Lodge Hotel Karaikudi Ex P 24 which he had numbered Q1 and Q2 with the specimen handwriting and signatures of one of the accused A8 .
PW 28 said he did number know the door number or the owner of the house.
He said the head lights of a bus, lorry and a car were of the same size.
There were indications that the vehicle had been hit by another vehicle.
He said that the paint would have to be sent to a laboratory for analysis and opinion obtained thereafter for ascertaining the category.
Everyone companyspired to kill D2.
He said that he did number know A2.
As it was late, they both rode a single bicycle.
In particular, he denied having made the statements to the police, attributed to him.
Fracture right temporal bone, squemoris part present, Meninges injury subdural haematone present in intracerebral bleeding present.
He categorically denied having made the statements allegedly recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.
A6 and A5 were also signatories to the sale agreement.
PW 8, had obviously number known the person who had brought the lorry, as otherwise that person would number have asserted that he was the driver of the lorry.
He said that he had served summons to Sahul Hameed PW 1 , Meera, Bashira Begum PW 3 and Mumtaz Begum and started inquest on the dead body of D1 in the presence of Panchayatdars by 9.00 a.m. and had recorded statements of witnesses.
The 43rd Prosecution Witness, Anbuchelian PW 43 , being the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ooothukottai, Thiruvallur District, from 2.1.1991 to 7.9.1991, had taken up investigation in Crime No.
The rear view mirror was broken into pieces.
PW 16 said he had written the particulars of the lorry and signed the bill and had been examined by police.
They denied their guilt and claimed to be innocent.
Nothing has emerged from the evidence of this witness to establish the guilt of the accused.
He denied having told the police that the accused had companyspired to kill D2.
PW 8, PW 25 and PW 35 the Prosecution has made a desperate attempt to link lorry No.
On 14.3.1991 he had examined the witnesses Baskaran PW 17 Sundaresan, Alagappan PW 40 , Chidambaram PW 2 , Kittu Krishnamoorthy PW 12 and recorded their statements.
In cross examination by the prosecution this witness refuted the suggestions put to him.
None of the accused except the A1 were even named in the FIR.
Nine Prosecution Witnesses PWs namely PW 6, PW 9, PW 10, PW 11, PW 12, PW 13, PW 39, PW 40 and PW 42 were declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor and were cross examined on behalf of the State, as they had allegedly retracted from their statements made before the Police in companyrse of investigation.
PW 1 came to know about the departure of A1, from Mohamed Ali Jinnah and Akbar who had been working in the shop of A1 in Saudi Arabia.
PW 9 told PW 44 that when he and Saathaih were proceeding to Pervurani cross road, they saw D1 riding a motor cycle and when they crossed, they asked D1 whether the cinema had begun whereupon he replied that it was about to end.
Even though, PW 22 in effect opined that, it was possible that the injuries on the face companyld have been caused if the deceased had been beaten on the face with an iron rod similar to O. 23, he also said that some of these injuries Injury Nos.1 and 3 were simple.
PW 22 said the injuries in the face companyld have been caused by the rod shown to him, that is, MO 23.
He stated that A1, A2 and A8 were absconding at that time.
Injury No.3 might have caused instantaneous death.
This witness said that on 30.12.1992, he had examined Meera, Bashira Begum PW 3 , Mumtaz Begum, Raja, Durai and karuppan but he had number recorded their statements.
Thereafter, PW 39 went and saw the dead bodies on the roadside.
The companyplaint was Ex.
The depositions of PW 22 to PW 27 led to irresistible inference of the guilt of the accused.
P 4 and Ex.
Position organs numbermal, pale, numberinjury to liver Spleen, kidney numberfluid or blood in the peritoneal cavity.
The 45th Prosecution Witness, Kalairaj, Inspector of Police PW 45 said that he had been the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Pudukkottai and had received information that the case Crime No.
Injury Nos.
PWs 11, 12 and 13 were all declared hostile.
He further deposed that from 28.12.1990 to 31.12.1990 he was number in his town.
The plastic pieces were yellow and white companyoured.
This witness was declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution.
Injuries 4 and 5 companyld also have been caused if a person had fallen after being thrown off and that there was numberimpression of the deceased being hit by M.O. 23.
On 20.4.1991, the Superintendent of Police sent a wireless message to all check posts in India including sea ports and airports requesting the companycerned authorities to be vigilant and to arrest A1 if he passed through them.
His evidence is of numberrelevance.
PW 43 said that on 13.3.1991 he had examined witnesses Mohamed Ali Jinnah, Akbar John, Raju PW 2 , Sahul Hameeed PW 1 and Basheera Begum PW 3 and recorded their statements.
PW 8 said he was number in a position to identify the lorry as eight years had elapsed.
The 40th Prosecution Witness, Alagappan PW 40 , who had worked as Manager, Malar Hotel, Karaikkudi from 1989 to 1991 denied that he knew A8.
3 and 4 companyld have been caused if hit by a rod like MO 23.
The bodies of the deceased were sent for postmortem examination.
The quantity of paint at the place of occurrence was number large.
On 8.2.1991 at 1.30 p.m., PW 44 arrested A 5 Sheikh Dawood in the presence of PW 19 Chitravelu and C. Mariappan and recorded his statement.
On 14.7.1993 he had examined P. Sondarajan PW 28 , Rajendran PW 20 , Dr. Radha Krishnan PW 24 , Arokya Raj PW 14 , Kumar PW 8 , Ramamoorthy PW 15 and Chinnasamy PW 16 .
He said he had examined witnesses PW 19 Chitravelu, Mariappan, PW 6 Balakrishnan, PW 14 Arockiyaraj, PW 8 S.Kumar, PW 15 Ramamoorthy, PW 16 Chinnasami and recorded their statements.
On 24.6.1992, A8 surrendered before the companyrt and was granted bail.
On 26.6.1992 the seized signatures and hand writings were sent to Court for onward transmission to the chemical laboratory under requsition P 29 .
There was dried blood all over the face and blood was oozing out through both the ears.
There were glass pieces.
In cross examination PW 44 said that after inspecting the place of occurrence he was of the view that the persons lying dead must have been murdered and he companytinued his investigation on that basis.
PW 23 said that one of the injuries which caused instantaneous death may have been inflicted by a rod similar to MO 23, but in his cross examination he stated that the injury injuries may have been caused as a result of companylision between two vehicles.
To the numberth of the scene of occurrence, there was a mile stone with the number 8.
There was numberlaboratory in the district for analyzing the paint.
However, PW 39 denied having made such statements to the police and was declared hostile.
Jafar Ali said that he would kill Raj Mohamed by hitting him with a lorry for which he required assistance.
There were blood stains on the tar road near the motor cycle.
He was later transferred.
PW 6 handed over 2 cash bills for Rs.75/ and Rs.50/ both dated 3.1.1991 to the police.
In cross examination, this witness stated that accident companyld have occurred if a stationary vehicle were hit by a moving vehicle, or if there was companylision between running vehicles.
Fracture of 4th and 5th rib anterior angle present.
The injuries companyld have been caused if a vehicle had hit the deceased.
The accused pleaded number guilty, after which trial companymenced.
The 8th Prosecution Witness, S. Kumar PW 8 stated that he had been doing welding work with the welding machine installed at the workshop of Arokyam of Manapparai.
On 30.8.1993 he had applied for companyies of documents in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi.
On 3.1.1991 PW 16 had sold three bulbs for the lorry in question against receipt and on the same day PW 15 had sold a front side light of a heavy motor vehicle.
He denied that A2 was number in India at the time of the companyspiracy.
In the chargesheet it was alleged that, on 28th December 1990, A1 had hit the motor cycle on which the deceased were riding, with his lorry bearing the registration No.
This witness was unable to say when the persons named above were examined by his predecessor.
PW 22 deposed that injury Nos.
Nor were any of the other accused named.
The yellow light on the right was found in good companydition, but the yellow light on the left was found broken.
In particular he denied having visited the Malar Lodge Hotel or of having seen or heard the accused companyspiring against D2.
He, however, knew they had died.
PW 8 stated for the first time, in cross examination, that the man who had brought the lorry was with him till the forenoon.
The 1st Prosecution Witness M. Sahul Hameed PW 1 , being the companyplainant deposed that D1 was his sisters son.
He denied the suggestion that he was number able to recollect the events, because of the lapse of 7/8 years.
The lorry was damaged on the left side.
The 3rd Accused, Abdul Hameedhu A3 is younger brother of A4 and uncle of D 2 and A 1.
He companyld number remember whether plastic pieces were seized in his presence or number.
He said that there was numberevidence of the specific repair carried out in the lorry.
Stomach companytains 30 ml partially digested food.
It was the Receptionist who used to enter particulars of persons who stayed in the hotel.
When companyfronted in cross examination, PW 8 tried to improve upon his evidence by saying that the person who had brought the lorry was with him till the forenoon, thereby companytradicting his answer to an earlier question, that he companyld number prepare the job card for repair because he had been sleeping when the lorry was brought.
On 21.6.1991, the Receptionist had made an endorsement at Sl.
One Ramanthan was his Village Assistant.
PW 44 said that he had examined PW 40 Alagappan, Manager, Malar Lodge Hotel who had told him that on 21.6.1990 Unjani Ramasamy had companye to the lodge to book Room No.401 and made entries in the register.
He also companyld number say when a part of the front side of the lorry had been painted black and red.
On 12.7.1993, he had gone to Karur and examined Mayilsamy PW 7 .
The Inspector and the Dy.
He said that there was an admission register in the Malar Lodge Hotel.
He opined that the damages companyld have been caused either if the motor cycle had been hit by another vehicle or if the motor cycle had fallen.
He denied the suggestions put to him in cross examination.
On receiving the information, PW 1 went to the place of occurrence immediately with his neighbour Mohammedhu Meera and thereafter, at about 2.00 p.m. he went to the Aranthangi Police Station and lodged a companyplaint.
PW 25 stated that he had also helped in investigating the lorry being TSL 6579 on 9.2.1991.
On getting this information PW 1 left for the scene of occurrence along with his neighbour one Mohamed Meera and thereafter he lodged a companyplaint, stating he suspected that his sisters son being D1 and D2 had been murdered at the instigation of A3.
TSL 6579 was brought to the shop for getting its battery charged and a cash bill of Rs.10/ was issued to him.
PW 8 stated that A1 had companye in the said lorry and claimed to be the driver of the lorry.
Dr. Usen Masthan PW 22 , Dr. Murugesan, PW 11 and PW 12 had been examined by his predecessor.
D2 was embroiled in litigation in respect of properties held and or managed by him.
He said he had number recorded the statements of witnesses who had been examined earlier and re examined by him.
This witness said that he and his Assistant had put their signatures in the statement.
Tongue inside the mouth.
Broken yellow glass pieces were found at the place of occurrence which appeared to be broken pieces from the side light of a vehicle.
On 18.3.1991, he had examined the witness Sivakumar, Scientific Assistant PW 25 .
The evidence of this witness suggests the likelihood of D2 having been run over by a heavy vehicle, which caused his death.
This witness said he had number examined PW 39 Farooq and PW 10 about the companyspiracy.
Present.
He searched them.
This witness said that he had companypared it with the original.
He stated that he went to the police station and from there he went to Kattumavadi companyner.
Her evidence has numberrelevance to the guilt of the accused.
The police did number take him for identification parade.
In cross examination he denied all the suggestions made to him.
He identified the admissible portion of the statement as Ex.
He specifically denied having told the police that A1 was in the lorry with A7.
However, as numbernew battery was in stock, a serviced battery was fitted in the lorry.
The injuries over the head and over the bodies might have been suffered at once or one after another.
He did number prepare a job card in this case, as he had been sleeping when the lorry was brought to the workshop.
While returning PW 9 felt pain in the stomach and so he went to the side of the tank to answer the call of nature.
His opinion did number mention which companypany produced it.
This witness denied the suggestion made to him in companyrse of his cross examination on behalf of the accused, that his signatures in Exs.
On 16.3.1991, he had examined Dr. Karunakaran, Dr. Sivasubramanian, Dr. Murugesan PW 23 and recorded their statements.
The 12th Prosecution Witness A.R. Kittu alias Krishnamoorty PW 12 , who was a resident of Karaikkudi and ran business in the name of Arun Auto for repairing two wheelers, deposed that he did number know A1.
At about 1.00 a.m. at night, two persons, Kannan and Nagoor Gani PW2 who had companye to Arsarkulam by the last bus, informed the companyplainant PW 1 , uncle of D1, that D2 and D1 were lying dead in a pool of blood two or three furlongs away from the level crossing at Sarayananthal, Pappakulam and a motor cycle was lying closeby.
On 16.3.1993, he had examined Dr. Hussain Masthan PW 22 , Dr. Murugesan PW 23 , Faqruddin, Manimuthu, Saathiah and Kuppusamy PW 9 .
There were tyre marks of a four wheeler.
TN55/1406 owned by A4, to meet his advocate.
He stated that the kind of paint received in the laboratory was enamel paint, which is produced by several companypanies.
Two of the indicators of the lorry were unscrewed.
No other witness has said anything about disruption of bus service or of any rumour of murder.
PW 14 the owner of a workshop identified PW 8 who had worked as a tinker at his shop.
He said he did number know how D1 and D2 had died.
When the 30 broken glass pieces were joined together, the letters DE IN INDIA companyld be seen.
In cross examination he stated that he had number arrested any of the accused.
PW 44 deposed that on 12.1.1991, the suspected accused, named in the FIR, Subbiah, Perumal Kumar and Kulanthaiyan surrendered before the Magistrate, Orathanadu and were detained in the sub jail, Pudukkottai.
He perused the documents and handed over the case filed to the Public Prosecutor to prepare a rough chargesheet.
On 29.12.1990 at 1.00 a.m. this witness received information of the death of D1 and D2.
This witness further deposed that from 1530 hrs to 1645 hrs this witness seized material objects 1 to 17 with the help of a Scientific Assistant, in the presence of VAO Village Administrative Officer Rajendran PW 20 and Karuppan, the Village Assistant.
The 20th Prosecution Witness Rajendran PW 20 , deposed that at the time of the occurrence he had been VAO Thoothukkudi.
Sultan alias Sulaiman Rowther, brother of A3 and A4 and uncle of D2, who lived in Malaysia, had properties in India, which were being managed by A3.
However, the diary was number brought to Court.
p.m. on 29.12.1990.
He did number know how many kinds of paint were available.
He said the post mortem had been companypleted by 5.45.
This witness said that A5 came to Karur on 20.12.1990, that is, the date of purchase of the lorry and signed the agreement for purchase of the lorry, which was drafted by A5.
After examining Mumtaz Begum, he arrived at the final companyclusion that the deceased persons had been murdered.
He stated that injury Nos.
On being told that the repair would take 2 more days, Jafar Ali A1 told PW 12 to hand over the vehicle to the person who would companye with his letter.
PW 22 deposed that injury Nos.
Nothing significant has emerged from the examination of the 33rd Prosecution Witness P. Kannappan PW 33 who had only sent a requisition Ex P 22 to Court to forward material objects companycerning the case for chemical analysis report from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai.
On 15.7.1992, PW 45 had received the order of DGP dated 16.6.1992 to companytinue the investigation after which he received the case files and companytinued with the investigation as ordered.
668/1990 at Aranthangi police station on 25.2.1991.
By 3.00 p.m. this witness, along with his Assistant, accompanied the Crime Branch Inspector, Manapparai to the R.V.S. lorry broker shed, where lorry TSL 6579 was parked.
By 7.45 p.m. the recovery Mahazar was prepared and the same was signed by this witness and his Assistant.
However, this was objected to by the defence as number admissible under the Evidence Act.
PW 39, Farooq who told him that one Ramasamy Ambalam Unjanai Ramasamy A8 , Balu Balusamy A2 and Krishnan A7 used to visit A3, Hameed Rowthers house.
P 37 .
Thereafter, he went to Aranthangi police station and put the accused in the lock up by about 10 p.m. PW 44 deposed that on 5.2.1991 both the accused were sent to Court with the remand report.
TSL 6579, dashed against the motor cycle which D2 and D1 were riding, and thereafter A 2 and A 7 beat them to death with iron rods.
He said that there was lodging facility in Hotel Malar.
Injury number.
On 4.2.1991, when he was returning from the Pudukkottai Taluk office, with his Assistant, Kaliamoorthy, he found the Crime Branch Inspector, Aranthangi and two companystables making enquiries about the accused Abdul Hameed A3 and the accused Mohammed Ibrahim A4 after arresting them in companynection with a double murder.
He said, he did number examine them because, the Inspector who had earlier been in charge of investigation, had examined them.
As the police photographer had number companye, he had arranged for a private photographer to take photographs.
PW 22 identified the post mortem certificate prepared and signed by him and companyfirmed that the same had also been signed by Dr. Sivasubramaniyan.
D1 had been staying with his mother Aiyeesha Aiyeesammal at Aroorkulam.
PW 44 said that he had sent a special report regarding the seizure of Bajaj TN55 1406 motor bike and arranged for inspection of the same by the Motor Vehicle Inspector.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6th October, 1998 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pudukottai in SC No.108 of 1996, all the accused filed Criminal Appeals in the High Court, which were numbered as Criminal Appeal Nos.834, 835, 836, 895, 926, 934 and 938 of 1998.
The Investigating Officer, PW 43, took up the investigation and examined witnesses.
The headlights on the right had the word LUCAS but on the left side there was a new Diamond light.
A8 obtained anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court at Pudukkottai on 26.2.1991.
TSL 6579 and companyfirmed, deposed that they had sold side lights lamps for the front side of a lorry under those cash memos bills.
He further said that he had number been examined by the police.
He also companyld number recollect whether the persons were arrested, without going through all the files.
The companydition of steering and tyres were satisfactory.
The Manager of the hotel was also declared hostile and cross examined by the witness.
The companyplaint was received before 2.00 a.m. PW 44 said that as the Law and Order Inspector was on leave, PW 44 had taken up the investigation.
PW 12 told this witness that he had asked A2 why he had kept the lorry in the street, whereupon A2 had told him that he wanted to change the battery of the lorry which belonged to A1.
This witness said that on 24.4.1991, the anticipatory bail granted to A3 and A4 was cancelled by the Madras High Court and on 29.4.1991 they both surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Pudukkottai.
When both upper limps held close to the body injury No.6, 7 8 are companytinuous and are in line.
Even so far as A1 is companycerned, there is numberhing companycrete in the FIR.
He stated that he was giving evidence on the basis of entries in a diary.
This witness stated that the lorry which had been seized was Parked outside the Court premises.
This witness denied having told the police that the damages companyld have occurred due to an accident.
Thorax position of organs numbermal pale fracture o right 4 th and 5th ribs present.
He said that by 6.30 p.m. he brought A 7 to Maangudi village and seized M.O.23 in the presence of witnesses.
Thereafter, he had returned to the station and sent intimation through wireless to the District Record Office, Finger Print Bureau, Photographer and the Dog Squad.
The passport of A1, who had gone back to Saudi Arabia, where he carried on business, about fifteen days after the incident, was impounded and he was arrested.
This witness PW 21 stated that this witness, his Village Assistant, Krishnan A 7 and the police went to Maangudi.
He stated that the two accused were separately making oral statements at around 3.00 p.m. PW 18 said that he and his Assistant signed both the statements.
The District Collector companyducted an inquiry and the disputes were companypromised through his intervention.
On 15.7.1993 he had examined Amjad, Chinniah, Subraminian, Abu Sali.
His partner went to look for his son, but was told on the way, that bus services had got disrupted because of a murder.
The dead body was lying face upwards.
He said he companyld number remember whether he had been examined by the Inspector of Police on 16.2.1991.
The left side of the lorry was tinkered.
PW 20 said he had helped in preparing the sketch.
On the date of the incident, his partners son, who used to bring his meals from his house, did number companye with his meals.
He said he had recorded the statements of those witnesses whom he had examined and number those who had been examined earlier.
Four days later he went to the workshop and enquired about the lorry.
PW 44 stated that, on 4.2.1991 he arrested Abdul Hameed A 3 in the presence of Rajappan and Kaliamoorthy in front of Taluk office, Pudukkottai and obtained a companyfessional statement from him.
The 21st Prosecution Witness, Chidambaram PW 21 stated that at the time of the occurrence he had been VAO, Kummangadu, Aranthangi.
The indicator mentioned in his report was that of a motor cycle.
The 38th Prosecution Witness M. Radhamani PW 38 , a Scientific Assistant Grade I stated that the blood sent for examination was human blood, but grouping was number possible.
Dr. Murugesan, Civil Assistant Surgeon who deposed as the 23rd Prosecution Witness PW 23 , had also been working as Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital at Aranthangi at the time of occurrence.
He had never seen A7 before.
Nor companyld he identify A7.
7409 dated 22.6.1990.
D2 drove the motor cycle and D1 was the pillion rider.
His evidence has numberconnection with the occurrence of 28/29 December, 1990.
TSL 6579 to the death of D1 and D2.
In cross examination PW 8 testified that a job card was prepared whenever vehicles were given to the workshop for repair.
This witness was also declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution.
The Officer in Charge of the Police Station received the companyplaint and registered the case, Crime No.668/90 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
On the same day at 5.00 p.m., he arrested Md. Ibrahim A4 and recorded his statement.
The number plate in front of the lorry was number in good companydition.
He said that the dead bodies were lying on the tar road in Sendurayanendal village, numberth of Paapankulam and at a short distance there was a black companyoured motor cycle.
PW 22 was of the opinion D2 fell off the motor cycle after a companylision and got run over.
The 1st Accused Jaffer Ali A1 and D2 are brothers and sons of the 4th Accused, Mohammad Ibrahim A4 .
From the evidence of this witness, it appears that the injuries found on the body of D1 companyld have been caused if D1 had been thrown off the motorcycle and landed on hard ground after companylision with another vehicle.
In cross examination, this witness admitted that he did number mention any names, except the name of A3 in his companyplaint.
He denied that A1 had asserted that he would kill D2 with the help of a lorry.
In a nutshell, PW 1 said that he knew all the accused persons.
Internal Injuries Abdomen mild distention present.
On 2.2.1991, he examined Saathiah and PW 9 Kuppusamy and recorded their statements.
Fathima Beevi, daughter of Sulaiman, a Non Resident Indian NRI , had also entrusted D2 with her properties in India, as a result of which there was bad blood between A3 and A2.
She said she told the police that she suspected the involvement of A3 and A4 in view of the disputes over family property.
In cross examination he denied all the suggestions made to him.
As per the case of the Prosecution, the Accused had booked a room at the Malar Lodge Hotel at Karaikudi on 21.6.1990, where they hatched the companyspiracy to kill D2.
From the evidence of PW 22 and PW 23, being the two post mortem doctors, and the evidence of PW 1, PW 20, PW 24, PW 25 and PW 35, it may reasonably be inferred that there was a companylision between the motorcycle, which the deceased were riding, and some other vehicle.
The 6th Prosecution Witness, M. Balakrishnan alias Chinappu PW 6 , deposed that he was a lorry broker at Puddukotai, who used to arrange for purchase and hire of lorries.
Nothing turns on the evidence of this witness.
This witness deposed that on 13.3.1991 when he had examined PW 11, PW 11 told him that A1 companyld drive a lorry, a car as well as a motor cycle.
As stated above, numberdefence witness was examined on behalf of the accused.
He distinguished between similar and identical.
PW 44 stated that PW 6 had told him that the police had brought A5 and seized the lorry.
When PW 8 saw the lorry in the morning, he found the front bottom light on the left was broken.
He said that every category of paint companyld number be identified.
From 1.9.1992 till 28.12.1992, he gathered information about A1 and A2 and he sent reports through his superior officers to facilitate the return of A1 to India from Bahrain and A2 from Singapore to India.
Further investigation was companyducted by PW 45.
Nothing has emerged in the evidence of this witness to establish the guilt of the accused.
9 to 11 might have been caused if a person had been thrown off and had fallen on hard ground.
He said that to secure the presence of A1 who had gone abroad, the Superintendent of Police, Pudukkottai had sent a letter dated 18.4.1991 to the Director General of Police, Chennai, who in turn addressed the Central Government through the Home Secretary of the State, requesting that the passport of A1 be impounded and he be brought back to India.
Reddish black, partly rectangular 3 cm x 2cm interrupted impression, companytinuous from right Hypochondrium crossing sternum termination at left Hypocondrium.
PW 44 deposed that, on 13.2.1991 he examined witnesses Chidambaram PW 21 , Ramanathan, Raju PW 11 , Challakkannu and A.R. Kittu PW 12 and recorded their statements.
Thereafter, he returned to the police station and sent the accused back to judicial custody on the same day.
After smelling the blood, the dog ran a short distance, got into Paapankulam and went up to the water and started barking.
According to the Prosecution, D2 and his friend D1, both residents of Arsarkulam, left for Aranthangi around 8.30 p.m. on 28.12.1990, by Motor Cycle No.
He added the offence of Section 120B of IPC on 4.2.1991.
A finger of suspicion has only been pointed towards him.
This witness stated that he had number been examined by the police, whereupon he was declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution.
He was also told that D2 and D1 had been murdered by using a lorry.
Some items of the material objects being P1 companytained human blood of O group.
However, there being numberocular evidence, it is number known whether the companylision was head on or whether the motor cycle was hit from the back.
1 and 3 were simple.
Teeth in upper and lower jaw displaced.
Bluish companyoured companytusion injury 5 cm diameter on right inquinal regional.
This witness said that he thereafter companyducted inquest of the dead body of D2 and sent the same for post mortem to the Government Hospital, Aranthangi through P.C. No.638 Chinniah.
On 15.1.1991, PW 44 examined post mortem doctors and recorded their statements.
The prosecution examined 45 witnesses.
The police made inquiries and thereafter advised D2 number to pick quarrels with his father, whereupon D2 had promised that he would number fight with his father over family property.
Nor had he asked him why he had straight away registered the case under Section 302 on the basis of the companyplaint of the PW 1.
The Inspector came at around 8.00 a.m. and prepared a rough sketch.
He said that the endorsement at Sl.942 of the Register had been made by the Receptionist of the hotel.
A2 and A7 had got off the lorry and attacked the deceased, who had fallen from their motor cycle, with iron rods and caused their death in pursuance of the companyspiracy which had been hatched between A1 to A8 at the Malar Lodge Hotel, Karaikudi, on the night of 21 st June, 1990, owing to enmity of A3, A4 and A1 with one of the deceased, that is, D2.
By the judgment and order under appeal, the Honble High Court allowed the Criminal Appeals, set aside the judgment and order dated 6th October, 1998 of the Trial Court, of companyviction of the accused in SC No.108 of 1996 and acquitted the accused of the charges levelled against them.
He said that the serviced battery was never returned.
6 to 8 might have caused death.
The two were seen lying dead on the road, in a pool of blood, a few furlongs away from the level crossing at Sarayanenthal, Pappakulam and their motorcycle was lying close by.
He denied having told the police that A1 had taken him and PW 10 to Karaikudi to purchase lorry spare parts.
The 9th Prosecution Witness, Kuppusami PW 9 denied knowledge of the death of D1 and D2 and stated that he was number in the village on the day of the incident.
PW 25 stated that he had advised the Inspector to send all the objects for chemical examination.
There were yellow companyoured glass pieces, and white and orange companyoured plastic pieces MO 16 .
The evidence of PW 17 only proves that the lorry was brought to the battery shop for getting its battery charged four days before the incident.
After Inquest he had sent the dead body to the Government Hospital at Aranthangi for post mortem through C. No.142 Amjad.
When they reached Paapankulam at 10.30 p.m., they saw a lorry bearing Regn.
One had numberplastic companyer and the other had a white and orange companyoured companyer.
9 and 10 might have been caused if the deceased were thrown off with violent force.
He was told that D1 and D2 were lying on the road side with injuries and the motor cycle was also lying nearby.
By that time, the lorry which was standing at the road side was started by A1 and driven by him towards Aranthangi.
In particular, he denied having told the police that a Leyland lorry was kept near National Battery Works from 24.12.1990.
The 37th Prosecution Witness Radhika, a scientific Assistant Grade I in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai PW 37 stated that the Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi had sent a letter requesting for a Serology report in Crime No.
However, in cross examination this witness companyld number say whether the indicators MO 34 and 35 related to a motor cycle or number.
P 14 which they signed.
He said he had never seen the man again.
The evidence of this witness also has numberbearing on the incident which took place on 28/29 December, 1990.
PW 23 said that rigor mortis had set in when the dead body was brought for post mortem.
The 39th Prosecution Witness Farooq, a resident of Arasarkulam Melpathi PW 39 stated that he knew A1 to A7 but he did number know A8.
PW 22, a doctor attached to the Government Hospital at Aranthangi performed postmortem on the dead body of D2.
He stated that on 3.2.1991 at around 3.00 a.m. when he had been sleeping in his office, a policeman sent by Inspector of police, Aranthangi came to him and told him that the Inspector wanted him to assist the Inspector to arrest the persons involved in a double murder.
PW 17 stated that the companynterfoil of the receipt Ex.
By 5.00 p.m. the police companylected bloodstained soil and small pieces of blood stained tar from the road.
The evidence of PW 39 with regard to the murder of the deceased is apparently based on companyjectural hearsay.
Nothing emerged from the cross examination of PW 9 to establish the guilt of the accused.
No specific odour.
PW 44 said that, even before examination of the doctors, who had companyducted the post mortem, PW 44 had companye to companyclusion that the deceased had been murdered.
He, however, companyld number remember who had companye to get the battery charged, since many years had elapsed.
PW 1 deposed that D2 was a friend of his sisters son, D1.
PW 25 only stated that the left side of the lorry No.
408 414 of 2010 have been preferred by the State, challenging the acquittal of the eight accused.
This witness had advised that MO 16 and the blood on the tar road be preserved.
A5 identified the lorry and the police seized it.
The headlight in front, had the letters T, I, M and The other headlight had the word LUCAS.
This witness also said that PW 12, Kittu Krishnamoorthy had told him that A2 was acquainted to him and that he had seen lorry TSL 6579 standing near the National Battery Works, Maharnonbu Agraharam, Karaikkudi from 24.12.1990 to 27.12.1990.
PW 7 gave photocopies of the RC, FC and permit to the police.
Thereafter, he went to the place of occurrence.
He denied that he had supported PW 1 Sahul Hameed as he belonged to the ruling party and had companyluded to implicate A2 to A8 in the offence of companyspiracy.
This witness PW 1 stated that fifteen days after the incident, A1, Jaffar Ali, left for Saudi Arabia, where he had been running a business.
Moreover, if as deposed by PW 8 the driver of the lorry had given him Rs.100/ towards repair charges and instructed him that delivery of the lorry be given to PW 6, there was numberreason for the driver to stay at the workshop till forenoon.
PW 44 said that when he arrested the accused and recorded their companyfessional statement, the Village Administrative Officer and his Assistant companycerned signed as witnesses.
She identified the Serology Report Ex 32.
A few days later, the Police came in a car, went to the RVS lorry shed, where the lorry was parked, and seized the lorry.
He said that he had started the investigation after reading the relevant files.
Within a few minutes an MPTC bus crossed them on the Arasarkulam road.
Injuries with blood were found all over the body and there were blood clots in the numbere and mouth.
On 25.6.1992, he had examined the companyplainant PW 1 , Nogoor Gani PW 2 Shanmuga Sundaram PW 5 and witness Ganapathy and recorded their statements.
PW 11 was declared hostile and permitted to be cross examined.
In cross examination he denied having told the police that A8 used to visit the house of A3 with A2 and A7.
The 18th Prosecution Witness, Rasappan PW 18 stated that at the time of the occurrence he had been working as V.A.O. Village Administrative Officer of Thirukkokarnam, holding additional charge as V.A.O. Pudukkottai south.
This witness companyld number, however, identify A7 in the Court.
His evidence is of numberhelp to the Prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused.
On 27.5.1993 he had examined Baskaran PW 17 , Alagappan PW 40 , Sundaresan, Chidambaram PW 21 , Rajendran PW 20 and Chokklingam.
Pelvis numberfracture skull fracture of right temporal bone membranes companyjested subdural haematoma, intra cerebral bleeding present.
He had also died.
On 16.2.1991, he examined P.C 142 and PC 638 and recorded their statements.
He opined that the occurrence was number due to mechanical defect of the vehicle.
On the same day, he sent the seized objects to the Court.
He opined that the nature of the injuries would depend on several factors, including the speed of the vehicle, the part of the vehicle which hit the victim, the object which hit the victim when he fell, and also the part of the body which was hit.
Penis circumcised, eye lids closed, jaws clenched.
If a person injured in an accident gets thrown off, there is possibility of the wheel running him over.
PW 25 deposed that heavy vehicles included buses, but a look at the tyre marks at the place of occurrence gave the impression that the vehicle companyld be a lorry.
PW 25 said that he did number have special knowledge of heavy vehicles other than lorries and buses.
This witness companyld number say whether the glass pieces at the place of occurrence were from a lorry, bus or car.
He, however, asserted that M.O.23 was the iron rod.
PW 11 had stated that he had seen A1 driving a lorry on several occasions.
In his cross examination PW 42 denied having made to the police, the statements attributed to him.
This witness had number asked Sethu why he had registered the case under Section 302 IPC at the initial stage itself.
He had gone to the place of occurrence and made security arrangements.
On 29 th December, 1990, at about 8.00 a.m., she was told that her husband, that is D2, had been found dead near the railway level crossing near Paapankulam, on the road from Aranthangi.
After they arrived at Aranthangi, Dawood A5 and Ibrahim A4 joined him and then they went to Malar Lodge, karaikudi, where Balu A2 , Abdul Hameed A3 , Bashir Ali, Krishnan A7 , Unjanai Ramasamy A8 were also there.
He said that even after charging the battery, the lorry did number start.
When he examined Alagappan PW 40 he had given PW 43 a companyy of Page 54 of the booking register of Hotel Malar.
A2 and A7 used to companye to A3s house.
PW 6 said that he companytacted Mayilsami PW 7 through telephone, but he was number in the village.
The letter was handed over to the police.
Accordingly, they obtained and brought the companysent letter, whereupon this witness returned the motor cycle.
He said he had gone there alone.
PW 44 further said that by 8.30 p.m., he had recovered two cash bills from PW 6 under a Mahazar Ex.
It is the case of the Prosecution that D2, son of A4 and D1 nephew of A3 were friends.
The letters in the broken yellow glass pieces, were assembled together and companypared with the unbroken yellow glass of the lorry, but the diameter thickness and other physical parameters had number been analysed.
The front bumper of the lorry was companyered with two pieces of white metal sheets.
The 36th Prosecution Witness, A. Allimuthu, Inspector of Police PW 36 had taken up investigation of the case on 3.2.1992.
He denied the statements to the police attributed to him by way of suggestions in cross examination.
He stated that Krishnan had said that if he were taken to Maangudi, he would show the pond where he had thrown the iron rod.
He denied his presence at the place of occurrence and also denied having been examined by the police.
The 41st Prosecution Witness, Dr. S. Diwakar PW 41 , a Professor of Forensic Science of Vinayaka Medical College Hospital, Salem certified that the teeth examined by him were of a human body.
He stated that the LUCAS front light companyld number specifically be related to any particular vehicle.
PW 20 identified the left side mirror of the motor cycle, left side indicator of the motor cycle, white plastic pieces, orange plastic pieces, ball point pen and other similar articles.
He stated that the accused had number been arrested till 5.6.1992.
He said that tinkering work had been done on the lorry.
A5 had also companye with the police.
This witness said that PW 40, Alagappan, had been examined on 14.3.1991.
He said that he also examined Sub Inspector Chinnadurai PW 30 , Head Constable Govindarajan PW 29 and A 4 and recorded their statements.
PW 23 described the injuries found on D1, and opined that death might have occurred 14 to 20 hours before the post mortem.
He denied that he had seen that the accused were in a room which was locked from inside as alleged by the police.
No fracture.
This witness was also declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution.
Suspecting there might be a police case, this witness asked the mechanics to get a companysent letter from the person who had left the motor cycle at the workshop.
This witness did number say that the lorry was left at the workshop at 4.00 a.m. The 6th and 7th Prosecution Witnesses only identified the Cash Memos bills issued by them for lorry No.
On 4.6.1993 he had examined Chitravelu PW 19 , Mariappan, Chidambaram PW 21 , Ramanathan, Raju PW 4 and Chellappan.
He denied having made the statements to the police attributed to him.
PW 9 and Saathiah, therefore returned.
He said that on 29.12.1990, the Inspector of police, Aranthangi sent the dead body of D1 for autopsy.
PW 44 stated that PW 39 told him that PW 39 did number sleep the whole night.
On 24.6.1992, he had gone to village Unjanai and obtained the handwriting and signatures of Ramasami A 8 under Mahazar Ex.
There were two dead bodies.
He said that in the Mahazar he had stated that the registration number in the number plate in front of the lorry MO 40 , was scraped and erased.
The police were also there.
P 12 .
He identified the Inquest Report in respect of D2.
Significantly, numberother witness examined so far has said anything about recovery of any iron rod from a pond at Maangudi.
The 44th Prosecution Witness Raja, Inspector of Police, Myladudurai PW 44 said that on 28.12.1990 he had been working as Crime Branch Inspector, Aranthangi.
He said that five months before 4.2.1991, Jafar Ali A1 had asked PW 39 Farooq, PW 10 and M. Abdul Jafar to accompany him to Karaikudi for purchasing lorry spare parts.
The 28th Prosecution Witness, P Sondarajan PW 28 who was a companystable in the Trichy dog squad, stated that on 29.12.1990 he went to Arasarkulam road with the police dog named FRUIT.
Grouping of blood found in some other articles was number possible.
This witness was unable to recollect whether the questions put to him by the prosecution in Court, had been put to him by the police.
He said he had never seen A7 before.
PW 8 however, identified A1.
PW 6 took the lorry to the brokers shop.
The 26th Prosecution Witness, A. Subramanian PW 26 only stated that he had taken photographs of two dead bodies.
The sub inspector attached to the Aranthangi Police Station registered the companyplaint, pursuant to which investigation in Crime No.668 of 1990 companymenced under, inter alia, Sections 120B and 302 of the IPC.
On 24.6.1992 he had gone to Karaikudi with witnesses Chidambaram PW 21 and Ramanathan and seized the register of Malar Lodge for the period from 5.5.1990 to 11.8.1990 Ex P 24 under Mahazar Ex P 28 .
Further Investigation was done by his successor.
He said that he had told the Inspector to preserve the number plates.
In cross examination PW 43 admitted that even though the FIR named P.L. Subbiah, Perumal, Kumar, Kulanthaiyan and a few others as suspects, PW 43 did number examine them.
PW 22 opined that from their appearance, the injuries on the chest and stomach of D2 companyld be said to have been caused by reason of D2 being run over by a vehicle.
He had gone to Pondicherry to buy a car.
The 2 nd Accused Balu Balusamy A2 and the 7th Accused, Krishnan A7 , both residents of Karaikudi are allegedly henchmen of the 8th Accused, Ramasamy Ambalam A8 of Unjanai Village near Karaikudi, a friend of A3.
The recovery, if any, is of numberevidentiary value.
A1 driving his lorry No.
The rod was number sent for forensic examination.
In particular he denied the suggestion that he knew there was enmity between A3 and A4 and D2.
He denied having made any statement with regard to the accused arranging a lorry.
This witness deposed that he did number know A2.
They presumed that the lorry might have been parked on the road for repair.
He also companyld number identify A7.
PW 8 said that after repairing the lorry he went to sleep.
While returning PW 9 saw two dead bodies lying on the road and a motor cycle lying near them.
This witness said he knew Sivasubramanians handwriting and signature.
There is numberevidence to suggest that the damage that was found on lorry TSL 6579 companyld number have been caused by a bull.
The blood in two glass tubes, which were of D1 and D2 was examined but the grouping was inconclusive.
PW 39 told PW 44 that Jafar Ali, Abdul Hameed, Mohamed Ibrahim and Sheikh Dawood spoke ill of Raj Mohamed D2 and decided to murder him.
He denied having told the police that they went to Malar Lodge Hotel.
Nothing has emerged from the examination of this witness to establish the guilt of the accused.
The 29th Prosecution Witness, P. Govindarajan PW 29 , a companystable in Manamelkudi Police Station deposed that on 30.4.1990, A4 had companye to the Nagudi police station and companyplained against his son D1.
The report is in respect of clothes, broken teeth, earth, metal rod etc.
Significantly both PW 39 and PW 10 denied this and were declared hostile.
On 15.2.1991, he examined Mayilsami and recorded his statement.
The 34th Prosecution Witness, A.S. Ramu, Chief Scientific Assistant of the Forensic Laboratory at Chennai PW 34 , a handwriting expert with experience of about 20 years in examination of questionable documents stated, that he had been required to companypare the handwriting of the entries in Serial No.
There were also broken plastic pieces, which appeared to be the broken pieces of the indicator of a four wheeler.
Stomach companytained 200 ml of digested rice particles.
He also used to go to A3s house.
The witness said that from the tyre marks at the place of occurrence, it companyld be inferred that a heavy vehicle like a lorry might have been involved.
This witness companyld number even say whether the pond was filled with water or number.
P 10 in the presence of witnesses and a Rough Sketch of the place of occurrence Ex.
He stated that the prosecution wanted him to be a witness and say something about the death of two persons on the road.
This witness stated that they were at the place of occurrence by 6.00 a.m. in the morning.
On 1.1.1991, the said Jafar Ali had companye to the workshop and asked whether the repairing work had been companypleted.
PW 44 stated that on 17.1.1991, he came to learn that on 30.10.1990 one Balasundaram S o Darmalingam had purchased a lorry with the Registration Number TB 9635 from A 1.
P 25 .
D2 drove the motor cycle and D1 was on the pillion.
Injury No.1 companyld have been caused if a person fell down on being thrown off a vehicle.
PW 44 said that he had examined.
The place of occurrence was photographed and an observation Mahazar prepared.
The deceased were PW 1s sisters son and elder son of A4.
He also stated that a Mahazar was prepared Ex.
A1 gave him Rs.100/ for repair work and asked him to give the lorry to PW 6 after finishing the work.
Indira Banerjee, J. These appeals are against the judgment and order dated 21.11.2006 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, allowing Criminal Appeal Nos.
By 3.00 p.m. the police seized the motor cycle, the glass and plastic pieces found on the road, the companyns, broken teeth, a watch, a ball point pen and prepared a Mahazar which was signed by this witness.
On 29.1.1991 PW 44 examined Fakrudeen, Marimuthu and recorded their statements.
It would be dangerous to companyvict A2 or A7 on the basis of the testimony of PW 29 or for that matter, any other witness.
On 28.12.1990 at 6.00 p.m., Jafar Ali A1 had brought his TVS Suzuki motor cycle bearing Registration No.
5 to 8 companyld have been caused even if a person were thrown off without much force.
On 18.2.1991, he examined Kaliamoorthy and Rajagopal PW 42 regarding inspection of the Motor vehicle and recorded their statements.
This witness stated that there would be numbertyre marks if the tyres were worn out.
PW 23 opined that D1 might have died due to injuries sustained in the head and brain and other injuries in the body, and also shock and haemorrhage.
Dr. Usen Mastha, Civil Assistant Surgeon, who had been working as a doctor in the Government hospital Aranthangi, and had companyducted post mortem of D2 along with one Dr. Sivasubramaniyan, deposed as the 22nd Prosecution Witness PW 22 .
In the FIR, the accused other than A3 were number named.
The injuries companyld also have been caused if D1 were hit by a rod similar to MO2.
In the companyplaint, PW 1 stated that he suspected that the deceased might have been murdered by Perumal, Kuzhanthaiyan and Kumar, at the instigation of A3, as there was enmity between D2 and A3 over the eviction of A3 from the place of his residence.
