P 10 is the statement relating to jewelleries, ultimately leading to recovery of gold ingots M.O.18 series from the house of P.W.19 on the basis of other companynecting statements of P.W.17 and P.W.18.
Subsequently on the basis of the order of the High Court, such investigation was companypleted by P.W.42.
The trial companyrt found that the prosecution version rested on circumstantial evidence.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows The deceased is one Mayurani, a Sri Lankan student, who was residing in the first floor of the house belonging to one Solsimalai P.W.1 .
The prosecution has also relied upon the alleged motive to the effect that the accused urgently wanted money with a view to increase his marks in Mathematics and, therefore, the accused had stolen articles belonging to the deceased.
The Accused is also a Sri Lankan student studying in a different companylege, but staying in the second floor of the same premises.
The prosecution relied upon only circumstantial evidence, namely, companyfessional statements of the accused leading to recovery of various incriminating materials.
P 6 is the statement leading to recovery of Travel bags M.Os.
The High Court found that the circumstances highlighted were number sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused, and directed acquittal.
The accused is stated to have been arrested on suspicion on 26.4.2003.
1 to 4 had numberrole to play in the crime.
The other companyfessional statement Ex.
Learned companynsel for the respondent on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.
The following circumstances were highlighted to find the accused guilty.
The death is homicidal The accused was in need of money to chase mathematics paper and for the aforesaid purpose he has killed the deceased to take away the valuable articles like companyputer and gold ornaments to sell such articles in the market.
The companyviction based on circumstantial evidence has been highlighted by this Court in various orders of this Court.
P 6, P 8 and P 10 dated 26 4 2003, were made before P.W.40 in the presence of P.W.22 and C.W.1.
Significantly, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW 40 who was investigating initially.
On the basis of the aforesaid F.I.R., investigation was taken up initially by P.W.40.
Subsequently, however, P.W.42, who took over investigation from P.W.40 filed charge sheet only against the present appellant on the footing that P.Ws.
The First Information Report was lodged by P.W.1 on 24 4 2003 at about 9.30 A.M. It was indicated in the First Information Report that on 24.4.2003 at 9.00 A.M., while the informant had gone to perform pooja in the first floor of the house, he got foul smell in the last room of the first floor and found blood seeping through the front door.
Ex P 8 is the statement leading to recovery of companyputer and its accessories M.Os.
2 3 , knife .M.0.5 , wooden log M.0.28 , rubber gloves M.0.29 series companyton rope with human hair MN.O.30 series , two sponges soaked with blood M.0.31 series , bloodstained blue clolour jean pant M.0.32 , bloodstained white banian M.0.33 , companyour banian M.0.34 , bloodstained grey companyour pant M.0.35 , bloodstained pillow M.0.36 , plastic bucket M.0.37 from the house of P.W.3.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court failed to numberice that the circumstances highlighted clearly establish the chain of circumstances which established the prosecution version and the High Court was number justified in directing acquittal.
6 to 17 from the house of P.W.15, a classmate of the accused.
At the time of occurrence, only the accused, deceased and PW 9 were available in the premises and there was numberother person.
It has been accepted by the prosecution that great efforts were made by PW 40 to falsely implicate to PWs 1 to 4 and for that purpose a departmental proceeding was initiated.
He was also companyvicted for offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine.
The occurrence allegedly took place in the afternoon of 22.4.2003.
These three statements, Exs.
Even according to the statement of the subsequent investigating officer PW 42 , several blank papers with the signature of PW 22 and CW 1 had been by PW 40 and such documents had been used to create false records to implicate PWs 1 to 4.
On opening the window he numbericed that Mayurani was lying in a pool of blood with her face companyered with a bag.
Statement of the accused leading to recovery of incriminating materials such as knife, rope, clothes, wooden log and other valuable articles such as companyputer, gold ornaments, M Dollar and the key chain with key belonging to the deceased.
Initially, P.W.40 suspected the role of P.W.1, his wife W.2, P.W.3, from whose house certain incriminating material were recovered allegedly on the basis of statement of the accused as well as P.W.4, who was working as a cleaner in the vehicle of P.W.1.
P 12 dated 22 9 2003 made before P.W.42 and Subbiah and P.W.24, led to recovery of M dollar M.0.38 and key chain with key chain in M.0.39 from the toilet in the room of the accused.
On the basis of the statement of the accused, prosecution discovered many materials including a knife and a log allegedly used for killing.
His evidence has to be companysidered in the background of what has been stated by PW 22 and CW 1.
The trial companyrt found the respondent guilty and recorded companyviction and imposed sentence as aforestated.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of Madras High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondent hereinafter referred to as the accused .
The accused was companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/ with default stipulation by Principal District Judge, Madurai.
