They came to know that the police are after then they came to my house today and told me what happened Shanmugasundram recorded the above averments of Chandran after that bringing all 3 to you and present them before you.
P 5 to P 7, recovered MO 6 TVS moped TN 38 7344 , MO 7 bottle smelling of kerosene and MO 8 matchbox .
Mean while Sahadevan bought how Loganathans face and hand and started face and since due to strangulation Loganathan fainted and fell into the east side of the ditch and suddenly and Chandran took kerosene and matchbox from moped companyer which was kept ready, in order to avoid identity burnt him and killed him and after that they all 3 took the moped and they went to Sahadevan house and parked the vehicle and the same night they went out of station and a return to Tirupur only yesterday.
The Investigating Officers, PW 9 and PW 10, have number stated in their statements that the accused persons were absconding.
The prosecution case is that Smt.
All the accused were tried in accordance with law.
P 4 reads as under I am the president of Kanakampalayam today the 14.7.2002 at 9.30 in the morning, when I was at my office along with loclite Shanmugasundaram, a person named Chandran aged 36 son of Muthu and resident of Navakarai, Pooluvapatti along with Sahadevan aged 27 s o Pannerselvam having a furniture by name Sri Priya agencies at Boyampalayam Sri Nagar and one Arul Murugan aged 23 s o Krishnan, belonging to Dindugal and going to printing work by staying at pandian nagar came to my office saying that he along with his friends Sahadevan and Arulmurugan, on 08 07 02 his sisters husband Yoganathan Logananthan who was without going to work and number looking after the family and was loitering hereunder an numberway to look after his sister Kamalal and her children and more tortures from her husband and companyfessed to her that her husband without going any work, he is simply loitering hereunder and tried to him to separate her from her husband.
Further, Ext.
The statements made by the accused were reduced to writing by PW 6 and after obtaining their signatures and putting his own signature thereon he handed over the report, Ext.
PW9, on the basis of the companyfessional statements, Ext.
According to PW 5, Karuppuswamy, when he was talking to one Chinnaswamy at a three star hotel near the Neruparichal bus stand at about 10 p.m. on 9th July, 2002, he saw Sahadevan driving a TVS moped in Povmmanayakkampallayam road, while two other persons were sitting as pillion riders.
P 1, to the Sub Inspector of Police, Ganesan, PW 8.
As per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was murdered on 9th 10th July, 2002.
If the accused were to make such a statement to the police itself, then what was the need for them to first go to PW 6.
PW 4 stated that he had seen Loganathan, who used to live opposite his house, going on a moped along with his wifes brother Chandran at about 2 Oclock in the afternoon.
Thus, accused No.1 and his friends the other two accused entered into a criminal companyspiracy to companymit murder of Loganathan.
PW 9 then sent the MOs for forensic examination along with Ext.
Next day, upon hearing the news that there was a companypse lying, he went and saw it.
However, an explanation is advanced on behalf of the State that the accused only signed the statement and it was PW 6 who then handed over Ext.
P 2 and took photographs of the dead body.
Upon this, this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution with the leave of the companyrt.
P 4 is addressed to the police inspector.
P 4, to the Police Station along with the custody of the accused whereupon PW 9, the Investigating Officer arrested all the accused persons.
PW 1, upon receiving this information, went to the spot and saw the dead body.
The accused persons were residents of the same village and there is numberhing on record to show that the Police made any serious attempt to search and arrest them.
Thereafter, those three persons returned.
After 10 p.m. in the night, when there was numbertraunt on the Neruperchial Bommanaichenpalayam mud road Sahadevan in his moped with Loganathan sit and also made Arul Murugan to sit along with and asked to halt at certain place and again Sahadevan came in moped and he along with kerosene and match box and went there and parked the moped and were all 4 of them talking enticing Loganathan with getting him a job at Tirupur he with the towel which was kept ready put around Loganathans neck and he strangled by holding one end of the towel and Arulmurugan strangling by the other end of the towel.
P 4 and to provide greater credence to this document.
The whole emphasis is upon the bitter relationship between the husband and wife.
P 15, the requisition therefor.
The vehicle was proceeding towards west.
P 4 to the police, along with the custody of the accused persons.
After knowing that there was a companypse lying at Nereuperichel, he went and saw the dead body.
Finally, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and produced on record the documentary evidence.
The accused No.1, Chandran is the brother of Kamalal PW2 .
PW5 also deposed that on 9th July, 2002, at about 10.00 p.m., he had seen three persons going in a moped towards Bommanaickanpalayam road.
P 4 by other prosecution evidence.
PW2 was being ill treated by Loganathan, her husband.
Moreover, in their statement under Section 313 CrPC, the accused have denied the very execution of Ext.
Being her brother, accused No.1 thought that if he murdered Loganathan, life of his sister would be peaceful.
accused No.2, Sahadevan, and accused No.
Between 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., he companyducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared the inquest report, Ext.
The Investigating Officer, PW 9, proceeded to the scene of occurrence.
Hence elimination is better than separation and said his sisters life would be, peaceful, he along with his friends Sahadevan and Arulmurugan executed a friendly call to him and told him that they would promised him a job at Tirupur.
After sometime, only one person returned on the moped and again went towards west.
Four days later, on 14th July, 2002, the accused persons are alleged to have gone to the office of PW 6 to make the companyfession of having murdered the brother in law of accused No.1.
She numbered the injuries on the body of the deceased and issued the post mortem certificate, Ext.
P 4 is stated to have been made by the accused persons to PW 6, in the presence of Shanmugasundaram.
It is further the case of the prosecution that on 14th July, 2002, when PW 6, Muthurathinam, President of Kanakampalayam Panchayat was in his office along with one Shanmugasundaram, all the above named three accused came to his office and told him that deceased Loganathan was the brother in law of accused No.1 and on account of family problem between accused No.1 and the deceased, they murdered Loganathan by strangulating him and after putting kerosene on him, set the body of the deceased afire.
There he prepared observation Mahazar, Ext.
The very basis of Ext.
3, Arul Murugan, were the friends of accused No.1.
It was that of Loganathan.
He stated that he companyld number identify those three persons, if he saw them.
The said person, for reasons best known to the prosecution, has number been examined by the prosecution to prove the recording of Ext.
P 4 falls to the ground when one peruses the statement of Kamalal, PW In her statement, she has stated that her husband was employed in a rolling mill and that there was numberdispute between them.
In Ext.
He then went to the Perumanallur Police Station and made a companyplaint, Ext.
The Senior Civil Assistant Surgeon, PW7, attached to the Thirupur Government Hospital, after receiving the requisite information and the body, performed autopsy on the body of the deceased.
Upon receipt of the companyplaint, the police registered a case being Crime No.150 of 2002 for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short the IPC against unknown accused.
P 10 as well as the forensic report Ext.
Even in her cross examination, numberhing companyld be brought out to establish the fact of alleged cruelties inflicted by the deceased upon her and there being any dispute between them.
Aggrieved from the judgment of the trial companyrt, the accused preferred an appeal before the High Court which came to be dismissed vide order dated 27th September, 2006 resulting in the filing of the present appeal.
Since the face of the companypse was burnt, he companyld number identify him.
Subsequently, PW 9 was relieved of his duties and PW 10 companypleted the investigation of the case and filed the chargesheet against all the three accused under Section 120B and Section 302 IPC.
After a while, one of them came back and again went in the same direction on the same vehicle.
Out of the three, he knew only one person who drove the moped and that was accused No.2, Sahadevan.
In order to examine the veracity of this document, the companyrt essentially has to find out the companyrectness and companyroboration of the facts stated in Ext.
Further, she has categorically stated that she had never stated anything with regard to dispute between her husband and accused No.1 to the police and that there was numberproperty dispute amongst them.
P 4, it is stated that the deceased ill treated his wife, PW 2, Kamalal and that was the motive and, in fact, essentially the cause for the accused to murder the deceased.
PW 4, then saw the deceased, Yoganandan and accused No.1 going in the same direction on the TVS moped at about 2 p.m. Again after some time, accused No.2 alone came back on the moped.
Kamalal, PW 2 was married to one Yoganandan Loganathan, the deceased.
An attempt has been made on behalf of the prosecution to support its case by the statements of PW 4 and PW 5.
The statement of these two witnesses is at variance with Exhibit P4 and hardly finds companyroboration from other prosecution evidence and also suffers from discrepancies.
On 10th July, 2002, at around 8.30 a.m., PW 3, Rajendran, saw a dead body in the Pommanayakkanpallam Road, whereupon he went to PW 1, the Administrative Officer and informed him of that fact.
P 10, expressing the opinion that the deceased would have died 27 to 28 hours prior to autopsy.
The body of the deceased was taken into custody by the police on 10th July, 2002 itself.
Swatanter Kumar, J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 27th September, 2006 vide which the High Court affirmed the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence dated 31st December, 2003 passed by the Trial Court.
