Chandrasekaran, Veeranan and Deivendran vs State

Malai Subramanian, J.—The appellants three in number are the accused in S.C.No.117/94 before the Sessions Judge, Madurai, who

convicted them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 read with 34 IPC on the allegation that on 28.11.92 at

about 11.30 a.m, they stabbed the deceased Deivendran to death. The facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are as follows:

The deceased was a resident of Kodimangalam. P.W.1 is his mother and P.W.2 is his father. The accused also are the residents of the same

village and they are brothers among themselves. The deceased Deivendran married one Padmavathi, a resident of Moongilpatti, but in view of

misunderstanding between them, there was a divorce and thereafter, the deceased was living with his parents. Some four to five years prior to the

occurrence there was a case between the accused and P.W.2. On 28.10.92 the deceased Deivendran with P.Ws.3, 4 and some others went for

ploughing the field of P.W.4. At about 11.a.m., P.W.1 - the mother of the deceased took food for the deceased, while P.W.2 was tethering the

cattle for grazing and the deceased as well as P.Ws.3 and 4 were ploughing the field. At that time, the 2nd and 3rd accused came in an auto driven

by P.W.7 along with 2 constables. Immediately, the 2nd and 3rd accused started chasing the deceased with knives in their hands. The 1st accused

who came in a cycle took up a stone and he also chased the deceased. One of the constables also ran after them. On seeing the accused chasing

the deceased, P.W.1 shouted and on hearing the noise, P.W.2 came running to the field . The deceased entered a sugarcane field nearby followed

by the accused and one constable who ran behind them. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to P.W.5, the owner of the field and informed him at his

house. P.W.5 sent certain persons to the sugarcane field to find out the whereabouts of the deceased. In the meantime, one of the constables took

P.W.2 in the auto to Usilampatti village and after some time, came back to the scene of crime in the same auto while the other constable who ran

with the accused behind the deceased also came back with blood stains and got into the auto. Thereafter, P.W.2 was taken to Usilampatti Police

Station and kept in the lock up.

P.W.1 went and informed her another son Mahendran who came with her and searched for his brother in the sugarcane field, but could not find

him. After ascertaining from those who were present there that P.W.2 was taken to the police station, P.W.1 also went there at about 3.00 p.m.

The Sub Inspector of Police was present there. But she was not allowed to enter the police station. She also saw her husband P.W.2 at the police

station. Therefore, she went to the Office of the Superintendent of Police at Madurai, where she was informed to go back to the police station at

Oomachikulam. P.W.10 - Sub Inspector of Police was there. He questioned her and she narrated the incident. P.W.10 informed her not to tell

about the involvement of the police constables since it would weaken the case. Thereafter, Ex.P.1 was reduced into writing and signed by P.W.1.

P.W.10 registered a case at about 11.00 p.m in Cr.No.409/92 for the offence punishable under Sec.364 IPC and prepared Ex.P.7 - printed

First Information Report. He took up investigation. At about 11.30 p.m, he went to the field of P.W.4 ; prepared Ex.P.8 - observation mahazar

and also drew a rough sketch Ex.P.9 with the help of petromax light. He examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and some others and recorded their statements.

He also searched for the accused and the deceased. On 29.10.92 at about 3.30 p.m, he received Ex.P.10 report from P.W.2 and altered the

crime into one under Sec.302 IPC; prepared Ex.P.11 - printed First Information Report and sent the same to the Inspector, in-charge of

Oomachikulam police station.

P.W.11 - Inspector of Police, Silaiman Circle who was also placed in-charge of Oomachikulam received the message at about 3.30 p.m on

29.10.92 from P.W.10; went to Oomachikulam Police Station; received a copy of First Information Report at about 4.00 p.m; went to the

sugarcane filed of P.W.5 at 4.15 p.m, where the body was found; prepared Ex.P.3 - Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.6 and another

and also drew a rough sketch Ex.P.12. He then held inquest between 5.00 p.m and 7.30 p.m on that day and prepared Ex.P.13 Inquest Report.

During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and others. Thereafter, he sent the body through P.W.8 - constable for autopsy. At about 7.45 p.m, he

seized M.O.1 - blood stained earth, M.O.2 - sample earth along with blood stained water and sample water under Ex.P.4 - Mahazar and

thereafter when the regular Inspector returned for duty, he handed over the file to him.

P.W.9 - Dr. Thiagarajan, Professor, forensic Science, Madurai Medical College received Ex.P.5 - requisition to conduct autopsy over the body

of Deivendran on 30.10.92 at about 10.00 a.m and commenced the postmortem at about 10.10 a.m. He found the following injuries:

An oblique antemortem vertical stab wound 3 x 1.5 cms on the inner aspect of left thigh, 14 cms below the public symphysis. The wound passes

obliquely upwards, backwards and outerwards, cutting the underlying muscles, femoral vessels and nerves, depth is about 17 cms.

An oblique horizontal stab injury 3 cms x 1 cm just below and inner side of the right eye. The wound asses below the right eyeball, cutting the

underlying muscles and piercing the optic nerve partially. Depth of the wound is about 5 cms. That area contains full of extravasated blood clots.

3 vertically oblique stab wounds on the left glutial region each measuring 3 cms x 1/2 cm with a depth of wound

a) inner side 10 cms b)3 cms below wound a) with a depth of 14 cms and c) 5 cms above and outer side 8 cms and ends as a point.

4.An oblique stab injury on the back of left shoulder 3 cms x 1/2 cm x 3.5 cm along the muscle plane obliquely downwards.

3 incised wounds 1/2 x .25 cm x skin deep on the left side of forehead, two wounds situated lateral and above to the left eye and the third one

just below the left eye outer aspect.

6.Stab wound 2 cms x .25 cm x muscle deep on the upper lip 3 cms from the right angle upto muscle deep.

7.Laceration like incised wound left scrotum 10 x 4 cms exposing the scrotal sac and testes was found absent. Cord was found to be clear cut.

8.Two incised wound seen on the right hand palmar aspect.

a)index finger 1.5 x .25 cm x skin deep and b) in the web space between thumb and index finger 1.5 x .25 cm x skin deep - defence wounds.

OTHER FINDINGS:

Peritoneal & pleural cavities - empty; pericardium - 15 ml straw colour fluid; heart - normal size, chambers empty. Lungs, liver, spleen & kidneys -

cut section pale. Hyoid bone-intact. Coronaries - patent; stomach - 350 gms of partially semi solid food material with rice particles, no specific

smell, mucosa shows early changes of decomposition; small intestine - 60 ml of mucosal fluid no specific smell, mucosa shows early changes of

decomposition; bladder - empty; brain - surface vessels pale, cut section pale, early changes of decomposition noted.

He issued Ex.P.6 post mortem certificate with an opinion that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage due to external injuries 1,2 and 7 and

the corresponding internal injuries sustained by him 40 to 48 hours prior to post mortem.

7.P.W.12 Inspector of police took up further investigation; went to the scene of crime at about 9.00 a.m on 30.10.92 and also visited the hospital

and examined P.Ws.1 to 4, 6 and others. On 31.10.92, he examined P.W.5 and others; on 1.11.92 and 2.11.92 also he examined some

witnesses; on 3.11.92 he examined P.W.7. On 6.11.92 he examined some witnesses. On 20.12.92 he examined Arunan, Police Constable -1149,

Police Constables 765 and 313. On 5.1.93, he gave a requisition ExP.14 to send the material objects for chemical analysis. On 15.4.93 he

examined the Judicial Magistrate. After completing investigation, he laid a final report against the accused on 16.7.93.

After the evidence of the prosecution was over, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 Cr.P.C to enable them to explain the incriminating

circumstances appearing in evidence against them. They only pleaded that the case was foisted against them.

9.The evidence of P.W.9 - the doctor who did autopsy over the body of Deivendran reveals that the deceased sustained as many as eight external

injuries as noted in the post mortem certificate including an oblique vertical stab wound on the inner aspect of left thigh cutting the underlying

muscles, femoral vessels and nerves; the depth of the wound being 17 cms; another stab injury on the inner side of the right eye passing through the

eye ball cutting the underlying muscles and piercing the optic nerve,the depth of the wound being 5 cms and yet another injury on the left scrotum

10 x 4 cms exposing the scrotal sac and testis was found absent. The doctor also found the cord to be clear cut. P.W.9 opined that the deceased

died of shock and hemorrhage due to the above three injuries and the corresponding internal injuries. Therefore, on the medical evidence, we hold

that Deivendran died due to homicidal violence. The said fact has not been disputed by the accused.

10.To prove the involvement of these three accused in the commission of the crime, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 4. P.W.1 is the mother of

the deceased. P.W.2 is the father of the deceased. P.W.3. - a witness who was ploughing the land along with the deceased and P.W.4 - the

owner of the land. The consistent version of P.Ws.1 to 4 is that on 28.10.92 Wednesday at about 11.a.m an auto came to the field, the accused 2

and 3 got down from the auto and on seeing them, the deceased started running, chased by A.2 and A.3. The 1st accused also came there in a

cycle and he also started chasing the deceased after picking up a stone in his hand, followed by a cosntable. Thereafter, the deceased was not seen

alive, but his body was found in the sugarcane field at about 3.00 p.m on the next day. P.W.4 found the body embedded inside the marshy channel

in between two rows of the sugarcane crops with injuries. It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that A.1 to A.3 chased the deceased followed by one

constable and thereafter neither any of the accused nor the deceased was seen coming back. Therefore, it becomes the responsibility of the

accused concerned who chased the deceased to tell the Court as to what happened to the deceased or atleast where the deceased went. No such

explanation was forthcoming from any of the accused. This is a vital circumstance against the accused. P.W.2 in his evidence would say that after

some time, the constable who went along with the accused returned with mud and blood stained on his body. Therefore, it can be safely held that

the deceased should have been done to death inside the sugarcane field by the accused,though at this stage we refrain from holding that the

constable also is responsible for the death of Deivendren. The learned trial Judge on looking at the records found that the 1st accused surrendered

before Melur Court on 28.10.92 itself. As a matter of fact a case was registered, according to P.W.10, only at 11.00 p.m on that day that too for

offence punishable under Sec.364 IPC, but A.1 surrendered before Court even before registration of the crime. This is yet another circumstance

staring at the accused.

P.Ws.1 to 4 have seen the accused 2 and 3 armed with knives when they were chasing the deceased followed by A.1 having a stone in his

hand. Though the weapons could not be seized by the investigating officer, may be because all the accused surrendered before the Court and no

police custody was sought for to interrogate the accused, the medical evidence corroborates the fact that knives were used for causing injuries on

the deceased. In fact P.W.9 - the doctor who did autopsy over the body of Deivendran, found five stab injuries and three cut injuries. This medical

evidence only supports the case of the prosecution that A.2 and A.3 who were armed with knives should have caused these injuries. Of course

there is no eye witness to the actual incident of stabbing, but in all cases we cannot expect eye witnesses. When the deceased ran into the

sugarcane field, while the accused also started chasing him, it is for the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased. P.W.1 the mother

could not run after the accused to prevent the accused from assaulting the deceased. She instead went to her house; brought her another son and

sent him inside the sugarcane field to search for the deceased. Though P.Ws.1 to 4 have seen the 1st accused running behind the other accused to

chase the deceased holding a stone in his hand, the injuries found on the deceased do not suggest use of stone, but even then the common intention

can be gathered from the way the accused acted knowing that the deceased was chased by his brothers A.2 and A.3 armed with weapons. A.1

also ran behind them with a stone. That shows that he shared the common intention of the accused 2 and 3 to kill the deceased.

The Supreme Court in the case of RAMJI SINGH AND ANOTHER VS STATE OF BIHAR reported in 2002 SCC 760 has been pleased

to hold as follows:

It is true that two injuries, which proved to be fatal, were not specifically attributed to either of the accused. The common intention can be formed

at the spot. At times, it is difficult to get direct evidence of pre-concert of minds. The common intention can be gathered from the circumstances

and the manner in which assault is carried out. The manner in which assault was carried out leaves no doubt that the appellants had come with the

intention to kill the deceased. Their intention was not to cause injuries alone. The continuance of causing of injuries in spite of the intervention of

P.W.4 and refusal to give water, when the deceased asked for it, shows the predetermined mind of the accused that they had come with the

intention to kill the deceased. Although there is no evidence of prior meeting of minds, the sequence of events which unfolded during the course of

occurrence clearly indicates the predetermined minds of the accused persons to kill the deceased"".

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that mere chasing by the accused will not attract the penal provision of

Sec.302 IPC and therefore, on that sole evidence, the appellants cannot be convicted. It is not the case of mere chasing by the appellants but it is a

case where all the three accused chased the appellants while A.2 and A.3 were armed with knives and A.1 with stone. It is the evidence of the

doctor, who did autopsy over the body of the deceased that the injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by stabbing and cutting

with knife. The witnesses who saw the deceased being chased by the accused did not see the accused returning back. There is also no explanation

forthcoming from any of the accused as to what had happened further inside the sugarcane field. In this connection, it is relevant to rely on a ruling

of the Apex Court reported in RAM GULAM CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS VS STATE OF BIHAR 2001 SCC 1546 . In that case a boy

was brutally assaulted and when one of the appellants declared that the boy was still alive and he should be killed, the appellants then carried away

the boy. The boy had since not been seen alive. However, the appellants gave no explanation as to what they did after they took away the boy.

Their Lordships have held as follows:

In the absence of an explanation, and considering the fact that the appellants were suspecting that the boy (victim of the crime) had kidnapped and

killed a child of the family of the appellants, it was for the appellants to have explained what they did with the boy after they took him away. When

the abductors withheld that information from the Court, there is every justification for drawing the inference that they had murdered the boy. Even

though Section 106 of the Evidence Act may not be intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond

reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases like the present, where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a

reasonable inference can be drawn regarding death. The appellants by virtue of their special knowledge must offer an explanation which might lead

the Court to draw a different inference"".

The above said ruling in all fours applies to the facts of the present case. Here is a case where the appellant chased the deceased with weapons

and after the deceased entered into the sugarcane field chasing followed and thereafter nobody could see what happened to the deceased further.

Under such circumstances, the police by virtue of that special knowledge should have offered some explanation which may relieve them of the

burden envisaged by Sec.106 of Evidence Act. In the absence of any such explanation, as the Supreme Court has been pleased to hold, we also

have to hold that it were the accused who murdered the deceased.

The learned counsel submits that the dead body was seen only in Karunthalayan temple but not in the field, according to P.W.1 and therefore,

even after chasing by the accused, something could have happened to the deceased and some other persons would have killed him. The

Observation Mahazar Ex.P.2 clearly describes that the body of the deceased was found embedded in a marshy channel in between two rows of

sugarcane crops. P.W.4 also would say that the next day at about 3.00 p.m, on receiving an information that the body of the deceased was lying in

the sugarcane field, went to the field and found the body embedded in a marshy channel. P.W.1, the mother of the deceased also would say that

she was informed by the Superintendent of Police, when she went there to request him to find out the whereabouts of her son, that he received an

information that the body of the deceased was lying in a sugarcane field. The arguments of the learned counsel that P.W.2 had stated that the body

was placed at Karunthalian Temple does not in any way affect the case of the prosecution that the body was traced inside the sugarcane field as is

evident from the above said evidence. But the fact remains that P.W.2 was kept in the police station and later after tracing the body only he was

taken to the place. He also would say in his evidence that he was taken to the sugarcane field on the information that the body was found there, but

when he went there, the body was brought and placed in the temple. The distance between the temple and the sugarcane field has not been

elicited. Therefore, even as per his evidence, the body should have been shifted from inside the sugarcane field to the temple after arrival of the

police and he could see the body at the temple. Therefore, there is no discrepancy with regard to the location where the body of the Deivendran

was found.

The learned counsel also contends that the evidence of witnesses would disclose that many of them searched for the deceased on 28.10.92

itself, but nobody could trace the deceased and therefore, the accused cannot be fastened with any liability and since the body was traced only the

next day, some body would have murdered the deceased and brought the body to the sugarcane field. This contention of the learned counsel is not

based on any material. Of course there is some evidence that certain persons including the brother of the deceased searched for the deceased. But

we know that practically it is very difficult to spot out a body lying embedded inside a marshy channel especially where the place was surrounded

with sugarcane crops as described in Ex.P.2. Moreover, those who went in search of the deceased would not have known by that time that the

deceased was murdered, the witnesses have seen only the accused chasing the deceased. They would not have expected that the body would

have been embedded in a marshy channel. Only the next day since the deceased did not return home, an intensive and vibrant search could have

been made thereby the body of the deceased was discovered. Therefore, we are unable to accept the above contention of the learned counsel.

The learned counsel further contends that the deceased should have been done to death not at the time when he was chased but some time

later and therefore, the appellants cannot be held guilty of murdering the deceased. He based his arguments on the evidence of P.W.9, - the doctor

who did autopsy, who would say that he noticed 350 gms of partially digested semi solid food material with rice particles in contra distinction to

the evidence of P.W.4 that all of them including the deceased took food and were taking rest at about 11.00 a.m while the accused came and

chased the deceased. P.W.4 did not say that the deceased took food at 11.00 a.m at all. What he has stated is that after taking food they were

taking rest and at about 11.00 a.m he saw an auto coming from which A.2, A.3 and two constables alighted. Therefore, it cannot be said that the

deceased took food at 11.00 a.m. In fact the first information report reads that the auto came at 11.30 a.m. We cannot expect the precise sense of

time from rustic villagers especially where it it is not in evidence that any witness had a watch. According to P.W.3 at about 10.00 a.m, food came

and after stopping ploughing, they all took food. Thereafter, they were taking rest for some time and then they were about to resume their work,

while the auto came. That means, at about 10.00 a.m, the deceased could have taken food and at 11.00 or 11.30 a.m, the accused have come.

Thereafter, they chased him. After some time, they could have stabbed him and there is no ocular evidence as to exactly at what time the deceased

succumbed to injuries. In the absence of such an ocular evidence, it cannot be ruled out that the deceased could have survived for some time after

infliction of injuries on him. The digestive process starts immediately after the food went to the stomach. In fact even while the food is ground by

the teeth, the food particles are cut into pieces and thereafter swallowed. When food was taken at 10.00 a.m and death occurs within two hours

thereafter, naturally partially digested food would be present in the stomach. Therefore, the finding of the doctor, who did autopsy that there were

partially digested rice particles in the stomach only strengthens the case of the prosecution that the deceased was done to death within two hours

after he took food. The deceased, being a young chap of 22 years, as found in Ex.P.6 - post mortem certificate, the digestive capacity in him could

have been more efficient also. Therefore, we have no doubt with regard to the time of occurrence at all. Of course, P.W.1 claims to have come to

the scene of crime at about 11.00 a.m with food to her son. But she has not stated that the deceased took food which was brought by her. May

be, she may not know that food was provided to the workers in the field. According to P.W.3, the food came at about 10.00 a.m and after

stopping ploughing they all went and ate. Under such circumstances, no doubt has been created in the case of the prosecution regarding the time of

occurrence.

In view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 which gets corroborated by medical evidence and also in view of the fact that the appellants who

chased the deceased inside the sugarcane field with weapons had not explained as to what happened to the deceased especially when the body

was found inside the said field itself, we hold the appellants 1 to 3 guilty of murdering the deceased.

Before parting with this case, we have to mention the perfunctory and dishonest investigation done in this case, though inspite of such an

investigation, justice could prevail because of the unimpeachable evidence on record. The consistent version of P.Ws.1 to 4 is that along with

accused 2 and 3, two constables came, out of whom one was identified as Pichai by P.W.2. P.W.2 would further say that the Constable, who

chased the deceased came back from the sugarcane field mud stained and blood stained. That only shows that the police constable should have

gone inside in the sugarcane field and should have witnessed the occurrence, though we are at this stage unable to incriminate him and connect him

with the offence. The 161 Cr.P.C statements recorded by P.Ws.10 and 11 either from P.W.2 or other witnesses do not speak about the presence

of the constables at all, while the statements recorded by P.W.12 disclose their involvement. Even according to P.W.1, when she went to lodge a

complaint, she was not allowed to enter into the Oomachikulam police station and therefore, she had to go to Madurai and meet the

Superintendent of Police and thereafter, she was directed to go back to Oomachikulam police station and ultimately a Statement Ex.P.1 was

recorded from her. Even in Ex.P.1, there was no mention of presence of constables, for which she explains that she was advised by the Sub

Inspector of Police P.W.10, that police constables should not be involved since it would weaken the case. The case was registered only at 11.30

p.m on 28.10.92, according to P.W.10 - Sub Inspector of Police, though P.W.1 went to the police station at about 3.00 p.m on that day. Such

was the attitude of P.W.10. Further it is the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 that P.W.2 was taken in an auto by one constable immediately after the

accused and another constable chased the deceased and the auto was kept for an hour at Usilampatti village and thereafter the auto came to the

field of P.W.4, while the other constable who went inside the sugarcane field came back and got into the auto. Moreover, P.W.2 has further said

that he noticed blood stains on the constable. That means the constable knows as to what happened to the deceased, but inspite of this he was

neither arrayed as an accused nor made to figure as a witness in this case. P.Ws.10 and 11 have tried their level best to save two constables from

legal punishment. There was no motive for P.Ws.1 to 4 to falsely implicate two constables at all. Nothing has also been suggested during the

course of cross examination except to elicit contradictions from the statements alleged to have been recorded from the witnesses by P.Ws.10 and

11 only and not from the statements recorded by P.W.12. The initial statements recorded under Sec. in 161 Cr.P.C from these witnesses by

P.Ws.10 and 11 do not mention the presence of the two constables admittedly but at a later stage when P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined by P.W.12

they have told him the involvement of the constables. When P.W.7 was examined by P.W.12 he seemed to have told P.W.12 that along with A.2

and A.3, two other constables by name Pichai and Arunan came in the auto and on seeing them, Deivendren - the deceased ran away inside the

sugarcane field chased by three accused and one constable and the constable alone came back. Of course, P.W.7 turned hostile in this case. His

161 Cr.P.C statement may not be admissible to convict the accused in this case but to proceed against those two constables departmentally, the

statements recorded from P.Ws.1 to 4 and 7 by P.W.12 can be taken into account. When a constable has accompanied the accused inside the

sugarcane field and came out with blood stains, he ought to have given a special report as to what happened inside the sugarcane field. The learned

Additional Public Prosecutor placed before us a Proceedings of the Superintendent of Police , Madurai whereby Departmental action was taken

against Grade-I Police Constable-765 Pichai and a punishment of reduction in the time scale of pay by two stages for two years with cumulative

effect was awarded. Though we cannot in this appeal interfere with the order passed departmentally by the Superintendent of Police, our judicial

conscience prevails upon us to record our dissatisfaction on the way in which the Superintendent of Police has dealt with the issue very lightly by

awarding a punishment of cut of two increments.

This is not a case where the constables can be taken to task only departmentally for mere dereliction of duty. They went along with the

accused, who were armed with deadly weapons like knives; when the accused chased the deceased, who rushed inside the sugarcane field, one of

the constables followed them and returned alone with blood stains and the other constable took the father of the deceased in an auto to some other

place and kept him away so as to prevent him from saving his son. The constable who returned with blood stains and mud on his body should have

immediately rushed to the police station to give a special report. But he did not do so. A case should have been registered on that report but

instead when P.W.1 went to the police station she was driven out and after the intervention of the Superintendent of Police, a case was registered

at 11.30 p.m. The proceedings of the Superintendent of Police reads as follows;

The evidence of P.W.1 Sathuragiri and P.W.2 - Ramachandran clearly sets out the fact that the delinquent and his co-delinquent PC 1149

Arunan along with the accused Veeranan, Chandran and Chandrasekaran, concerned in Oomachikulam P.S.Cr.No.409/92 u/s 302 IPC had gone

to the field of P.W.1 prior to the occurrence. When they spotted the deceased Deivendren working in the field, all the three accused chased him.

But the delinquent did not prevent them from committing the heinous crime. Later, during investigation, it revealed that the accused murdered the

deceased Deivendren. Even though there is no overt evidence to prove that the delinquent colluded with the accused, there is no doubt about the

fact that the delinquent was present and he could have prevented the accused from committing the murder"".

Though the Superintendent of Police would only find that the delinquent failed to prevent the commission of heinous crime of murder, the facts

adduced in the nature of evidence in Court reveal something more. It is for the authorities concerned to take note of the active help rendered by the

constables to the accused in this case. Not only that; P.Ws.10 and 11 viz., Mr.S. Dhanapal, then Sub Inspector of Police, Oomachikulam police

station and Mr.L. Perumal, then Inspector of police, Silaiman Circle have done their best to hush up the parts played by both the constables. It is

high time that the authorities concerned should take appropriate action against the erring officials and officers of the Department so as to infuse

confidence in the minds of the public. We are aware that the police Department is entrusted with an onerous duty of protecting the citizens by

weeding out crimes. But if such elements like the above two constables and P.Ws.10 and 11 are allowed to continue in service without any action

being taken for their anti-social activities and their support to the criminals, we have no hesitation to say that it would erode the confidence of the

public in the Police Department. We hope and wish that the authorities concerned will look into our comments and sufficiently reciprocate in the

interest of the welfare of the community at large.

In the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence passed on the appellants and the appeal stands dismissed.