Govindasamy vs State by Inspector of Police

Arunachalam, J.—For having caused the death of Palaniammal by hitting on her face with a big stone and thenceforth for having committed

robbery of her gold chain with pottu, in the course of the same transaction, at or about 5 p.m., on 10-3-1986 at Nahakka Kovil, Kathiranampatti

village, appellant was charged under Sections 302, 392 and 394 I.P.C. in S.C.No. 5/88 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Anna District, Dindigul.

On conclusion of trial, learned trial Judge found the appellant guilty of all offences, with which he was charged and sentenced him to undergo

imprisonment for life for murder and rigorous imprisonment for ten years each, for the offences under Sections 392 and 394 I.P.C.

Prosecution case in brief is as follows. - Deceased Palaniammal was the wife of Perumal (P.W. 5) a Head Constable attached to special

Branch, Natham, P.W. 1 (Palanisamy) a resident of Kathiranampatti, is a landlord as well as Poojari for Nahakka Kovil, situated at a distance of 1

1/4 K.M., on the south of the village. The villagers were in the habit of worshiping the deity therein on Mondays between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. On

10-3-1986, at or about 4 p.m. P.W. 1 noticed the deceased arriving at the temple with a plastic wire basket M.O. 1. In that basked, he noticed

M.O. 2, an ever silver tumbler. P.W. 1 used to clean the temple on every Monday morning and then leave its precincts. About an hour later, P.W.

1 noticed Mariammal (not examined) entering in to the temple. Shortly thereafter, Mariammal informed P.W. 1, who was working in his garden

land, about a furlong away from the temple, that a woman as lying and groaning inside the temple, P.W. 1 in the company of Mariammal and

Gopal (not examined) Proceeded to the temple and noticed injured Palaiammal groaning. Gopal and P.W. 1 lifted her and brought her outside the

temple. They noticed injuries on her head and face. P.W. 1 went over again inside the temple and found therein M.O. 1, Plastic wire basket M.O.

2 ever silver tumbler, M.O. 5, a blue colour cloth bag, M.O. 6 a bent Vol, M.O. 7 Uthiratch Malai, M.O. 8 a white dollar, M.O. 9 series, broken

glass bangles, M.O. 10 Blood stained big stone, M.O. 11 a broken tooth and M.O. 12 a silver talisman strewn on the ground. Mariammal was

deputed by P.W. 1 to inform the aunt of the victim about all that she had seen. A little later, P.W. 5, husband of the deceased, came over to the

scene with a taxi and removed his injured wife, with the help of P.W. 1, in the said taxi to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Dindigul.

P.W. 18, Dr. Sankaranarayanan, examined Palaniammal, brought to him by her husband, P.W. 5, at 6-10 p.m. on 10-5-1986 and found that

she was already dead. Injuries noticed by him on her are as follows and they form part of Ex. P.18, copy of the accident register issued by him.

Lacerated injury centre of forehead 3 cm X 2 cm bone deep fractured bone seen.

Lacerated injury bridge of nose 1 cm X 1/2 cm X bone deep deformity of rose present.

Lacerated injury below right eye 4 cm X 1/4 cm X bone deep.

Lacerated injury eight temporal region 2 cm X 1/4 cm X skin deep.

Lacerated injury right temporal region 2 cm X 1/4 cm X skin deep.

Contusion involving left eye, left temporal region and ifra orbital region 8 cm X 7 cm.

Lacerated injury right parietal region 15 cm from right ear 5 cm X 1 cm X bone deep.

Lacerated injury below injury No. 7 perietel 5 cm X 1/2 cm X bone deep.

Contusion back of right forearm 5 cm X 6 cm with multiple linear abrasions measuring from 3 cm X 1 1/2 cm.

Right upper 1 incisor tooth is missing.

Right side lower jaw middle abrasion of 1 1/2 X 1 1/2 cm.

Lacerated wound midline extending to parietal region 10 cm X 4 cm X 1 cm.

P.W. 1 then proceeded to Dindigul Taluk Police Station and preferred an oral complaint before P.W. 14 (Baskaran) which was reduced into

writing by the latter. On Ex. P.1 so recorded, P.W. 14 registered Cr. No. 111/86 under Sections 302 and 392 I.P.C. Ex. P.12 is the express first

information report, which was forwarded to Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Dindigul Along with Ex. P.1. Copies of Ex. P.12 were despatched

to senior police officers. P.W. 14 seized M.O. 3 blood stained banian and M.O. 4 pant worn by P.W. 1, under form No. 95, marked as Ex.

P.13. P.W. 5 informed the investigating agency, that the deceased at or about the time of her death, was wearing a gold chain, M.O. 14, weighing

about 3 sovereigns, with a gold pottu, M.O. 15, connected to a gold ring, M.O. 16, apart from a silver talisman, M.O. 12.

The movements of the appellant, near the venue of crime, from about 10 a.m. in the morning till about 4.30 p.m. in the evening on that fateful

day, have been brought on record, through the evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4. P.W. 2, Thimmayan is the husband of P.W. 3 Kathirammal. On that

Monday morning, at or about 10 a.m. P.W. 2, after allowing cattle to graze near Nahakka Kovil, was seated 10 feet away from it under a Pala

Tree, apparently to enjoy the shade. He then noticed the appellant lying down there. On seeing P.W. 2 appellant got up. Since the appellant was

new to that area, P.W.2 questioned him and became aware that he belonged to Balakrishnapuram. Appellant was then wearing M.O. 18, a saffron

coloured dhoti, M.O. 18 a striped shirt, M.O. 7 a uthiratcha Malai with M.O. 8 a dollar attached to it. He was also in possession of violet (sic)

colour bag M.O. 5 which contained a small bent vell M.O. 6. Both of them were engaged in conversation for some time, before P.W. 2 left for his

house. At or about the death of Palaniammal and proceeded to the temple wherein he noticed M.Os. 5 to 7. About 25 days later, he identified the

appellant in a parade conducted by P.W. 16, Krishnaraja, Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Palani.

P.W. 3, wife of P.W. 2, on the same day, was returning from Dindigul shandy around 4.30 p.m. She left her house at or about 12 Noon. On

her way back home, she noticed the appellant coming out of Nahakka Kovil, Southwards and then running away westwards. She was also taken

for identification of the appellant, before the Magistrate and she succeeded in pointing out the appellant, as the person she had seen on that

unfortunate day.

P.W. 4, Thirupathi, at or about 4.30 p.m. had harvested sweet potatoes and was making preparations to proceed to the shandy. He then

noticed the appellant sitting under a pala tree, 25 feet away from the Nahakka temple over a granite stone. He was then wearing M.O. 13, a

safforn coloured dhoti. He also identified the appellant in the parade conducted 25 days later.

P.W. 6 Murugan, a cattle broker, had known the appellant earlier, since he was a co-gambler, in playing cards. At or about 6-30 p.m. on the

occurrence day, appellant met him at his house and informed him that he had lost his money in playing cards and he had to emergently pay certain

sums to the temple and, therefore required Rs. 150/-. Appellant then offered M.O. 15, gold pottu as pledge, to P.W. 6 had only Rs. 50/- with

him, which he willingly parted, after taking M.O. 15. He then noticed the appellant wearing M.O. 7, Uthiratcha malai.

P.W. 9 Rajagopal, a resident of Manapparai had known the appellant. He used to accompany one Govindasamy of Balakrishnapuram, for

purchase of cattle, at Manaparai. Appellant met him about 2 1/2 years ago, between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. at his garden land and represented that

he was felling short of money, for the cattle he had purchased. He also told P.W. 9, that he had with him M.O. 14 a gold chain, which he was

anxious to sell through him and obtain necessary funds. P.W. 9 informed the appellant that he was not accustomed, in dealing with gold. P.W. 10

Malaiyandi, another resident of Manapparai, who had also known the appellant earlier, on the same morning noticed the appellant engaged in

conversation with P.W. 9 in the front yard of latter''s house. P.W. 10 became aware of the inability of P.W. 9 to help the appellant to sell the gold

chain. P.W. 10 then escorted the appellant to one Subbiah Asari (not examined), who, in turn, guided them to P.W. 11 Sriramulu, who purchased

M.O. 14 for a consideration of Rs. 2275/-. Appellant paid Rs. 25/- to Subbiah Asari and Rs. 10/- to P.W. 10, before leaving Manaparai. P.W.

11 was informed by P.W. 10, that P.W. 9 had sent them to him. Appellant told P.W. 11, that he was in need of money for certain, family

expenses and hence he had brought his wife''s jewels for sale. Subsequently, appellant purchased M.O. 27 suit case for Rs. 35/- from P.W. 12,

Mohammed Sait. Similarly, P.W. 13 (Asokan) a shop keeper of Tirupattur, sold M.O. 30 a bag to the appellant for Rs. 26/- approximately about

2 1/2 years ago.

On 12-3-1986, P.W. 15, Ramiah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Palani Adivaram Police Station, while patrolling found around 3 a.m. appellant

along with eight others, lurking suspiciously in the front yard of Aiyappa Stores, Sannathi Street., Palani. He arrested the appellant and others and

registered Cr.No. 91/86 under Sections 41 and 42 Cr.P.C. At the time when he arrested, except the wearing apparel, appellant did not have any

other article with him.

P.W. 21 (Muthuswamy) Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of the first information report, in the instant crime took up investigation and

proceeded to Government headquarters Hospital, Dindigul. After enquiring P.W. 1, he went over to the scene temple at 8.30 p.m. on 10-3-1986

and prepared Ex. P.4 observation mahazar and Ex. P.24, scene sketch, in the presence of P.W. 7 Thammanan. After examining a few witnesses

he returned to the hospital and seized blood-stained pant. M.O. 17, and M.O. 18 shirt belonging to P.W. 5 the husband of the deceased, under

mahazar, Ex. P.2. Between 7 am. and 9 a.m. on 11-3-1986, P.W. 21 held inquest over the corpse of Palaniammal, during the course of which he

examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and others. Ex. P.25 is the inquest report. After inquest, P.W. 21 despatched the dead body, with a requisition Ex. P.16,

through P.W. 19 Balachandran, a constable, to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Dindigul, for conduct of post mortem.

P.W. 17, Dr. Prama Chandrasekar, commenced autopsy on the dead body at or about 11.15 a.m. on 11-3-1986 and found on her the

following injuries :-

An incised wound over the forehead 5 cm above the eye brow in the midline transversely placed 5 X 7 cm on exploration. A vertical fracture

of frontal bone corresponding to the external wound 4 cm in length. On further exploration subdural blood clot of 2 X 1 X 1 cm present.

Laceration of brain tissue of frontal lobe 1 cm X 2 cm. Depth of the wounds 5 cm.

An abrasion over the bridge of the nose in the midline 1 cm X 1 cm.

An incised wound over the right side face 4 cm below the right eyebrow (3 X 1 cm). On exploration fracture of right maxilla present which

enters into the cranial cavity. Depth of the wound 6 cm.

An incised wound over the lower end of the right side of nose vertically placed 2 X 1 X 2 cm.

An incised wound 3 cm behind the outer angle of the right eye 2 X 1 cm vertically placed.

A diffuse contusion over the left eyelid.

An incised wound over the right temporal region 5 cm above and 2 cm below in front of the right ear 3 X 1 X 1 cm.

Incised wounds over the right side temporo occipital region 10 cm. above the right ear vertically placed 5 X 1 X 2 cm.

Another incised wound 2 cm. behind wound number 8 in the occipital region 3 X 1 X 2 cm.

Another incised wound in the midline extending to left parietal region 10 X 4 X 1 cm.

Absence of right upper incisor (medical).

Abrasion over the middle of the back of the right forearm 4 cm X 2 cm.

Abrasion over the angle of the mandible. Tongue-inside. Jaw clenched. Eyelid closed. Teeth 7/8/8/8"".

In the opinion of the Doctor, deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage, due to injury to vital organ-brain, as a result of

sustaining injuries 1 and 3. Death should have occurred about 12 to 18 hours prior to conduct of autopsy. Ex. P.17 is the post mortem certificate.

She has deposed that injures 1 and 3 to 11 were possible by hitting with a stone like M.O. 10 and injuries 2, 12 and 13 were possible by coming

into contact with hard surface. According to her, injuries, 1 and 3 were necessarily fatal.

The material objects seized were forwarded for chemical analysis, through the Magistrate. P.W. 21 arrested the appellant on 29-3-1986 at or

about 5 p.m. at Arasappapillai patti, Kulanthaivelappar Temple Kelyana Mandapam, in the presence of P.W. 8, Maylsamy. Appellant volunteered

a statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex P. 6. Saffron coloured dhoti (M.O. 13), white coloured shirt (M.O. 20) underwear (M.O. 21);

Banian (M.O. 22); cement pant (M.O. 23), Brown coloured banian (M.O. 24), white Jatti (M.O. 25) Turkey towel (M.O. 26); brown coloured

suit case (M.O. 27); 8 cubit dhoti (M.O. 28) Handkerchief (M.O. 29); Rexin bag (M.O. 30) Black bordered Ployster dhoti (M.O. 31); sandal

coloured Polyster full hand shirt (M.O. 32), Tantel Banian (M.O. 33), Time star wrist watch (M.O. 34); Cash Rs. 318/- (M.O. 35) series and

cash receipts (Exts. P.7 to P.9) were seized from the possession of the appellant under mahazar Ex. P.10. Thereafter, the appellant, in pursuance

of his confession, escorted P.W. 21 and his party and pointed out the house of P.W. 11 Sriramulu at Mahaparai P.W. 11 produced M.O. 14 gold

chain, which was seized under mahazar. Ex. P.11 attested by P.W. 8. After producing the appellant for remand, P.W. 21 obtained his police

custody from 2-4-1986 to 5-4-1986. He examined P.W. 12 Mohammed Sait, with reference to Ex. P.7 receipt. Similarly P.W. 15 Ramiah was

also examined. Appellant pointed out Ganesh Ram of Balaji Electronics Stores (Not examined) and then it became evident that the appellant had

purchased, Time star wrist watch M.O. 34, under receipt Ex. P. 26. On a requisition made by the Investigating Officer, P.W. 16, Judicial Second

Class Magistrate, Dindigul conducted identification parade at 4. p.m. on 9-4-1986, during the course of which P.Ws. 2 to 4 correctly, identified

the appellant, thrice. Ex. P.15 is the notes of identification parade. After completing investigation, P.W. 21 laid the final report on 12-5-1986.

When the appellant was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he

denied his ................ complicity in the crime. He went on to add that neither he killed Palaniammal nor robbed her jewels. According to him when

was waiting at Oddanchatram bus stand, after visiting Palani, he was apprehended by the police and a false case stood foisted against him.

Appellant did not adduce any evidence in defence.

Learned trial Judge, on appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, accepted the prosecution case, rejected the defence; and dealt with

the appellant, as stated earlier.

Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned counsel representing the appellant; contended that it was rather odd, that P.W. 1 had preferred the

complaint and not P.W. 5, the husband of the deceased. He then pointed out, that though P.W. 21 had initially felt the need for getting to the

venue, the dog squad, he later gave up that idea, for reasons not made clear. He submitted that P.Ws. 2 to 4 were relations of the deceased and

they had opportunity to see the appellant when he was in police custody, and hence identification of the appellant in the parade, can have no

probative value. He commented about the mystery surrounding the tracing of P.W. 6. He further submitted, that there was delay in recovery of the

articles strewn inside the temple. He contended, that the appellant when arrested on 12-3-1986, soon after commission of the present crime, at

Palani had no incriminating articles in his possession and that fact cannot be lost sight of. He finally pointed out that since M.Os. 12 and 16, which

are respectively a silver talisman and a small gold ring, were found at the scene, this cannot be a case of, murder for gain. He vehemently submitted

that the circumstances placed by the prosecution were not clinching enough to connect the appellant with the offences alleged.

Mr. B. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor, while countering the submissions made by Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, submitted, that this was a

clear case of murder for gain. He added, that P.Ws. 2 to 4 had no motive to falsely implicate the appellant. It was, further clear, that soon after

commission of this crime, on 15-3-1985 the appellant had sold M.O. 14, a gold chain, identified to be that of the deceased, to P.W. 11. He

specifically referred to the approximate weight of the gold chain mentioned by P.W. 5 at the earliest point of time, and its tallying with the weight of

the chain seized. He contended, that during the course of investigation, P.W. 21 had information, that the appellant was a gambler and hence there

was nothing surprising about the investigating agency having traced P.W. 6, and obtained M.O. 15 Pottu, from him. He contended that murder and

robbery formed an integral part of the same transaction and, in this case, it was possible to draw a presumption that the appellant was not only the

robber, but murderer as well.

We have carefully audited the submissions made by counsel on either side. Of course, this is a case of circumstantial evidence, where a

formidable onus is cast on the prosecution, to establish the guilt of the appellant by cogent and clinching circumstances, forming a complete chain

without and missing link. Prosecution must be able to establish that the appellant and the appellant alone was the offender and none else and the

circumstances placed by it cannot be explained away on any other reasonable hypothesis. There are all established principles of law and all that we

have to do is to scrutinise the facts, and find out, if the circumstances placed by the prosecution connect the appellant with the crime, beyond any

shadow of doubt.

P.Ws.2 to 4 form a group of witnesses, who had seen the appellant, on that unfortunate day, near the venue of crime. We must at once state,

that the appellant was resident of another village Balakrishnapuram and he had no ostensible purpose to be loafing around, the crime commission

area, on that particular day. While narrating the facts, we have stated, that in Nahakka Temple it was usual for the worshippers to gather on

Monday evenings, between 3 and 6 p.m. and that P.W. 1 used to clean the temple in the morning and attend to his agricultural work, thereafter. It

is, therefore, possible to comprehend, that the appellant, who must have known about the possible trekking of worshippers to Nahakka temple on

a Monday, had chosen the said venue, to commit the offences alleged. P.W. 2, a resident of Thukkanampatti, adjacent of Kathiranampatti, was, as

usual, grazing his cattle at or about 10 a.m. on the occurrence morning, near Nahakka Temple. While he was resting under the shadow of a pala

tree, he noticed the appellant, a stranger and naturally engaged himself in conversation. That they were together, for quite a length of time, is

abundantly clear, from the evidence on record. P.W. 2 became aware that the appellant belonged to Balakrishnapuram and that fact is confirmed

by the place of residence furnished by the appellant himself. P.W. 2 had then noticed the appellant wearing M.Os. 13 and 18 as well M.O. 7 in

which M.O. 8 stood fixed. He had further seen the appellant in possession of M.O. 5, a violet bag which contained M.O. 6 a bent vel. These

material objects, which were noticed by P.W. 2, even in the morning, of the crime day, have material significance, for P.W. 1, on his arrival at the

temple, on being called by Mariammal, had noticed M.Os. 5 to 8 inside the temple premises, apart from broken bangles (M.O. 9 series) belonging

to the deceased and blood stained stone, M.O. 10. M.O. 12, a talisman, which had obviously fallen down, was also available inside the temple.

Presence of Broken bangles as well as fallen down M.O. 12 talisman, coupled with the tooth of the deceased, M.O. 11, as well as articles

belonging to the appellant, mentioned earlier, clearly postulate a fight between the deceased and the appellant before the former unfortunately met

with her death. There is no reason, as to why these articles belonging to the appellant and which had been noticed by P.W. 2 earlier in the morning

should have been found abandoned inside the temple, to be noticed by P.W. 1 with a short while, after he had seen the deceased, entering into the

temple. We are unable to find any infirmity in the version of P.W. 2, which would affect his credibility.

The version of P.W. 4, Thirupathi, indicates that the appellant was still available near the pala tree where P.W. 2 had seen him, till about 3 p.m.

He had also noticed the appellant wearing a striped shirt and a saffron colour dhoti. He was also able to identify the appellant in the parade held,

without much delay, after his arrest. In a way, the evidence of P.W. 4 corroborates the version of P.W. 2 on the nature of apparel worn by the

appellant on that particular morning. We then have the evidence of P.W. 3. Kathirammal, wife of P.W. 2, who had seen the appellant coming out

swiftly, from the near abouts of Nahakka temple and proceeding southwards and then westwards. She was also able to identify the appellant in the

parade. It is thus apparent that the appellant was seen near the temple from 10 a.m. till he made good his escape at or about 4.30 p.m. on the

same evening. May be, that these group of witnesses had known the deceased earlier. But because of their friendship with the deceased earlier,

their version cannot be rejected, though it may be necessary to scrutinise their versions with greater care and caution. That is exactly what he has

done. We were satisfied that they have spoken the entire truth.

Before adverting to the other circumstances, it will be necessary to dispose of the submission made by appellant''s learned counsel, that the

material objects belonging either to the appellant or the deceased, which were seized from inside the temple, are so done after a long delay, which

was suspicious enough. It may be pointed out, that even on the occurrence evening, P.W. 21 had noticed these valuable properties, but had not

chosen to secure and safeguard them immediately. P.W. 21 had given an answer, which is quite acceptable. According to him, as soon as he

visited the crime venue, he deemed it necessary, that the dog squad may have to be brought in, to facilitate investigation. Therefore, he thought it fit

not to seize the material objects, though he did take steps to have them guarded. That those articles, must have been seen at that earliest point of

time, can admit of no doubt for, the observation mahazar prepared at 9 p.m. on 10-3-1986, and marked as Ex. P.4, details the fact of availability

of these material objects, at the scene. We are also bound to refer to the submission made by appellant''s learned counsel that the dog squad was

not ultimately utilised. That can hardly make any dent in the prosecution case for, P.W. 21 had been able to obtain enough material and more to

connect the appellant with the crime in the interregnum which dictated to him the non need to still seek the help of the dog squad. He had frankly

conceded in cross-examination, that though the dog squad did arrive, he sent away that squad, since in his opinion the need for such help, had

vanished by then.

It is settled law that any one can set the law in motion. P.W. 1, in our opinion, was competent to prefer the first information report, since the

occurrence had taken place inside the temple in which he was a poojari. Further, he had noticed the deceased on that evening at 4 p.m. and after

half an hour or so, he had information from Mariammal (not examined) that a lady was found inside the temple lying down groaning. It was he who

had proceeded to the temple again and brought the injured victim outside the temple precincts, before sending word to the relations of the

deceased. He had also accompanied P.W. 5, the husband of the deceased, to the hospital. Except arriving at the scene, P.W. 5 had no

information, whereas P.W. 1 had wealth of information to be forwarded to the police, to commence investigation. We are unable to find anything

sinister in P.W. 1 having preferred a complaint to P.W. 14.

We have to refer then to the seizure of certain jewellery belonging to the deceased either from the possession of the appellant or at his instance.

Before doing that, it may be necessary to consider yet another submission made by appellant''s learned counsel, that on 12-3-1986, when the

appellant was arrested at Palani, he had no incriminating material with him. Time and again, courts have said that it will be impossible for any one to

predict the mental make up of a crime committer. We cannot over look, that, soon after crime commission, appellant was able to get some cash

from P.W. 6, which had helped him to proceed to Palani. It is not uncommon that property, connected with serious crimes, gets disposed of,

cautiously, and not always in a hurry. After some time lag, how the mind of any particular individual will work cannot be predicted. We have to

consider this circumstance, in the background of variety of other circumstances projected by the prosecution. Merely because nothing incriminating

was seized from the appellant on 12-3-1986, it will not be possible to reject the prosecution case, lock, stock and barrel.

Appellant was arrested on 29-3-1986, about 19 days after crime commission. Time gap of 19 days cannot take the appellant out of the

concept of recent possession of jewellery belonging to the deceased, which would permit a presumption being drawn, unless he is able to offer any

explanation about such possession, that he was not only responsible for robbery but was also involved in commission of murder. In this

prosecution, we have an additional factor, which pin points the possession of jewellery, belonging to the deceased, with the appellant, even on 15-

3-1986, the fifth day after crime commission. M.O. 14 is the gold chain belonging to the deceased and that has been comfortably identified by

P.W. 5, the husband of the deceased. Appellant has not claimed M.O. 14, as a chain belonging to him. That M.O. 14 was sold on 15-3-1986 by

the appellant to P.W. 11 has been clearly brought out through the evidence of P.Ws. 9, 10 and 11, who do not appear to have any ill will against

the appellant to somehow or other connect him with the crime in question. P.W. 9 Rajagopal had known the appellant as a frequenter to cattle

shandy and hence it is not surprising, that the appellant had approached him with a story, that he fell short of funds for purchasing cattle and hence

he needed his help to sell away the gold chain, M.O. 14. Since P.W. 9 had nothing to do with purchase and sale of gold, he promptly replied so.

But, P.W. 10, Malaiyandi, who was then available took upon himself the role of a helper to the appellant. He took him to Subbiah Asari (not

examined), who introduced P.W. 11. It was the appellant who had pointed out P.W. 11 to facilitate seizure of M.O. 14. Mr. R.

Shanmugasundaram pointed out that there was some discrepancy in the value of sale consideration of this chain, between the versions of P.Ws. 10

and 11. That slight difference can hardly make any adverse impact for, witnesses were deposing, long after the crime commission and in this case

approximately after two years. Courts will have to allow certain margin, for retentivity of memory. Even otherwise the discrepancy is so petty that it

does not deserve a second look to discredit the version of these two witnesses.

The movement evidence plus recovery of M.O. 14 at the instance of the appellant alone would suffice to find the appellant guilty. However, we

have some more circumstances, which also point indisputably to the guilt of the appellant and the appellant alone as the perpetrator of this crime.

M.O. 15 pottu was produced by P.W. 6. A relevant question was posed by appellant''s learned counsel as to how P.W. 21 was able to trace

P.W. 6, even on the day next to the commission of crime, we have an answer, in the evidence of P.W. 21, who, during the course of investigation,

became aware that the appellant was a gambler addicted to playing cards and, therefore, he was able to take the list of gamblers in the locality and

then pitched upon P.W. 6, who was in a position to hand over M.O. 15, pottu, which was given to him by the appellant on the earlier evening,

while taking away Rs. 50/- in cash. To discredit the evidence of P.W. 6, it was pointed out by appellant''s learned counsel that if M.O. 7,

Uthiratcha malai, had fallen down in the temple, P.W. 6 could not have seen it later on the neck of the appellant when M.O. 15 was offered to him.

At the first blush, this argument appeared to be very attractive but, on further thought, we are satisfied that this contention will not help the

appellant. P.W. 6 is a friend of the appellant in gambling. It is, therefore, clear that P.W. 6 must have met the appellant on several occasions. It is

quite possible to visualise, that the appellant was in the habit of wearing Uthiratcha malai. The presence of Uthiratcha Malai inside the temple is a

very relevant circumstance for, it had been noticed by P.W. 1 immediately and was seized thereafter not in single part, but in two split pieces as

Uthiratcha malai. M.O. 7 and Murugan dollar M.O. 8 attached to it initially. This snapping of Uthiratcha malai is relevant for, M.O. 14 worn by the

deceased also had got snapped, leaving at the scene a small gold ring, which was a party of the chain as well a silver talisman, M.O. 12 which,

according to P.W. 5, was attached to M.O. 14. Apparently, when the appellant was attempting to snap away the chain from the deceased, there

was resistance, prior to her getting murdered and that is how Uthiratcha malai and M.O. 14 had got snapped. We are satisfied that Uthiratcha

malai has been correctly identified as belonging to the appellant by P.Ws. 2 to 4, who had sufficient opportunity to have noticed, this ornament

worn by the appellant, on that particular day. As we have already stated, the violet colour bag M.O. 5 with its contents, which were earlier in the

possession of the appellant, were also found inside the temple after his escape. These are all very material circumstances connecting the appellant

with the crime. It is, therefore, clear, that on the very day of occurrence, M.O. 15 pottu belonging to the deceased, was handed over by the

appellant to P.W. 6, for obtaining some funds and five days later he had sold M.O. 14, the gold chain of the deceased to P.W. 11, with the help of

P.W. 10 and another. The stone M.O. 10 found at the venue of crime, contained human blood, though grouping cannot be conclusively stated.

We are yet to consider, one other submission made by appellant''s learned counsel, that this cannot be a case of murder for gain. This

argument was based, on the availability of M.O. 12 and M.O. 16 at the venue of crime. We have already stated that there must have been pulling

of each other by the deceased and the appellant, during the course of which the chain as well as Uthiratcha Malai got snapped. Appellant was,

obviously, in a hurry to escape, and had little time to notice, the fallen down small gold ring snapped away from the chain, with a silver talisman.

Pottu (M.O. 15) was big enough to be knocked away by him, to be handed, over to P.W. 6. If the appellant had been able to think calmly, he

would not have left at the scene, his own articles. We find no merit in this contention, we are satisfied that the circumstances projected by the

prosecution form a complete chain and they connect the appellant with the crime, without any manner of doubt. We can safely hold, as rightly

opined by the learned trial Judge, that the appellant is the sole cause for the death of the deceased as well as for commission of robbery of the

jewellery, then worn by the deceased. Of course, a separate conviction need not have been recorded under Sec. 392 I.P.C. for the said offence

will get merged with the major offence under Sec. 394 IPC. Any how, we do not deem it necessary to twelve on that aspect any longer, for the

appellant is certainly liable under Sec. 302 and Sec. 394 I.P.C.

This appeal, which has no merit, shall stand dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.