AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—Both the appellants were put on trial as A-1 and A-2 on file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
No. 1, Chennai in S.C. No. 507 of 2003. By judgment dated 25.09.2006, they were found guilty for the offence under Sections 120B, 302, 380
and 201 of I.P.C., convicted and sentenced as detailed below:
Accused Convicted under Sentenced u/s
Section
A1 u/s Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
120B of I.P.C. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 1 year
u/s Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
302 of I.P.C. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 1 year
u/s Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of
380 of I.P.C. Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months
u/s Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of
201 of I.P.C. Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 1 year
A2 u/s Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
120B of I.P.C. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 1 year
u/s Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
302 of I.P.C. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for 1 year
u/s Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of
380 of I.P.C. Rs. 10,000/- in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two months
u/s Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of
201 r/w 34 of Rs. 1,00,000/- in default to undergo rigorous
I.P.C. imprisonment for 1 year.
The appellants (hereinafter will be referred to as the accused with the rank as arraigned before the trial court) for the sake of convenience in this
appeal.
The case of the prosecution is as follows: The deceased Riaz Ahmed was doing the business of buying and selling of old papers at Bhojapur,
Uttarpradesh. In that business connection, he also knew A-1 by name Nazir Hussain. In their business transaction, the deceased had to owe some
amount to A-1. As the said amount has not been paid, A-1 asked the deceased to come down to Chennai with a sum of Rs. 80,000/- so that,
they can purchase the old papers and transport the same to Uttarpradesh for resale and make profit. Believing the said words, the deceased came
down from Bhojapur to Chennai on 17.10.2002 by train. He was received by A-1 along with A-2, his assistant in the railway station at Chennai
and thereafter, he was taken to the place, where the accused was running his workshop. A-1 made the deceased to stay at the upstairs and
thereafter administered him milk mixed with attivan sleeping pills and after the deceased became unconscious, A-2 hold the legs of the deceased
and A-1 pressed the neck of the deceased and murdered him. Both the accused had stolen a sum of Rs. 80,000/- from the deceased and in order
to conceal the offence of murder, both the accused chopped the dead body of the deceased into pieces and packed the same in three bags viz.,
head and hands in one gunny bag, trunk in the second gunny bag and legs in a third gunny bag. They transported the severed body of the deceased
in a motor cycle bearing TN 22 AN -0150 and threw away the bag containing trunk of the deceased in a dumping yard near Kasi Theatre, K.K.
Nagar, Chennai, threw the second gunny bag containing legs of the deceased near the river at Kallattru bridge, Guindy, Chennai and threw the
third gunny bag in an isolated place near Guindy Race Course Road. Thereafter, A-1 gave a sum of Rs. 7,500/- to A-2 and sent him to Delhi on
20.10.2002. On the same date at about 9.00 a.m. A-1 took the gunny bag containing the head and hands of the deceased, put the same near
Velachery lake, poured petrol and set fire on the same in order to conceal the offence of murder.
P.W. 13 an employee of a company went to a tea shop on 19.10.2002 and when he crossed Kallattru bridge, he found a gunny bag and on
opening the same, he found two legs of a male. Thereafter, he went to J-3, Guindy Police Station and lodged the complaint, Ex. P.4 to P.W. 31,
the Inspector of Police who registered the case in Cr. No. 1631 of 2202 u/s 174 of Cr.P.C., prepared printed F.I.R., Ex. P.36. At about 7.30
a.m. he visited the place where the gunny bag was found, prepared observation mahazar, Ex. P.5, drew rough sketch, Ex. P.6 in the presence of
attesting witnesses P.W. 14 and another. Then, he held inquest on the legs in the presence of the panchayatars, prepared inquest report, Ex. P.37,
recovered blood stained khaki coloured polythene paper bag, M.O. 6 which was used for covering the legs and also a gunny bag, M.O. 1. In
continuation of his investigation, he examined some witnesses.
In the mean time, P.W. 1, a resident of AB481, 5th Sector, 24th street, K.K. Nagar and civil contractor by profession on 20.10.2002, went
around 8.00 a.m., to place certain orders with A.K.R.Hardwares near Kasi Theatre and after placing orders, when he was going on his two
wheeler, M-80 motor cycle at about 8.30 a.m., he saw a crowd near the Garden Wines and when he went there along with one Gopal of A.K.R.
Hardwares and yet another, he found a gunny bag and on opening the gunny bag, he found a trunk of a person belonged to Muslim community.
Thereafter, he went to K-7, K.K. Nagar Police Station and lodged the complaint, Ex. P.1 to P.W. 32, the Inspector of Police, who in turn
registered the case in Cr. No. 2266 of 2002 for the offence u/s 302 of I.P.C. and prepared the printed F.I.R., Ex. P.38. Thereafter, he visited the
place where the gunny bag was found lying, prepared observation mahazar, Ex. P.39, drew rough sketch, Ex. P.47 in the presence of witnesses.
He made photographs of trunk to be taken with the help of P.W. 15. Photographs (7 series) is Ex. P.7 and Negative (5 series) is Ex. P.8. Then he
recovered the plastic paper,M.O. 1; plastic bag, M.O. 2 (2 series) and gunny bag, M.O. 3 used for packing the trunk, under the cover of
mahazar,Ex. P.40 in the presence of the attesting witness. P.W. 32 sent the same through the Head Constable, P.W. 22 to Forensic Science
Department through court along with a letter for chemical analysis. Thereafter, P.W. 32 held inquest on the trunk in the presence of the
panchayatars, prepared inquest report, Ex. P.41. Thereafter, he summoned for scientific expert and also for sniffer dog. He also made
photographs of the gunny bag and trunk to be taken. Then he sent the trunk of the male to the Government Royapettah Hospital along with a letter,
Ex. P.42 requesting for postmortem. Thereafter, he was waiting for tip-off in regard to trunk on the pretext that some clues may come to light and
he continued to investigate the matter. On 22.10.2002 he made a request for taking D.N.A. Test and Finger Print through court. Photographs
viewing the trunk and lower limbs and their negatives taken by P.W. 15 are M.O. 7 to M.O. 10.
P.W. 32, on 23.10.2002 made photographs to be taken on the trunk and lower limbs and after reconstructing the severed portions of the body
at the hospital with the assistance of the Doctor, P.W. 24 through the photographer.
P.W. 24 at the request of P.W.32 under Ex. P.14 through P.W.26 Head constable and Upon identification by the Head Constable on
23.10.2002 conducted autopsy on the trunk. He found the following features on the trunk:
Injuries
Cut injury at the level of lower third of neck measuring 14.5 x 13 c.m. separating the head and upper 2/3rdof neck from the torso. The head and
upper 2/3rd of neck could not be made out. The amputation is seen over the front at the level between 2nd and 3rd tracheal ring and over the
back at the level of C5 and C6 vertebra. The circumference of the wound measures 43 c.m. The margin of the wound appear clean cut and pale.
The soft tissues are seen severed and bulge above the cut surface and covered with mud particles.
Cut injury 18 x 10 c.m. involving the right axilla (upper part of right humerus) with amputation of the right upper limb (beyond the injury). The
soft tissues are seen severed and the would margin is clean cut. The right humerus is seen severed at the level of the upper end of humerus. The
circumference of the wound measures 32.5 c.m. The soft tissues appear pale and is seen bulging through the cut surface and is covered with mud
particles.
Cut injury 16 x 11 c.m. involving the left axilla and upper end of left humerus with amputation of left upper limb beyond the cut injury. The soft
tissues are seen severed. Margins of the wound is seen clean cut. And the left humerus is seen severed at the level of the upper part of left
humerus. The portions of left and right upper limb beyond the cut injury could not be made out. The circumference of the wound measures 33 c.m.
The soft tissues appear pale and bulge through the cut surface and is covered with mud particles.
Cut injury 49 x 14 c.m. x cavity deep involving the lower 3rd of abdomen exposing the abdominal contents. The margins are clean cut. The soft
tissues of the abdominal wall are seen severed and appear pale and seen covered with mud particles.
Oblique cut injury 23 x 17 c.m. seen at the level of the left groin and hip/lower part of left side of torso amputating the left lower extremity
beyond that level. The skin and soft tissues are seen severed exposing the cavity of left hip joint and the surrounding soft tissues. The circumference
of the wound measures 58.9 c.m. The exposed soft tissues are pale and bulge through the cut surface and covered with mud particles.
Cut injury 24 x 16 c.m. at the level of right groin and right hip amputating the right lower extremity beyond that level. The skin and soft tissues
are seen clean cut exposing the cavity of right hip joint and abdomen and the surrounding soft tissues. The circumference of the wound measures
60 c.m. The exposed soft tissues bulge above the cut surface and are pale and covered with mud particles.
On dissection: Lumen of trachea and good pipe (Oesophagus) contain mud particles.
Thoracic cage: In tact; Heart; Normal in size and flabby. Chambers empty; Lungs-decomposed; Stomach - empty. Mucosa-Decomposed;
intestines and liver - decomposed; spleen and kidneys - decomposed; bladder - empty. Pelvis - intact. Spinal column - seen severed at the level
between C5 and C6 cervical vertebra .
He opined that the injuries appeared to be postmortem in nature and issued the postmortem certificate, Ex. P.15 to that effect. Ex. P.16 is the
Chemical Report.
Further, on the same day at about 1.00 noon, P.W. 24 at the request of P.W. 31 under Ex. P.17 through Head constable and Upon
identification by the Head Constable (HC 6141), he conducted autopsy on lower limbs. He found the following features:
Injuries
Amputated right and left lower limbs seen in a state of early decomposition. (peeling of cuticle, greenish discolouration).
Right Lower Limb: The right lower limb measures 82 c.m. in length along the inner aspect and 76 c.m. length along the outer aspect. The limb is
seen obliquely amputated from the rest of the body. The amputated end measures 24 x 17.8 c.m. anteroposteriorly and 59.5 c.m. in
circumference. The skin and soft tissues are seen clean cut. The soft tissues are pale, covered with mud particles and seen bulging above the cut
surface. The head of the femur is seen projecting out intact exposing the severed ligaments and surrounding soft tissues.
Left Lower Limb: The left lower limb measures 81 c.m. in length along the inner aspect and 74 c.m. along outer aspect. The limb is seen obliquely
amputated from rest of the body. The amputated end measures 24.5 x 17 c.m. anteroposteriorly and 60.8 c.m. in circumference. The skin and soft
tissues are seen clean cut. The soft tissues are pale, covered with mud particles and seen bulging above the cut surface. The head of the femur is
seen projecting out intact attached with severed ligaments and soft tissues.
He opined that the injures on the lower limbs are postmortem in nature. He would further opine that the lower limbs appear to belong the same
body and on anatomic reconstruction he found that the lower limbs appear to belong to the torso. He issued the postmortem certificate, Ex. P.18
to the above effect.
In the mean time, P.W. 18, the brother of the deceased by name Akil Ahamed of Uttarpradesh complained to the St. Thomas Mount Police
that his brother was missing, where he was asked to go to Guindy Police Station as the Guindy Police traced out lower limbs. P.W. 18 was
examined by the Inspector of Police, P.W. 31 at Guindy Police Station. In the mean time, on information P.W. 32 visited Guindy Police Station
where he recorded the statement of P.W. 18 with the assistance of a Hindi translator , P.W. 19 from Hindi Prachar Sabha. On the basis of the
statement of P.W. 18, P.W. 32 rushed to the workshop of A.1 at Nandambakkam to see that the workshop was locked where he examined
some witnesses. On the reliable tip-off, he came to know that the deceased was lastly seen with the company of A-1 & A-2 in Nandambakkam
locality.
While the investigation was going on so here at Chennai, P.W. 32 rushed to Moradabad, Utrapradesh and visited Bojapur Police Station. He
came to know that there was a complaint lodged by P.W. 18 alleging that his brother Riaz Ahmed was went on missing. He collected the General
Diary Copy, Ex. P.45 and copy of complaint, Ex. P.44 from the Police Constable at Bojapur Police Station. Thereafter, he inquired the
whereabouts of A-1 and he was given to understand that A-1 had criminal cases in his credit involving various offences including one under the
Arms Act. P.W. 32 went on searching A-1 & A-2 and as his attempts failed, he returned to Chennai. Here, P.W. 32 was on look out for A-1 &
A-2. In the mean time, at the request of P.W. 32, the father and brother of the deceased were subjected to D.N.A. Test. The Viscera of the
deceased were sent through Head Constable.
On 9.11.2002, based on the information that A-1 was arrested in Uttarpradesh in connection with a case in Cr. No. 3620 of 2002 of
Kalseyith Police station, P.W. 32 rushed to Uttarpradesh and on P.T. Warrant, he brought A-1 to Chennai on 19.11.2002 by train and on arrival
at Chennai on 21.11.2002 he subjected the deceased to judicial remand after being produced him before the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate.
Thereafter, P.W. 32 took A-1 under police custody from 21.11.2002 to 04.12.2002. At about 8.00 a.m. On 22.11.2002, he recorded the
voluntary confessional statement given by A-1 in Hindi as well into Tamil after translating the same with the assistance, P.W. 29 in the presence of
attesting witnesses, P.W. 30 and another. Pursuant to the admissible portion of confession, Ex. P.24, the Inspector of Police, P.W. 32 visited the
workshop of A-1 situate at No. 6/9, Harikrishna Road, Nandambakkam on 22.11.2002 and prepared the observation mahazar, Ex. P.27 and
drew rough sketch, Ex. P.46 in the presence of witnesses. The confessional statement given by A-1 in Hindi is Ex. P.25. He also seized, iron
bondu, M.O. 7; stainless steel tumblers, M.O. 8(2 series); a big stainless steel glass, M.O. 9; Aluminum pan M.O. 10; and a knife with wooden
handle, M.O. 11 under the cover of mahazar, Ex. P.26 in the presence of the very same attesting witnesses. P.W. 32 made photographs viewing
the scene of occurrence to be taken with the help of P.W. 28. Negative (series) is Ex. P.20 and photographs (series) is Ex. P.21. Thereafter, A-1
led P.W. 32 to Nandambakkm Military Ground, where he produced Knife, M.O. 5 and another knife M.O. 6 and thereafter, A-1 led to his
house, where P.W. 32 recovered pant, M.O. 12; full sleeve shirt, 2M.O. 13; a pair of brown colour shoes, M.O. 14; resin bag, M.O. 15;
telephone receipt dated 9.10.2002, M.O. 16; another receipt dated 14.10.2002, M.O. 17; Identity Card, M.O. 12; Voters Identity Card, M.O.
13 and the motor cycle in which the severed body of the deceased were transported, bearing Regn. No. TN 22 N 0150, M.O. 18 under the
cover of the mahazar, Ex. P.29 in the presence of the attesting witnesses, P.W. 30 and another.
In continuation of his investigation, at about 5.40 p.m. on 23.11.2002 P.W. 32 went to Triplicane led by the accused to the shop bearing D.
No. 22/43, Kuppumuthu Street. pursuant to the voluntary confession statement of A-1, he recovered a Bill, Ex. P.2 at the instance of the accused
portraying the details that the accused was dealing with old paper business and consigned a load to Moradabad under the cover of the mahazar,
Ex. P.30 in the presence of the very same attesting witnesses. Likewise, on 22.11.2002 at about 6.50 p.m., he recovered another copy of bill, Ex.
P.11 under the cover of the mahazar from the shop owned by P.W. 16, Muthusamy which situated at D. No. 45, Ramanuja Iyer Street, Old
Washermenpet, Chennai. Thereafter, at about 7.15 p.m., he recovered another receipt dated 17.02.2002, Ex. P.3 at the instance of the accused
under the cover of the mahazar, Ex. P.32 from the shop viz., M/s. A.N. Transport Corporation, bearing No. 329, 3rd floor, Thambu Chetty
Street, Chennai portraying the details of consignment of old paper sent by A-1. Thereafter, at about 22.11.2002, he recovered receipts, Ex. P.34
under the cover of the mahazar Ex. P.33 from the shop bearing D. No. 202, Pidariar Koil Street, Muthialpet.
In continuation of his investigation, P.W. 32 also examined P.W. 9, who is running a pharmacy shop identified by A-1 and recorded his
statement. Thereafter, at the instance of A-1, P.W. 32 examined the witnesses viz., P.W. 4, the owner of the gunny bag shop, from whose shop
A-1 purchased the plastic bags in order to dispose the severed pieces of the dead body, P.W. 3, the owner of the shop from whose shop A-1
purchased the plastic cover and also P.W. 10, who is having a slaughtering house at the street behind the house of A-1 from whom A-1 took
M.O. 5 Knife. Thereafter, on 30.11.2002, P.W. 23 Head Constable at the instruction of P.W. 32 handed over the trunk and lower limbs of the
deceased to the kin of the deceased at Government Royapettah Hosptial at Chennai.
P.W. 32, Inspector of Police went on search of A-2. At about 5.00 p.m., on 2.12.2002 upon identification by A-1, he arrested A-2 in front of
the Masque at Butt Road, St. Thomas Mount and recorded his voluntary confession in Hindi with the assistance of P.W. 29 in the presence of
P.W. 30 and another and translated the same into Tamil and the admissible portion therein is Ex. P.22. The Hindi version of the confessional
statement of A-2 is Ex. P23. Pursuant to the same, P.W. 32 recovered brown colour pant and full sleeve shirt of the deceased from A-2 under the
cover of Ex. P.35 mahazar. After the purpose of police custody of A-1 and A-2 was over, P.W. 32, on 03.12.2002 produced A-1 before the
Judicial Magistrate for judicial remand and A-1 on 04.12.2002. On 18.12.2002, P.W. 32 brought the mother of the deceased viz., P.W. 20 from
Uttarpradesh and subjected her for D.N.A. Test through the Head Constable, P.W. 26 and examined her with the assistance of P.W. 29. In the
mean time, on 04.04.2003, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Ashok Nagar at the instance of P.W. 32 and considering both the cases
registered in Cr. No. 1631 of 2002 of Guindy Police Station and Cr. No. 2266 of 2002 of K.K. Nagar are connected with each other, passed an
order for combined investigation. P.W. 32 after complying with the other routine formalities took up further investigation, after having obtained
postmortem certificate from the Doctor, P.W. 24 and D.N.A. Report, Ex. P.19 from P.W. 25, and upon completion of his investigation, he laid
final report on 23.07.2003 as against both the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 380 and 201 r/w 34 of I.P.C. before
the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Saidapet.
In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined 32 witnesses and marked 50 exhibits and produced 20 material objects. In addition
to the above, 3 documents marked as court side documents.
When both A-1 and A-2 were questioned u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to the incriminating materials appearing against them,
they totally denied the same as false. On behalf of the defence, no document was marked and no witness was examined. However, learned trial
Judge found the accused guilty of the offence, convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier.
Mr. S. Samuevel Raja Pandian, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant had extensively taken us to the entire evidence.
(i) Firstly the learned Counsel would submit that as it is a case of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the prosecution to prove the motive is
heavy and there is absolutely no evidence to show that both the deceased and A-1 were partners in the business and because of the deceased
some financial loss had occurred in the business and therefore, A-1 had planned to kill the deceased. However, there is no evidence to show that
the deceased came down to Chennai only at the instance of A-1 and that too with a sum of Rs. 80,000/- and both the accused had taken him to
the workshop belonged to A-1 and committed the murder. In the absence of motive, especially in the case based on circumstantial evidence, the
entire prosecution case must be disbelieved.
(ii) Secondly, the learned Counsel would submit that as the police had recovered only legs packed in a gunny bag at one place, trunk packed in
another gunny bag at another place and there was no recovery of the severed head and hands, as they were burnt in a secluded place, it is highly
improbable for the witnesses particularly P.W. 18, the younger brother of the deceased to identify the deceased only with the severed legs and the
trunk. Equally, the identification of the body by P.Ws. 19 and 20 viz., the father and mother of the deceased respectively is also highly improbable.
In the absence of the identification of the body as that of the deceased, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the accused persons.
(iii) Thirdly, the learned Counsel would submit the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 speaking about the fact that the A-1 having plastic bag and gunny
bags is highly artificial as admittedly both the witnesses have stated that such plastic bags as well gunny bags can be purchased from any shop.
Likewise, the evidence of P.W. 9, the medical shop owner cannot be believed as he himself has stated that A-1 purchased the attivan tablets on
17.10.2002 and he has not produced any bill for the same. In the absence of any evidence that A-1 had purchased attivan tablets, excepting the
evidence of P.W. 9, it cannot be held that the prosecution has established the fact that A-1 had purchased the sleeping pills, that too to give to the
deceased before murdering him. Insofar as the evidence of P.W. 10 to the effect that A-1 had purchased two knives from him on 17.10.2002 is
also highly unbelievable. In any event, P.W. 10 himself had admitted in his evidence that there was a litigation between his father and A-1 and the
case was under trial for over a period of 5 years prior to the date of occurrence and he also admitted that from the date of the institution of the
case by A-1 against his father, he did not have any contact with A-1. In this circumstance, there is every possibility for P.W. 10 to falsely implicate
the accused. Hence, the learned Counsel would submit that the prosecution case, as to A-1 having purchased the plastic bag, attivan tablets and
the knives cannot be believed.
(iv) Fourthly, the learned Counsel would submit that insofar as the last seen theory as spoken to by P.Ws. 11 and 12 is also highly doubtful. The
learned Counsel would submit that P.W. 11 has deposed that he is running transport business in the name and style of M/s. Bombay Motor
Services at Harikrishna Road, Nandambakkam, near the workshop of A-1 that and on 17.10.2002 he saw A-1 and A-2 as well as one Muslim
gentleman near the work shop of A-1 and when he enquired A-1 as to the third Muslim gentle man, A-1 had replied that he has come down to
Chennai from outside place. He has also deposed that at the time when he saw, the third man was holding a black colour bag. On the next day,
when he saw both A-1 and A-2 in the work shop, he enquired A-1 as to the third man, as he was not found with them, for which A-1 had replied
that he has gone back after finishing his work. However, his evidence is totally unbelievable as he has admitted that he could not see what had
happened inside the workshop run by A-1. Hence, his evidence is of no assistance to the case of the prosecution as to the last seen theory.
Similarly, the learned Counsel would submit that the evidence of P.W. 1, a roadside plantain vendor was also of no use, as he has spoken that he
has not identified A-1 before the police. Therefore, he has come out with a false statement and as such the last seen theory as put forth by the
prosecution has also not been established.
(v) Fifthly, the learned Counsel would submit that P.W. 24, the Doctor who conducted postmortem on the trunk as well as the lower limbs has
deposed that they were uniformly chopped, without there being any indication of cutting with knives like M.Os.5 and 6. He has also deposed that
the blood will clot within 6 hours of the murder. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that after the alleged murder had taken place on
17.10.2002, a portion of body was first seen on 19.10.2002 and subsequently, one of the portions of the remaining part of the body was found on
20.10.2002 and when the gunny bags were found by P.W. 13 as well as P.W. 1, they also saw blood oozing out from gunny bag. Hence, the
theory of the prosecution that the deceased was murdered with weapons like M.Os.1 and 2 and the murder had taken place on 17.10.2002 are
totally false. The medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution.
For all the above reasons, the learned Counsel would submit that the prosecution has not established the complete circumstances, without
there being any break in the link and therefore, the appellants/accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequently acquittal.
Per contra, Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit the fact that the deceased and the accused were jointly
doing business in buying old papers and transport the same to Moradabad. P.W. 18, the brother of the deceased had spoken about the same and
he has also stated that the deceased contacted him just 1 day prior to 16.10.2002 over phone and informed him that he was asked to come down
to Chennai by A-1 with a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to purchase old papers and thereafter to transport the same to Moradabad. Accordingly, he had
left Bhojapur on 15.10.2002 with a cash of Rs. 80,000/-. He has also spoken that when the deceased did not return to house on his arrival at
Chennai, he contacted A-1 over phone to find out as to what had happened to the deceased brother. The wife of A-1 had picked up the phone
and she informed that A-1 was not in the house. Thereafter, A-1 contacted him over phone and informed that the train came late and thereafter he
did not see the deceased. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted that not only the motive aspect, but also the fact that
the deceased had left Bhojapur for Chennai only at the instance of A-1 and with the cash of Rs. 80,000/- and the said circumstances would show
that the deceased and A-1 were doing business jointly.
Insofar as the identification of the deceased is concerned, the brother of the deceased P.W. 18 and the father and mother of the deceased
P.Ws.19 and 20 had identified the severed parts of the body as that of the deceased. There cannot be a better person than the parents and the
brother of the deceased to identify the deceased and therefore, the prosecution has established the important circumstance viz., identification of the
dead body.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that from the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4,9 and 10 it is established that A-1 had
purchased the plastic bags to pack up the cut portions of the dead body of the deceased. P.W. 9, the medical shop owner has spoken to the fact
that A-1 purchased sleeping tablets viz., Attivan from his shop on 17.10.2002. A-1 used the said tablets to make the deceased unconscious by
mixing the same in the milk and administering the same to the deceased and make the deceased asleep. P.W. 3 has spoken to the fact that A-1
purchased the plastic bags and P.W. 4 has spoken to the fact that A-1 purchased gunny bags which were used for the purpose of packing the cut
portions of the dead body. Similarly, P.W. 10 has spoken as to the fact that A-1 had taken Knife, M.O. 5 from him on the pretext that the same
was required for the purpose of slaughtering a goat on the occasion of a function arranged at his house.
Insofar as the last seen theory is concerned, especially, P.Ws.11 and 12 had spoken about the same. The learned Additional public Prosecutor
would submit that P.Ws. 3, 4, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are all independent witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve their evidence. Of course, P.W.
9 had stated that there was some litigation between A-1 and his father, but that reason alone would not be a ground to discard his evidence.
Insofar as the medical evidence is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the Doctor, P.W. 24 has also stated that
it is possible that after the commission of murder, the dead body could be chopped as has been done, with the weapons, like MO.5 and M.O. 6
knives, when the body was cut by force with Hammer, M.O. 11. He would also submit that P.W. 30, the attesting witness to the mahazar has
spoken about the seizure of material objects viz., knives and hammer. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it is a
case of brutal murder viz., both A-1 and A-2 had administered sleeping pills to the deceased and when the deceased was unconscious, he was
murdered and both A-1 and A-2 thereafter, cut the dead body of the deceased into pieces, i.e. Head, hands, legs and trunk and packed in three
different gunny bags, threw the gunning bag containing legs in one place, gunny bag containing the trunk at different place and burnt the head and
hands at a secluded place as if the act of the accused was only to conceal the identity of the body. With the above situation, the prosecution has
established all the circumstances implicating the accused for the commission of the offence of murder. Therefore, the conviction and sentence
imposed by the learned trial Judge by the judgment under the appeal need not interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
The prosecution has implicated both the accused by relying various circumstances as to their involvement for the offence. As far as the first
circumstance viz., the motive is concerned, the prosecution has examined P.W. 18, the brother of the deceased. He has spoken about the fact that
the deceased was doing the business of buying and selling old papers. He has also spoken that the deceased was doing that business in Bhojapur.
He has also spoken that just a day prior to 15.10.2002, the deceased informed him that he is going to Chennai with a sum of Rs. 80,000/- to
purchase old papers as A-1 requested him to come down to Chennai. P.W. 18 was also doing a weaving business at Bhojapur. He has also
spoken that the deceased had given the telephone number of A-1 to him to contact in case of any necessity. He has spoken that on 15.10.2002 his
brother left Bhojapur for Chennai. As he did not receive any intimation from his brother on arrival at Chennai, P.W. 18 contacted A-1 to the
phone number given by the deceased. He has also spoken that the said phone was attended by the wife of A-1 that too after three attempts were
made. The wife of A-1 informed, P.W. 18 that A-1 was not in the house. Thereafter A-1 himself contacted P.W. 18 and informed him that as the
train arrived at late by half an hour, he did not meet the deceased. From the above evidence, it is seen that the prosecution has established that the
deceased had left Bhojapur on 15.10.2002 for Chennai and arrived at Chennai on 17.10.2002. As there was no other person known to the
deceased at Chennai and the deceased was having business contact only with A-1 at Chennai, naturally, the case of the prosecution viz., that A-1
being the business partner of the deceased, had gone to the railway station, picked him up. The fact that the deceased was doing the business of
buying old papers from Chennai and transport the same to Bhojapur through A-1 is also spoken to by P.W. 19, the father of the deceased. His
evidence is also corroborated the fact that the deceased had left Bhojapur for Chennai on 15.10.2002 with a sum of Rs. 80,000/- only at the
instance of A-1. Though, the deceased arrived at Chennai on 17.10.2002, he could not be seen alive thereafter by any body. The evidence of
P.Ws.18 and 19 is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 20, the mother of the deceased. One more witness viz., P.W. 21, the sister of P.W.
20 had also spoken about the fact that he is living in Obri, Moradabad District, Uttarpradesh and just before the deceased left for Chennai in
connection with his business, he came to him and collected a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of old papers from Chennai. He has also spoken
that the deceased came to Chennai only to see A-1. He has also identified A-1 in the Court. From the above evidence, the prosecution has
established the fact that the deceased had come down to Chennai only at the request of A-1 to purchase old papers with the sum of Rs. 80,000/-
In addition to the above, P.W. 5, who is doing business of sale of old papers in the name and style of M/s.Jayam Waste Paper Mart has
spoken that on 10.12.2002 A1 came and asked for a load of old papers, for being transported to Uttarpradesh and he has directed to send one
load of old papers to Uttarpradesh. Though he has not specifically stated the exact place as to where the old papers were transported, the
prosecution has proved the fact that A-1 was doing the business of buying old papers and again selling the same along with the deceased. The
prosecution has also examined P.W. 6, the Traffic In charge of M/s. A.M. Transport to speak that A-1 came and booked a container for
transporting the old papers to Delhi. Both P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 had identified A-1.
The prosecution has let in the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12 as to the last seen theory to connect the next link of circumstance. P.W. 11 is the
owner of M/s. Bombay Motor Services and running his business at No. 3, Harikrishna Road, Nandambakkam, Chennai just near to his motor
service, the work shop run by A-1 is situate. P.W. 11 has spoken that he knew both A-1 and A-2, as A-1 is doing his business in the nearby
work shop and A-2 is his assistant. He has deposed that on 17.10.2002, he saw both A-1 and A-2 as well as one Muslim man together near his
motor services. When he enquired A-1, he was informed that the third person has come down to Chennai in connection with the business purpose.
He has also spoken that he saw the third man having a black bag in his hands. The evidence of P.W. 11 indicates that the black bag referred to by
him contained the cash as spoken to by P.Ws.18,19 and 20. Further, P.W. 11 had spoken that on the next day, he saw only A-1 and A-2 and did
not see the third man with them and therefore, he asked A-1 as to what had happened to that third person for which, A-1 had replied that he has
gone back to his place after finishing his business. The evidence of P.W. 11 corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.18 to 21 as to the fact that the
deceased had left Bhojapur to Chennai and he arrived at Chennai on 17.10.2002 by train and he was also received by A-1 and A-2 here at
Chennai and thereafter he was taken to the work shop, where A-1 was carrying his business. He also identified A-1 before the police during the
course of investigation, of course after 7 days. The evidence of P.W.11 as to the last seen theory is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.12,
who is a roadside plantain vendor and running his business in a pushing cart. He has spoken that on 17.10.2002,2 when he was selling bananas in
his cart, he saw A-1 and one more person and when he asked A-1 as to, who is the other person? A-1 replied that he has come for a business
purpose. He has also spoken that on the next day when he saw only A-1 and again when he enquired A-1 about the other person, A-1 had
replied that the other persons had left Chennai to his native after finishing his business. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/A-1 and
A-2 had submitted that P.W.12 had not identified A-1 before the police. In our considered view the said submission cannot be accepted since, it
is the categoric evidence of P.W. 12 that he knew A-1, as A-1 used to buy bananas from him regularly. Therefore, merely for the reason that
P.W. 12 had not identified A-1 before the police, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved.
The next chain of circumstance is, the implication of the accused by P.Ws.3, 4,9 and 10. P.W. 3 is the owner of shop viz., M/s. Minar Plastic
and Essence Store situate at No.168, M.K.N. Road, Alandur, Chennai. He has deposed that he knew A-1, as he used to come to his place. He
has deposed further that on 18.10.2002 at about 2.30 p.m., A-1 purchased the plastic cover for a sum of Rs. 70/- He has identified A-1 in the
Court and he has also identified M.O. 1 Plastic Paper. His evidence is questioned on the ground that he has also admitted that the said plastic
paper can be purchased from from the other shops as well. We have considered the said submission and we are inclined to reject the same.
Though the plastic papers can be available in all shops, the evidence of P.W. 3 cannot be disbelieved, thereby, he as also identified the plastic bag,
M.O. 1 was purchased by A-1 from his shop. In his cross examination, he has also deposed that the plastic bag, M.O. 1 is not available in any
other shops in Alandur. Hence, the prosecution has established that A-1 had purchased the plastic bag, M.O. 1 which has been used for packing
the chopped portions of the dead body. The evidence of P.W. 3 is also questioned on the ground that when the occurrence had allegedly taken
place on 17.10.2002, the evidence of P.W. 3 that A-1 had purchased the plastic bag, M.O. 1 on 18.10.2002 is of no assistance. We considered
the above submission as to the reference of date. In our considered view, it was only a mistake occurred, especially, when P.W. 3 had identified
the plastic bag which was produced by A-1 which was used for packing the chopped portions of the dead body and it was also seized under the
cover of the mahazar as spoken to by the attesting witnesses. P.W. 4 is a vendor who is dealing in old gunny bag in a shop situate at No. 475,
M.K.N. Road, Alandur, Chennai. He has also spoken about A-1 having purchased three gunny bags from his shop on 18.10.2002. he has also
identified A-1 as well as the gunny bags M.O. 4 (series). His evidence is also attacked on the ground that he has spoken about A-1 having
purchased gunny bags only on 18.10.2002. In our considered view, for the same reasons which we have relied upon for accepting the evidence of
P.W. 3, the contention as to the reference on date viz., 18.10.2002 is only liable to be rejected.
The prosecution has also examined P.W. 9 for A-1 having purchased Attivan Tablets, which is a sleeping pills on 17.10.2002, the date on
which the deceased arrived at Chennai. His evidence is questioned on the ground that he was examined after two days and he has not produced
any copy of bill to prove that A-1 had purchased the attivan tablets(the sleeping pills). From the evidence it is seen, that P.W. 9 doing pharmacy
business for over a period of 22 years in that place. He has identified A-1 and he has specifically spoken for having sold Attivan 2 mg. Tablets
from his shop on 17.10.2002 to A-1. Merely because, there is no evidence for the sale of purchase of tablets, his evidence cannot be rejected as
we do not find anything to indicate in his evidence to falsely implicate A-1 for the offence. That apart, he has also deposed that he has sold
medicine only on the prescription of the Doctor. However, when it is a case of circumstantial evidence, merely for the reason that P.W. 9 was
examined by the investigating officer after two days that cannot be the ground to reject his evidence.
One more circumstance viz., the purchase of two knives from P.W. 10 by A-1. P.W. 10 has spoken that on 17.10.2002 at about 6.00 p.m.
A-1 came to his shop and asked for knives and when he asked as to why he required two knives, A-1 had replied that he has scheduled some
function in his house and therefore, he required the knives for cutting the goat. He has also identified both A-1 as well as the knife M.O. 5. His
evidence is attacked on the ground that there was a litigation between A-1 and the father of P.W. 10 and therefore, in all probability P.W. 1 could
falsely implicate A-1. It is true that a civil case was filed by A-1 against the father of P.W. 10 and the same was pending for over a period of 5
years in the Court. On a specific question, P.W. 10 has stated that he did not have any contact with A-1 and he is also denying any enmity. It is
also to be seen that in fact, A1 had vacated the place two years prior to the occurrence and therefore, the dispute between A-1 and the father of
P.W. 10 did not exist when P.W. 10 was enquired by the police and when he implicated A-1 for having taken two knives. Hence, we considered
the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 9 wherein A-1 was implicated for the purchase of plastic bag, gunny bags, attivan tablets. Similarly, we have no
reason to reject the evidence of P.W. 10 as to the fact that A-1 had collected two knives from him alleging that the same are required for a
function to be held in his house. By the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 9 and 10, the prosecution has established the further circumstance to implicate A-1
for the commission of the offence.
The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/A-1 and A-2 heavily relied upon the medical evidence viz., the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.
24 who conducted the postmortem on the trunk as well on the legs. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that in view of the fact that, the cuts
are uniform, it could not have been done by a weapon like knife, M.O. 5. In this regard the evidence of the Doctor, P.W. 24 is relevant. He has
specifically opined that after the murder is committed uniform cuts are possible by the weapons like M.O. 5 as well as M.O. 6 Knives. In fact, he
has stated that if with the use of M.Os.5 and 6 - Knives one can cut by force with hammer M.O. 11, it is possible for a uniform cutting or
chopping. The Doctor, P.W. 24 would be the better person to speak about the manner in which cut injuries could have been made. As the
evidence of the Doctor, P.W. 24 is that the body was chopped after the death, we hesitate to accept the submission that there cannot be uniform
cutting of the body and that too with the weapons like M.Os.5 and 6 using M.O. 11. The postmortem Certificates Ex. P.15 relating to trunk and
Ex. P.18 relating to lower limbs of the body would indicate that both the trunk and lower limbs are belonged to one dead person.
It is also argued by the Learned Counsel counsel that after the murder had taken place on 17.10.2002 as put forth by the prosecution, when
P.W. 1 had seen the plastic bag containing the trunk of the deceased on 20.10.2002, there was no possibility of blood oozing out from the plastic
bag as by that time 6 hours had been elapsed and according to the Doctor, P.W. 24, the blood could ooze out only within the period of 6 hours.
However, there is no definite opinion of P.W. 24 in this regard. Having regard to the overwhelming evidence implicating the accused, the said
opinion of the Doctor cannot shatter the prosecution case as to the time and manner in which the offence has been committed.
Insofar as the submission as to the identification of the deceased is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.18, 19 and 20 have been relied upon by
the prosecution. All the three witnesses have deposed that they have identified the severed portions of the lower limbs and the trunk were as that of
the deceased. P.W. 18, the brother of the deceased had identified the lower limbs with the injury mark on the leg of the deceased. He has spoken
that when the deceased was playing cricket, sustained injury on his leg which later on, led to a scar on the leg. He has also identified one black
mole on the leg. Similarly, he has identified the trunk with a mole on the right chest of the trunk and with the hair on the chest. We have no reason
to reject the evidence of P.W. 18. P.W. 19, the father of the deceased has also identified the legs and trunk of the deceased as that of his son''s
with the same scar as spoken to by P.W. 18 and other identification marks. Likewise, the legs and trunk were also identified by the mother of the
deceased. It is true, that when the identification of the dead person was not proved, the prosecution cannot be completely accepted, as the dead
person may alive at some where else. However, from the evidence of P.Ws.18, 19 and 20, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has
satisfactorily explained beyond any reasonable doubt as to the fact that the legs and trunk recovered from plastic and gunny bags respectively from
two different places belonged to the deceased Riaz Ahmed. P.W. 25 the Forensic Science Expert has deposed that on examination of the genes of
P.W. 18 and P.W. 19 as well as the severed lower limbs and the trunk of the deceased, there is every possibility that the deceased was the
brother of P.W. 18 and son of P.W. 19.
The prosecution has also examined P.W. 30 to speak about the arrest of A-1, the recovery of M.Os. 7 to 11 under the mahazar Ex. P.26.
The recoveries were made from the work shop of A-1 viz., the place where the deceased was murdered. From the evidence of P.W. 30 coupled
with mahazar, Ex. P.26, it is seen that from the scene of crime, one stainless steel tumbler and one aluminium pan, used for mixing the milk with the
sleeping pills and one iron hammer supporting the prosecution version as to the manner in which the deceased was done to death.
Even though, the prosecution has not proved the fact that the head and hands of the deceased were burnt by pouring petrol at a secluded place
by A-1, insofar as the concealment of the offence of murder jointly committed by A-1 and A-2 is concerned, the prosecution has proved the
concealment of the offence of murder through recovery of the cut portions of the lower limbs and trunk as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 3.
An analysis of the cumulative evidence would disclose that the prosecution has proved the motive, last seen theory, purchase of attivan tablets,
plastic bags, gunny bags, knives by A-1 and also the manner in which they have been used for the commission of the offence of murder and for
subsequent disposal of the dead body. The deceased was murdered by A-1 and A-2 while he was sleeping due to the effect of attivan pills
administered to him and after the death only, the body of the deceased was chopped into pieces viz., head, hands, trunk and legs and by the
recovery of the parts of the human limbs which were belonged to the deceased.
The prosecution has further established the fact that both A-1 and A-2 had conspired together and committed the murder of the deceased.
Insofar as the theft of a sum of Rs. 80,000/- is concerned, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.11 and 12 who have spoken about the deceased
having black colour bag when they saw him along with A-1 and A-2 and on the next day when P.W. 11 had seen A-1 and A-2, they did not see
the other person and P.W. 12 who has seen both A-1 and A-2 on the previous day did see only A-1 and did not see the other person would
indicate that the black bag contained with money of Rs. 80,000/- was stolen by the accused after the commission of the offence of murder.
For all the reasons we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved all the circumstances, without there being any missing link
implicating both A-1 and A-2 for the offences. Therefore, we are not in agreement with any of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for
the appellants/A-1 & A-2 in challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence. The judgment of conviction and sentence of the trial Court need
no interference. Accordingly, the criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fast Tract Court No. 1, Chennai in S.C. No. 507 of 2003 dated 25.09.2006