Paramasivam, Selvaraj and Nirmal vs State

R. Banumathi, J.—This appeal arises out of Judgment in S.C. No. 189/2005 convicting A1 to A3 u/s 364 IPC and A1 u/s 302 IPC and A2

and A3 u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo 3 years RI for the proved charge of abduction and imposing life imprisonment for the

proved charge of murder and also imposing fine. A4 to A7 were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

The case of prosecution in a nutshell are as follows:

Deceased Mani @ Parai Mani took lease of the land in S.F. No. 427/1 of Vadapudur village belonging to PW3-Krishnasamy and PW6-

Ramasamy. A6-Nagarathinam was the neighbouring land owner and sister-in-law of PWs.3 and 6. Since A1-Paramasivam and A6-Nagarathinam

threatened the deceased not to break the stone, deceased Mani @ Parai Mani filed suit O.S. No. 5/2004 before DMC, Pollachi for Permanent

Injunction restraining A6 and PWs.3 and 6 from interfering with quarrying. There was animosity between the deceased and the family of A6-

Nagarathinam.

About 10 days prior to the date of occurrence, A1-Paramasivam, A6-Nagarathinam and A7-Revathi threatened the deceased. About 4 days

prior to the date of occurrence, A2-Selvaraj @ Selvan and another person approached the deceased for purchase of stone and since it was late

hours, deceased refused to accompany them and asked them to come on some other day.

On 18.1.2004 again A2-Selvaraj @ Selvan and another person approached the deceased and asked for stones and deceased accompanied the

accused to the quarry. PW1-Kannaiyan and PW2-Kala witnessed the same that deceased went along with A2-Selvaraj @ Selvan and A3-

Nirmal. On 18.1.2004, PW8-Sivakumar and PW9-Doraisamy who were returning from the Petrol Bunk, saw white colour Maruthi Van bearing

registration No. TN-23 E 5951 [MO1] was parked on the road side. PW9 saw the deceased and A1 were sitting inside the Maruthi Van [MO1].

On 19.1.2004, PW23-Pugazhenthi [Railway Key Man], Thirupur saw the dead body on the railway track and informed PW20-Ramachandran

[Station Master] who in turn informed the Out-post Police Station, Thirupur. PW24-Sankaralingam [Head Constable] received the report and

registered the case for ''suspicious death'' in Cr. No. 12/2004 u/s 174 Cr.P.C. PW24-Head Constable went to the scene of occurrence and found

the dead body of a male on the railway track. PW24-Head Constable had prepared Ex.P15-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P16-Rough Plan.

PW24-Head Constable had also held Inquest on the body of the deceased and Ex.P18 is the Inquest Report. PW24-Head Constable sent the

dead body for autopsy to Government Hospital, Thirupur. On the request of PW24-Head Constable, PW27-Nizar Ahemad had taken

photographs [MO18 series] of the body lying on the railway track.

PW33-Dr.Parimala Devi conducted autopsy over the dead body and noting the injuries, PW33 opined that death was due to multiple injuries

on the neck and head injuries about 70 to 80 hours prior to autopsy. Since there was no clue about the identity of the dead body, body was buried

at Chellandiamman grave yard Tirupur by PW24-Head Constable with the aid of PW22-Murugasamy [Grave yard watch man].

Since, deceased did not return home, PWs.1 and 2 searched for the deceased. On 20.1.2004 at about 11.15 A.M., PW1 lodged written

complaint [Ex.P1]. On the basis of which, PW39-Rajendran [Inspector of Police] registered the case in Cr. No. 27/2004 u/s 363 IPC. PW39

went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Plan. PW39 enquired the witnesses [PWs.1 to 6 and 15] and

recorded their statements.

On 26.1.2004, PW41-Shahul Ahmeed [Inspector of Police] took charge of the case and taken up further investigation. On 28.1.2004 at about

1.45 P.M., PW41 arrested A2-Selvaraj near Vanjipalayam railway gate. On being interrogated, A2 voluntarily gave a confession statement which

led to the recovery of Ropes [MO10 series], Banian [MO11], Bag [MO12], Diary [MO2] and Money purse containing the photo of the

deceased [MO3] under Ex.P5-Seizure Mahazar. Thereafter, along with A2, PW41 went to the scene of occurrence viz., railway track and

prepared Observation Mahazar [Ex.P34] and Rough Plan [Ex.P35].

On the same day [28.1.2004] at 6.15 P.M., PW41 arrested A5-Gudalingam @ Lingasamy and recorded his confession statement which led to

recovery of MO1-Maruthi omni van under Ex.P37-Seizure Mahazar. On the same day, at about 8.50 P.M., PW41 arrested A1-Paramasivam

and recorded his confession statement which led to recovery of MO4-Lungi, MO5-Shirt and MO9-Voters ID Card of deceased Mani under

Ex.P39-Seizure Mahazar. Thereafter, PW41 went to Thirupur Out-post Police Station and enquired PW24-Head Constable and received copy

of FIR in Cr. No. 12/2004. Thereafter, PW41-Investigating Officer altered the FIR in Cr. No. 27/2004 from Section 363 IPC to Sections 120-B,

364 and 302 IPC. Ex.P42 is the Express Report.

PW41 sent requisition for exhumation of dead body of the deceased. On 17.2.2004, dead body of the deceased was exhumed in the

presence of PW31-Tahsildar, PW21-R.I. and other witnesses. PW41-Investigating Officer seized Waist Cord with Silver Amulet under Ex.P12-

Seizure Mahazar. In respect of the place where body was buried, PW41-Investigating Officer prepared Ex.P13-Observation Mahazar and

Ex.P44-Rough Plan. Blood samples of the dead body was taken. Blood samples of PW14 [Manickammal] and PW15 [Subramani] -mother and

brother of the deceased were taken and sent for DNA examination. PW40-Vanaja [Asst. Chemical Examiner and Asst. Director] who conducted

DNA examination opined that ""the bone pieces etc. described belong to a human male individual"". PW40 further opined that ""the person Mani @

Parai Mani to whom the bone pieces etc. belong is the biological offspring of Ms.A.Manickammal.""-PW14.

On 05.2.2004, A3-Nirmal and A4-Sureshkumar @ Suresh @ Pambatti surrendered before JM, Pollachi. On application, PW41 was

permitted to take A3 and A4 to police custody. Confession statement recorded from A3 which led to recovery of Torch [MO6], Battery [MO17

series], Knife [MO16], Hundred rupee Note [MO13], Bag [MO15] under Ex.P7-Seizure Mahazar. Confession statement recorded from A4

which led to recovery of Watch [MO8], Fifty rupee Note [MO14], Plastic bag [MO19] under Ex.P9-Seizure Mahazar.

On 13.2.2004, PW38-Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi conducted Test Identification Parade in respect of A2 and A3. PWs.1, 2 and 5

were participated in the Test Identification Parade and identified the accused. Ex.P30 is the Test Identification Parade Report prepared by PW38.

On receipt of chemical analysis report and DNA report and after completion of due investigation, PW41 filed final report u/s 147, 148, 120-B,

364 and 302 IPC.

To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the trial court, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 42 and Exs.P1 to P44 and Mos.1 to 18

were marked. Accused were questioned u/s 313 Crl.P.C about the incriminating evidence and circumstance. Accused denied all of them and

pleaded not guilty and stated that a false case is foisted against them.

Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that prosecution has adduced cogent and

convincing evidence establishing that due to previous enmity in respect of quarrying, A1 to A3 abducted the deceased and committed murder of

the deceased Mani. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge also held that A1 to A3 were identified in the Test Identification Parade and incriminating

material objects recovered from them would substantiate the charges. Holding that prosecution has not established the guilt of A4 to A7, learned

Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted A4 to A7.

Mr. V. Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel contended that evidence of PWs.1, 2, 9 and 15 are not sufficient to link the accused with the

occurrence. It was further argued that sequence of circumstances do not form a complete establishing the guilt of the accused. Learned Senior

Counsel would further submit that arrest and recovery are concocted and not sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants/accused 1 to 3.

Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned Public Prosecutor [i/c] submitted that evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 9 convincingly establish that the deceased was

taken by the appellants and other accused. It is further argued that being the case of abduction, it is for the abductors to explain to the Court as to

what happened to the deceased. Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that absence of any explanation is a strong circumstance coupled

with arrest and recovery of incriminating articles.

Case of prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence. Prosecution relies upon the following circumstances:

� Existence of motive.

� Circumstance that deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellants/accused 1 to 3.

� Death was homicidal and that body was found on the railway track mutilated.

� Body was identified as that of deceased through DNA test.

� Arrest of the accused and recovery of incriminating articles.

The point falling for consideration is whether each of the circumstances are fully established and conclusive nature pointing to the guilt of the

accused.

It is well settled principle of law that in cases where the evidence is purely circumstantial in nature, the facts, the circumstances from which the

conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be consistent and

unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and the chain of circumstances must be established by the prosecution.

In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Geejaganda Somaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, , wherein after referring

to several earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and Text Book of Sir Alfred Wills on ""Circumstantial Evidence"", it was observed as follows:

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should

and not may be established;

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on

any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the

accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

Similar principle has been reiterated in Yogesh Narain Saxena v. State of Uttranchal (2007) AIR SCW 2092; Bablu alias Mubarik Hussain v.

State of Rajasthan (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 590, Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2007) 12 SCC 288 : (2008) 3 MLJ (Crl) 875,

Venkatesan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2008) AIR SCW 3913 : (2009) 1 MLJ (Crl) 90 and Gagan Knojia and Anr. v. State of Punjab (2008) 1

SCC (Cri) 109.

In every case based upon circumstantial evidence and in this case as well, the question that needs to be determined is whether all the links in

the chain of circumstances is so complete pointing to guilt of the accused to rule out possibility of innocence of the accuse.

Motive:

PWs.3 and 6 are brothers and Nagarathinam [A6] is brother''s wife of PWs.3 and 6. Deceased Mani @ Parai Mani took lease of PWs.3 and 6''s

land in S.F. No. 427/1 (Part) of Vadapudur village for quarrying. While the deceased was carrying on quarrying work, Nagarathinam [A6] and

her son and daughter viz., A1-Paramasivam and Revathi [A7] objected for quarrying. Alleging that without any lawful right, Nagarathinam [A6]

was objecting to quarrying, deceased filed suit in O.S. No. 5/2004 [02.1.2004] on the file of DMC, Pollachi against Nagarathinam [A6] and

PWs.3 and 6.

As seen from Ex.P22 [Pleadings in O.S. No. 5/2004], opposing the suit Nagarathinam filed counter-affidavit. From Ex.P22, it is seen that suit

was filed on 02.1.2004. PWs.1 and 2 have spoken in one voice about deceased taking quarry of lease from PWs.3 and 6 and that Nagarathinam

[A6], Paramasivam [A1] and Revathi [A7] were raising objection to carry out quarrying work. Evidence of PWs.3 and 6 - lessors also

strengthens prosecution version about the grant of lease and that Nagarathinam [A6] was raising objection. In his evidence, PW3-Krishnasamy has

stated that raising objection for quarrying by Mani @ Parai Mani, Nagarathinam [A6] has sent notice.

Filing of suit on 02.1.2004 about two weeks prior to the occurrence heightens the probability of prosecution case. In cases of circumstantial

evidence proof of motive is material consideration and a strong circumstance. In cases based upon circumstantial evidence, presence of strong

motive is always considered as a strong circumstance.

Next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused. Prosecution adduced

three sets of evidence to bring home that deceased was last seen alive with the appellants/accused 1 to 3 in three places:

� Evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that A2 and A3 had taken the deceased from his house in Chikkalampalayam.

� Evidence of PW9-Doraisamy that he saw the deceased along with A1-Paramasivam in MO1 Maruthi Omni Van [Registration No. TN-23 E

5951] near Kinathukadavu Checkpost.

� Evidence of PW5-Balan that deceased had left with 1st accused from the quarry in Ealoorkarar thottam.

About four days prior to the occurrence, accused No. 2 and 3 went to the house of the deceased asking for size of the stones. When being

asked about them, A2 disclosed his name as Selvaraj. As they appear to be strangers and as it was very late in the evening, deceased Mani @

Parai Mani asked them to come on some other day. About four days thereafter the same persons - [A2 and A3] went to the house of the

deceased and asked him to come along with them for seeing the stones. Inspite of disinclination of deceased, accused No. 2 and 3 insisted the

deceased to come along with them stating that their owner has come and therefore, stones are to be seen. As it was late in the evening, deceased

asked his wife for torch and PW2-Kala gave him MO6-torch and deceased went along with A2 and A3.

Cogent and consistent evidence of PWs.1 and 2 clearly brings home the circumstance that deceased went along with A2 and A3. In the Test

Identification Parade conducted by PW38-Judicial Magistrate, PWs.1 and 2 have also identified accused No. 2 and 3 which would strengthen

their evidence.

Evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is assailed contending that in Ex.P1-Complaint and during investigation, PWs.1 and 2 have expressed suspicion only

about A1-Paramasivam, A6-Nagarathinam and A7-Revathi. It was further argued that even though, PWs.1 and 2 knew about accused No. 2 and

his name, they have not stated anything about the identity of accused No. 2 and 3 in Ex.P1-Complaint.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants mainly contended that non-mention of name of A2-Selvaraj in Ex.P1-Complaint and that A3-

Nirmal accompanied A2 would throw serious doubts about the credibility of PWs.1 and 2. Both in their evidence and in Ex.P1-Complaint, PW1

has clearly stated that two persons had come to their house and took the deceased in Maruthi Omni Van. In Ex.P1-Complaint, though PW1 had

expressed suspicion about accused No. 1, 6 and 7, PW1 has clearly expressed his doubts that accused No. 1, 6 and 7 might have engaged men

for abducting the deceased Mani @ Parai Mani. In our view, such doubts expressed in Ex.P1-Complaint is sufficient incriminating circumstance

against the accused No. 2 and 3. Credibility of PWs.1 and 2 cannot be doubted on the ground of non-mention of name of A2 in Ex.P1-

Complaint.

Next circumstance of last seen alive is the evidence of PW9 who saw the deceased with A1-Paramasivam in Maruthi Omni Van [TN-23 E

5951] near Kinathukadavu Checkpost. In his evidence, PW9 has stated that after taking petrol for TVS-50 in a Petrol Bunk near the Checkpost

while he was proceeding along with PW8-Sivakumar, he saw the deceased along with A1-Paramasivam in MO1-Maruthi Omni Van. PW9 has

also stated that he saw the others inside the Van. Since, deceased Mani @ Parai Mani and A1-Paramasivam were in inimical terms, PW9

wondered as to why A1-Paramasivam and Mani @ Parai Mani are seen together and he asked PW8-Sivakumar about the same. Though, PW8-

Sivakumar turned hostile, evidence of PW9 was accepted by the trial court as trustworthy and we do not find any reason to take a different view.

Evidence of PW9 that he saw the deceased with A1-Paramasivam in MO1-Maruthi Omni Van [TN-23 E 5951] near Kinathukadavu Checkpost

is yet another militating circumstance connecting the accused with the commission of offence.

Evidence of PW9 that there was enmity between the deceased and accused and he wondered how they were going together when there is

enmity. Evidence of PW9 is therefore assailed contending that even though, he felt something strange that the deceased going with A1, he did not

inform the same to wife of the deceased nor to any one. In his evidence, PW9 has stated that people were talking that there was news published in

the paper that Parai Mani belonging to Kinathukadavu was done to death and PW9 enquired the public about the news and thereafter, he went to

Kinathukadavu Police Station. It was therefore, contended that though PW9 came to know about the news, he did not choose to inform the same

to the wife of the deceased. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants also submitted that there is no evidence to show as to how PW41-

Investigating Officer traced PWs.8 and 9 who are said to have seen the deceased in the company of A1.

We find no force in the arguments advanced assailing the evidence of PW9. On hearing the news from the newspaper readers, PW9 has

voluntarily gone to the Police Station and gave statement that he saw the deceased in the company of A1 in Maruthi Omni Van [TN-23 E 5951].

PW9 was examined by PW41-Investigating Officer on 30.1.2004 and the same was received in the Court on 03.2.2004. In our considered view,

evidence of PW9 is not to be doubted on the ground that he was employed under the deceased. Merely because PW9 was an employee, he

cannot be termed as an interested witness so as to doubt his version.

Yet another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is evidence of PW15-Subramani [brother of the deceased] that accused No. 1 and

another person came to the quarry to see stones. When they were crushing the stones, deceased went with them to see the stones. Taking us

through the evidence of PW15, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that evidence of PW15 is totally contrary to the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 that accused No. 2 and 3 took the deceased from his house, where as according to PW15 deceased was taken from quarry by

accused No. 1 and another person.

No doubt, evidence of PW15 as to how deceased went with the accused might appear to be slightly different. In our considered view, due to

lapse of time and slight variation in the way of narrating the events as to how PW15 happened to see the deceased. We are of the view that

evidence of PW15 would not make any dent upon the consistent version of PWs.1 and 2 and prosecution case. It cannot be said that there is

material divergence between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and testimony of PW15. In our opinion, case of prosecution is to be considered on the

core of evidence and on broad probabilities. Hardly, there is any justification for discarding the evidence of PWs.1 and 2.

After the deceased left with the accused, thereafter deceased was not seen alive. Body was recovered from Thirupur-Vanjipalayam Railway

line 447/15.17 km, on 19.1.2004. As we have pointed out earlier, a case was registered in Pothanur Railway Police Cr. No. 12/2004 for

suspicious death u/s 174 Cr.P.C. Body was found mutilated in pieces.

Homicidal Death and Identity of the body:

PW33 - Dr. Parimaladevi conducted autopsy and noted the following injuries:

� Crush injury over the front of head and part of brain comes out [liquified].

� Fracture of left arm bone [upper] and left shoulder joint bones.

� Fracture of right upper arm bone and cut off from the shoulder joint.

� Fracture of left leg bones [middle].

� Fracture of right thigh bone and leg bones.

PW33 - Dr. Parimaladevi opined that deceased died of ''shock and haemorrhage'' due to multiple injuries and head injuries about 70-80 hours

prior to the autopsy.

Since, at that time, identity of the body was not known, body was buried in Thirupur Chellandiamman burial ground. Later at the request of

Investigating Officer, body was exhumed in the presence of PW21-Tahsildar. After the body was exhumed, PW34-Dr.Vallinayagam collected the

blood for DNA test. Blood samples of Pw14-Manickammal and PW15-Subramani [mother and brother of the deceased] were also collected.

After conducting DNA test and upon analysis of results of DNA typing for the samples, PW40-Asst. Director gave Ex.P32-Report opining that

bone pieces etc. described belong to a human male individual"". PW40 further opined that ""the person Mani @ Paraimani to whom the bone

pieces etc. belong is the biological offspring of Ms. A. Manickammal."". Evidence of PW40 would amply establish identity of body recovered from

the railway track as that of the deceased Mani @ Parai Mani who is the son of PW14-Manickammal. Identity of the dead body thus established

by definite scientific evidence. In fact identity of dead body is not very much disputed.

Evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 9 would clearly establish that the deceased was abducted from his house by accused No. 1 to 3 and that deceased

was forced to travel in MO1-Maruthi Omni Van [TN-23 E 5951] through Kinathukadavu Checkpost and then to quarrying place and to the scene

of occurrence - Malumichampatti. Abduction of deceased by A1 to A3 followed by unnatural death coupled with silence of deceased, in our view

would constitute a very strong unshappable circumstance and unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused No. 1, 2 and 3.

In number of decisions, Supreme Court had taken the view that when deceased is shown to be abducted, it is for the abductors to explain how

they dealt with the abducted victim. In the absence of explanation, Court is to draw inference that abductors are the murderers.

In State of W.B. v. Mir Mohd. Omar (2000) SCC (Cri) 1516 : (2001) 1 MLJ (Crl) 34, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:

if the deceased was proved to have been abducted by the accused and was found murdered soon thereafter it is for the abductors to satisfy the

court as to how else the abducted victim was dealt with by them. In the absence of any such explanation it is open to the court to draw the

presumption that the abductor is the murderer also.

Observing that the abductors alone could tell the Court as to what happened to the deceased after they were abducted, the Supreme Court in

Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab, held as follows:

The abductors alone could tell the court as to what happened to the deceased after they were abducted. When the abductors withheld that

information from the court there is every justification for drawing the inference, in the light of all the preceding and succeeding circumstances

adverted to above, that the abductors are the murderers of the deceased.

....

We pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not 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 where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable

inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed

to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference.

....

We are mindful of what is frequently happening during these days. Persons are kidnapped in the sight of others and are forcibly taken out of

the sight of all others and later the kidnapped are killed. If a legal principle is to be laid down that for the murder of such kidnapped there should

necessarily be independent evidence apart from the circumstances enumerated above, we would be providing a safe jurisprudence for protecting

such criminal activities. India cannot now afford to lay down any such legal principle insulating the marauders of their activities of killing kidnapped

innocents outside the ken of others.

Absence of any explanation was also considered to be a circumstance in Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2007) 12 SCC 288 :

(2008) 3 MLJ (Crl) 875.

When it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that deceased was abducted by the accused and that they took him out of the area, accused

No. 1 to 3 alone knew what happened to him. If the deceased was found murdered within a short time after abduction, the reasoning process

would enable the Court to draw presumption that accused have murdered him. Of course, such inference can be disrupted if the accused would

tell the Court what happened to deceased Mani @ Parai Mani.

Upon analysis of evidence, we are of the view that prosecution has succeeded in proving the facts that A1 to A3 took away deceased Mani @

Parai Mani. What happened thereafter to Mani @ Parai Mani is especially within the knowledge of the appellants. It was for the

appellants/accused 1 to 3 to explain what happened to Parai Mani after they took him away. When the abductors withhold that information from

the Court, there is every justification for drawing inference that appellants murdered Mani @ Parai Mani. Stand of the appellants is a bare denial of

prosecution case. In the absence of any explanation, the inevitable inference is that appellants are responsible for the death of deceased Mani @

Parai Mani. We are of the view that the guilt of the appellants/accused 1 to 3 has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

Arrerst and Recovery of Incriminating Articles:

In addition to the above circumstances, prosecution had relied upon arrest of the appellants/accused and statement of accused persons leading to

discovery of facts as envisaged u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act.

Accused No. 1, 2 and 5 were arrested on 28.1.2004 at different times. Confession statement of A1 [Paramasivam] led to recovery of MO9-

Voter ID Card of Mani and other articles-MOs.4 and 5. Confession statement recorded from A2 [Selvaraj @ Selvan] led to recovery of MO2-

Pocket Diary, MO3-Money purse with photo of deceased and other articles-MOs.10 to 12. Confession statement of A5 [Driver Lingasamy] led

to seizure of Taxi MO1-Maruthi Omni Van [TN-23 E 5951]. A3-Nirmal and A4-Sureshkumar @ Suresh @ Pambatti were surrendered before

the Court and on application, PW41-Investigating Officer took them for police custody.

Confession statement recorded from A3 led to recovery of MO6-Torch light which was handed over to the deceased by PW2 at the time

when he left the house. PW2 has also identified MO6 as the torch light handed over by her at the time when the deceased left the house. Recovery

of various articles of the deceased from A1 to A3 is a strong incriminating circumstance connecting the appellants with the crime.

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that serious doubt arise about the appellants taking the deceased and their complicity in

commission of offence. It was also submitted that benefit of doubt should be given to the appellants.

To entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt arising from possibility of a duality of views, the possible view in favour of accused must

be reasonably probable. Benefit of doubt should not be doubt of a vacillating mind or a fickle mind. Benefit of doubt to which accused is entitled is

reasonable doubt, the doubt which rational thinking men would reasonably entertain and not the doubt of timid mind which fights shy or is afraid of

the logical consequences if the benefit is not given. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond shadow of doubt.

Upon analysis of evidence we are of considered view that proved circumstances cumulatively form a complete chain unerringly pointing to the

guilt of the accused. Upon analysis of evidence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge rightly convicted appellants/accused No. 1 to 3 for the offence u/s

364, 302 and 302 r/w. 34 IPC respectively.

In the result, conviction of the appellants/accused No. 1 to 3 u/s 364, and accused No. 1 u/s 302 IPC and accused No. 2 and 3 u/s 302 r/w.

34 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment and fined amount imposed upon them are confirmed and this appeal is dismissed.

Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Coimbatore is directed to take steps to secure the appellants/accused 1 to 3 and commit

them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

Bail bond executed by the appellants/accused 1 to 3 shall stand cancelled.