Rathinavel vs State

Janarthanam, J.—The appellant was accused in S.C. No. 68 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Session, Salem. He was found guilty u/s

302 (2 months) I.P.C. convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life under each count with a direction for the sentences to run

concurrently with the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him u/s 302 I.P.C. in S.C. No. 123 of 1986.

Aggrieved by the conviction and sentences, the present action had been resorted to.

Brief facts are :-

(a) One Sivashanmugham (since deceased-first deceased - for short D1) was the eldest son of P.W. 1, a resident of Kulakkadu at Pallipalayamm.

D. 1''s father-in-law is one Natesan. The said Natesan owned a lorry bearing registration No. MSN. 458 (M.O.I.). The said lorry had been

managed by D. 1. The accused had been employed as the driver of the said lorry. The accused is also related to P.W. 1. as his pangali. The lorry

had two cleaners. One among them was one Ganesan (since deceased - for short D. 2.) whose father is none else them P.W. 2. The other cleaner

was P.W. 6. The accused - driver was not properly rendering accounts to D. 1. as respects the earnings of the lorry. On account of this, there

were frequent quarrels and skirmishes between the accused lorry driver and deceased 1.

b. A few days prior to the occurrence, which event happened on 3-12-1985, P.W. 1. required the services of the lorry M.O.I. in connection with

rig operation at Bangalore. Despite the requirement of the lorry M.O. 1. by P.W. 1. for such operation the driver-accused was unable to spare the

services of the lorry inasmuch as he had engaged the lorry for carrying loads otherwise. A day later, ie., to say on 4-12-1985, P.W. 1. received an

information over phone requiring him to go over to Tiruchengode. On receipt of such information, he returned to the village by engaging a taxi. On

reaching the Village, he came to known that his son deceased No. 1. and a cleaner deceased No. 2. had been murdered and their bodies were

lying at Veppankadu in Pillanatham Village, adjacent to Tiruchengode - Ariyanur Road.

c. In the meantime, i.e., to say on 2-12-1985 the accused transported cement bags from Sankagiri factory to Salem Junction. D. 2. and P.W. 6.

were then functioning as cleaners of the said lorry. After unloading the cement bags at Salem Junction, the lorry proceeded via Attayampatti and

got parked near a cinema theatre at Morepalayam, of which P.W. 12. was the then Watchman. After parking the lorry, the accused and D. 2.

went to answer the calls of nature. The time was then 8:15 P.M. After answering the calls of nature, both of them returned to the lorry and the

driver-accused attempted to start the lorry, but he was unable to do so. Apparently, there was some mechanical defect. Then the accused-driver

and P.W. 6. went to the theatre for witnessing the film running at that time. D. 2. however, stayed and slept in the lorry itself.

d. On the morning of 3-12-1985, at about 8:00 A.M., the accused-driver again made an attempt to start the lorry and the attempt so made ended

in dismal failure. He then sought the help of P.W. 7, owner of a tractor bearing registration No. TDS 7659 to give a push to the lorry M.O. 1. so

as to start the same. P.W. 7. also readily obliged the accused-driver in sparing his tractor for giving a push to the said lorry M.O. 1. for a

consideration of Rs. 30/-. After a push having been given with the aid of the said tractor, the lorry started and the accused-driver drove the lorry to

Attayampatti and got it parked there near the road side for the purpose of taking tea. The time was then 11:00 A.M. At that time, D. 1. came there

and questioned the propriety of the accused-driver in not sparing the lorry for its being utilised in connection with the rig operation, carried on at

Bangalore but utilising the same for transport of goods unauthorisedly. The accused-driver in turn replied to D. 1. that the lorry M.O. 1. was being

taken to Salem for the purpose of effecting repairs. D. 1 mandated the accused-driver not to take the lorry to Salem for the purpose of effecting

repairs and instead, he directed him to go to Salem in a bus and purchase necessary spare parts for repairing the lorry. Consequently, the accused

- driver and P.W. 6. cleaner went to Salem in a bus. After reaching Salemm, P.W. 6. after taking Rs. 100/- from the accused, went to his village

saying that he would get himself engaged in another lorry, in view of the fact that the lorry M.O. 1. was to be sent to Bangalore in connection with

the rig operation.

e. The driver alone, it appears, returned with the spare parts to Attayampatti. At about 6:30 P.M. he contacted P.W. 8, an oil engine mechanic to

effect the necessary and requisite repairs in the lorry M.O. 1. P.W. 8 found the brake system of the said lorry failed and he effected the necessary

repairs and restored the brake system. At that time, D. 1. abused the accused lorry driver for his delayed return from Salem.

f. After the restoration of the brake system of the said lorry M.O. 1, the driver-accused took the said lorry to the petrol bunk (pump ?) going by

the name ''OM Sakthi Enterprises'', of which P.W. 13. is the employee and fuelled the lorry with 80 litres of diesel. (diesel). The time was then 7

P.M. Exhibit P. 7. is the carbon copy of the bill for the supply of 80 litres of diesel.

g. The lorry M.O. 1, it appears, got parked at Pillanatham Veppankadu, some distance away from the cinema talkies located at Morepalayam. At

about 9 P.M. one K.A.S. bus bearing Registration No. TNQ 9763 passed that way. P.Ws. 9 and 10 were respectively the then conductor and

driver of the said bus. The accused-driver, however, stopped the said bus and requested P.Ws. 9 and 10 to give him a helping hand in pushing the

lorry so as to see the said lorry got started. P.Ws. 9 and 10 obliged the accused-driver in giving a push to the said lorry. At that time, the accused-

Driver was found in a perturbed state of mind. P.Ws. 9 and 10 did not however, know the accused lorry driver previously, but however, identified

him subsequently at the identification parade held within the premises of Judicial Second Class Magistrate''s Court, Sankagiri.

h. The accused-driver drove the lorry towards Attayampatti and when the said lorry was nearing Attayampatti Police Station, the accused-driver

sighted P.W. 11. standing near the Police Station. The time was then 10:00 P.M. On sighting P.W. 11, the driver-accused stopped the lorry and

met P.W. 11. and told him that he was proceeding towards Mettupatti to go to his sister''s house and in the road proceeding towards Mettupatti,

there were lot of wild pigs and therefore, requested him to accompany him and he readily did so and the apart, he also gave five cartridges he had

to the accused-driver. When the lorry reached Mettupatti, the driver-accused parked the lorry, asked P.W. 11. to be in the lorry itself, then went

to his sister''s house and returned to the lorry after half an hour. At that time, P.W. 11, to his dismay found some injury on the right hand of the

accused, beside his dhothi also being found stained with blood. Then the accused drove the lorry towards Vennandhur.

i. P.W. 20 was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode Police Station. On 4-12-85 at 10:00 A.M. he was in charge of the Police Station.

The accused-driver appeared before him, along with lorry M.O. 1. and gave a statement. The statement so made by the accused-driver had been

recorded by him. At that time, P.W. 3. was bodily present there. The statement so recorded had been read over to the accused-driver and got his

signature. On the strength of that statement, he registered a case in Crime No. 743/85 under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. Exhibit P. 18. is the

printed First Information Report. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials. Since the place of occurrence fell

within the jurisdictional limits of Mallasamudram Police Station. P.W. 20 made arrangements for the transfer of the F.I.R. to the said Police Station

through Police Constable No. 1886. Sowrimuthu. The said constable handed over the transferred F.I.R. to P.W. 21, the then Grade I Constable

attached to Mallasamudram Police Station. P.W. 21. in turn registered the case in Crime No. 229/85 on the file of Mallasamudram Police Station.

Exhibit P. 19. is the Printed F.I.R. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials.

j. P.W. 24 was the then Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode. On receipt of the copy of the express F.I.R., he took up further investigation of this

case. He rushed and reached Tiruchengode Police Station at 12.00 Noon. He arrested the accused who was present there then. On interrogation,

the accused gave a voluntary confession statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act in the presence of P.W. 3. Exhibit P. 1. is the admissible portion of

the confession-statement. The same had been attested by P.W. 3. and another. At 1:15 A.M. pursuant to the confession so made, P.W. 14.

seized M.O. 1. lorry besides seizing M.O. 2. Koduval and M.O. 3. series cartridges five in number taken and produced by the accused from the

tool box available in the said lorry under Exhibit P. 2. Mahazar attested by P.W. 3. Since the accused was found injured on his right hand, he had

been sent to the Government Hospital, Tiruchengode for the purpose of treatment.

k. P.W. 19 the then Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Tiruchengode treated the accused at 1:30 P.M. and also noted down the

injuries, he found on his person. Exhibit P. 17. is the wound certificate he issued, for the injuries he found on the person of the accused. After the

accused being treated as an out-patient, the accused had been taken to the Police Station at 1:45 P.M.

l. At 2:00 P.M., the accused took P.W. 24 to Pillanathan, Veppankadu and showed the place where the bodies of deceased 1 and 2 were lying.

After inspecting the corpse of D. 1. and D. 2. P.W. 24. prepared Exhibit P. 3. observation mahazar, attested by P.W. 4. He also drew a rough

sketch, Exhibit P. 24. Between 3:00 and 7:00 P.M. he held inquest over the bodies of D. 1. and D. 2. Exhibit P. 25. is the inquest report

pertaining to D. 1. while, Exhibit P. 26. is the inquest report pertaining to D. 2. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1, 2, and others.

m. After the inquest was over, he handed over the body of D. 1 to the constable P.W. 14. along with Exhibit P. 8. requisition for the purpose of

autopsy. Likewise, he also handed over the body of D. 2. to the constable P.W. 16. along with Exhibit P. 9. requisition for the purpose of autopsy.

n. At 7.15 P.W. 24, seized from the place where the body of D. 1. was lying M.O. 4. Cheppal, M.O. 5. blood stained earth and M.O. 6. sample

earth and also seized from the place where the body of D. 2, was lying M.O. 7, blood stained earth and M.O. 8. sample earth under Exhibit P. 4,

attested by P.W. 4. He then also examined P.Ws. 4 and 7. The accused then took P.W. 24. to Vennanthur and after reaching there, the accused

pointed out a ditch situate in front of Senthil Corporation located at Rasipuram Main Road, wherefrom P.W. 24. recovered M.O. 9. dhothi under

Exhibit P. 5. Mahazar attested by P.W. 5. and another. P.W. 24 then took the accused to Vazhappadi Police Station.

o. After reaching there, he came to understand that P.W. 22, the then Inspector of Police, Vazhappadi seized M.O. 19. button knife under Exhibit

P. 15. mahazar attested by P.W. 18. near the dead body of one Sengoda Gounder in Crime No. 361/85 of Vazhappadi Police Station. Exhibit P.

is the requisition sent by him to Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. 4, Salem, for sending the same to the Chemical Examiner for

examination. P.W. 24, then examined P.W. 8. and others at Attayampatti. He brought the accused to Mallasamudram Police Station at 12:30

AM, (0:30 A.M.). He seized from the accused M.O. 10. pant, M.O. 11. shirt, M.O. 12. banian, and M.O. 13. underwear under Exhibit P. 6.

form No. 95 attested by P.W. 5. He then examined P.W. 5. and others. On 5-12-1985, he sent the accused to Court for remand. He also

examined P.Ws. 6. and 11.

p. P.W. 19, the then Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Tiruchengode on receipt of requisition Exhibit P. 8 conducted autopsy

over the body of the deceased No. 1. at 8:00 A.M. on 5-12-1985. Exhibit P. 16. is the Post Mortem Certificate he issued. He would opine that

the injuries found described in Exhibit P. 16. could have been caused by a weapon like M.O. 19. He would further opine that all the injuries were

ante mortem and that all the injuries were necessarily fatal. After the autopsy of D. 1. was over, the constable P.W. 14, seized from the body of

M.O. 14. shirt, M.O. 15. banian, M.O. 16 underwear, M.O. 17, dhothi and M.O. 18. waist cord and handed over the same at the Police Station.

q. P.W. 15. the then Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Tiruchengode on receipt of Exhibit P. 9, requisition conducted the

autopsy over the body of D. 2. at 10:00 A.M. on 5-12-1985. Exhibit P. 10. is the Post Mortem Certificate he issued. He would opine that the

injuries found described in Exhibit P. 10 could have been caused by weapon like M.O. 19. and that all those injuries were necessarily fatal. After

the autopsy of D. 2. was over, the constable P.W. 16. seized from the body M.O. 20, Lungi, M.O. 21, Shirt, M.O. 22, banian, M.O. 23,

underwear and M.O. 24, Waist Cord and handed over the same at the Police Station.

r. On 7-12-1985 P.W. 24 examined P.Ws. 9 and 10. On 14-12-1985 he gave a requisition to the Judicial II Class Magistrate''s Court, Sankagiri

for conducting test identification parade so as to enable P.Ws. 9 and 10 to identify the accused. On 21-12-1985, he examined P.Ws. 15 and 19.

On 23-12-1985 he sent Exhibit P. 11, requisition to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate''s Court. Tiruchengode to send the incriminating material

objects for chemical analysis.

s. P.W. 17 was the then Head Clerk attached to Judicial II Class Magistrate''s Court Tiruchengode. On receipt of Exhibit P. 11. requisition, he

under the directions of learned Judicial II Class Magistrate, separately packed and sent the incrimination material objects to the Chemical Examiner

for the purpose of examination under the original of Exhibit P. 12. office copy of the letter. Exhibits P. 13. and P. 14. are the reports of the

Chemical Examiner and Serologist respectively.

t. P.W. 23. was the then Head Clerk attached to Judicial II Class Magistrate''s Court No. 4, Salem. On receipt of Exhibit P. 20 requisition, he

under the directions of learned Magistrate, packed and sent M.O. 19, to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of Examination under the original

of Exhibit P. 21. Office copy of the letter. Exhibit P. 22. is the Chemical Examiner''s report, while Exhibit P. 23. is the Serologist''s report relating

to M.O. 19.

u. P.W. 24. examined P.W. 12. on 2-1-1986. On 7-2-1986 he examined P.W. 13. After completing the formalities of the investigation, he laid the

final report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. on 24-3-1986, against the accused before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Tiruchengode u/s 302(2) counts I.P.C.

On committal, learned Sessions Judge, Salem framed a charge against the accused u/s 302 two counts I.P.C. and the accused, when questioned

as respects the charge to framed, denied the same and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution in proof of the charge so framed, examined P.Ws. 1 to 24, filed Exhibits P. 1 to P. 26 and marked M.Os. 1 to 24.

The accused when questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied his

complicity in the Crime. He also filed a written statement claiming in pith and substance, that he was not having any hand in the occurrence. He did

not, however, choose to examine any witness on his side.

Learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of the materials placed and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the defence as well as

learned Public Prosecuter, however, rendered a verdict as stated above.

Mr. K. V. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that there is no evidence - direct but only circumstantial.

It behoves upon the prosecution not only to establish the circumstances relied upon but also to clinchingly point out by the established incriminating

circumstances that the appellant-accused and he alone was responsible for causing the murder of deceased 1 and 2 and the established

circumstances, if scanned on the broad spectrum analysis, could, by no stretch of imagination be stated to establish in a clinching fashion, that the

accused - appellant and he alone was responsible for causing the death of the deceased 1 and 2 and in such a situation, he would say, it goes

without saying that the appellant-accused deserves to the acquitted, by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt by setting aside the conviction

and sentence as had been imposed upon him by the Court below.

Mr. R. Raghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would, however, repel such a submission.

There is no pale of controversy that there is no direct evidence at all connecting the appellant/accused with the Crime of double murder of

deceased 1 and 2. Admittedly, the case of the prosecution hinges only upon the circumstantial evidence - certain incriminating circumstances and

they consist of the following :-

The Accused was the driver of the lorry M.O. 1 at the relevant point of time.

The lorry M.O. 1. belonging to one Natesan, the father-in-law of D. 1. had been managed by D. 1.

There were frequent skirmishes and quarrels between the accused-driver of the lorry M.O. 1. and deceased 1 as respects the accounting of the

earnings of the lorry rendered by the accused-driver.

D. 2. and P.W. 6. were then functioning as cleaners of the said lorry. On a day prior to the occurrence, viz., 2-12-1985. and on the date of

occurrence viz., 3-12-1985, D. 2. and P.W. 6. were found in the company of the accused in discharge of their duties as cleaners of the said lorry.

D. 1. reprimanding the conduct of the accused-driver for not sparing the service of the lorry M.O. 1. for its being utilised in the rig operation

carried on by his father P.W. 1. at Bangalore on 3-12-1985 and the said lorry being utilised by the accused for loading and unloading operation

unauthorisedly.

The accused, while returning from the house of his sister at Mettupatti was found to have sustained certain injuries on his right hand by P.W. 11.

The accused being found to be in perturbed state of mind at about 9 P.M. on 3-12-1985. as allegedly stated by P.Ws. 9 and 10.

The arrest of the accused by P.W. 24 at 12 Noon on 4-12-1985 at Tiruchengode Police Station and the so-called version u/s 27 of the

Evidence Act made by him and consequent recovery effected pursuant to the so-called version made by him and the seizure of the blood stained

clothes from the person of the accused at the time of his arrest.

The so-called various circumstances of incriminating nature, such as the accused being the driver of the lorry at the relevant point of time, the

management of the said lorry being with D. 1, D. 2. and P.W. 6 functioning as cleaners of the lorry at the relevant point of time and the

reprimanding of the accused by D. 1. and 3-12-1985. For not sparing the lorry to be utilised by his father P.W. 1. in the rig-operation he was

engaged at Bangalore, besides the said lorry being utilised unauthorisedly by the accused for loading, and unloading purposes, even assuming for

arguments sake had been established beyond any shadow of doubt by the prosecution, even then, those circumstances either individually or

cumulatively will have no effect in clinchingly pointing out that the accused and him alone was responsible for causing the murder of the deceased 1

and 2 at the relevant point of time. Reprimanding the conduct of the accused by deceased - 1 on 3-12-1985 - the prosecution would say - may be

stated to be the motivating factor, which spurred the sinews and muscles of the accused to rise in revolt against the deceased 1. Such a rationale or

reasoning cannot be expected to command any in acceptance at our hands on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

It is not as if there was no quarrel or skirmishes between the accused and deceased 1, at any time prior to the day of occurrence. such a

skirmish or quarrel between them was an usual routine, inasmuch as the accused was not rendering proper accounts of the earnings from the lorry

of which he happened to be the driver. Further, the quarrel or skirmish that took place on the day of occurrence between the accused and

deceased 1. was a normal routine quarrel without any special significance. Such being the case, such quarrel or skirmish happened on the day of

occurrence between them cannot be the motivating or igniting factor for the accused to rise in revolt against the deceased 1 to go to the extent of

murdering him. Further, we are at a loss to understand as to why the accused descends to murder the hapless cleaner D. 2. When especially there

is noting on record to point out that there was any sort of animosity or embittered relationship between them.

The circumstances of the accused having certain injuries on his person while returning from the house of his sister at Mettupatti was sought to

be projected by the prosecution as to his getting involved in a heinous crime of the murder of the deceased 1 and 2, in the sense of himself

sustaining such injuries in the process of inflicting a stab on the deceased by wielding the weapon. The factum of the accused having such injuries

on his person was sought to be proved by the prosecution through P.W. 11. Alas ! unfortunately for the prosecution, he turned hostile wholesale,

in the sense of not supporting the case of the prosecution to any extent whatever. No doubt, his earlier version before the Police had been brought

on record in the manner allowed by law. In the absence of any evidence aliunde on this aspect of the matter, the proved version of the hostile

witness P.W. 11. cannot at all be relied upon to any extent whatever by the prosecution in support of its case. Consequently, the evidence of P.W.

has to be eschewed out of consideration out and out.

No doubt true it is, the medical testimony available on record in the shape of the testimony of the Doctor P.W. 19. coupled with Exhibit P. 17.

would certificate he issued for the injuries he found on the person of the accused reveals that the accused had three lacerated injuries on his right

hand and one abrasion on his left hand. Of course, the said Doctor would opine that the three lacerated injuries on his right hand could have been

sustained by the accused in the process of wielding a weapon like Koduval in mounting an attack on the victim. The opinion of the said Doctor as

such, in the absence of any evidence aliunde as to the involvement of the accused in the commission of the murder either of the deceased 1 or D. 2,

cannot at all be stated to advance or improve the case of the prosecution to any extent whatever. As such, this sort of so-called incrimination

circumstance pales into insignificance.

Another circumstance of some significance, which the prosecution would rely upon, revolves upon the perturbed state of mind of the accused

during night hours at 9:00 P.M. on 3-12-1985. This sort of perturbed state of mind of the accused was sought to be established through P.Ws. 9

and 10, respectively the conductor and driver of K.S.A. bus bearing registration No. TNQ 9763. They had been cited to depose to the fact that

when they took the bus TNQ 9763 for a trip from Tiruchengode bus stand at 8:40 P.M. 3-12-1985 towards Attayampatti, they happened to pass

the Cinema theatre at Morepalayam, where the accused showed some sign to stop the bus and in fact, the bus got stopped and when enquired. the

accused requested their assistance to give a push to his lorry. MSN 458 which got parked on the road side due to some starting trouble. They also

obliged the accused in giving a push to the said lorry and in such process, they were able to find that the accused was in a perturbed state of mind.

This sort of a version, though they projected during the course of the investigation, yet during the course of trial they resiled from such version.

They denied any knowledge of any such incident or event, consequently, they were treated as hostile. On this aspect of the matter, there is no

other evidence emerging from any independent quarters. In such state of affairs, though the resiled version of P.Ws. 9 and 10 had been brought on

record in the manner allowed by law, they cannot at all be safely relied upon for any purpose whatever and in that view of the matter we eschew

their evidence out of consideration. This circumstance also, we rather feel, bristles next to nothing.

The last of the incriminating circumstance on which so much of implicit reliance had been placed by the prosecution, revolves on the arrest of

the accused, and his version u/s 27 of the Evidence Act leading to certain recoveries, besides the recovery of the blood stained clothes owned by

the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused appeared before P.W. 20. the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode Police Station

at 10:00 A.M. on 4-12-1985. along with M.O. 1 lorry. It is only on the strength of the statement given by him, P.W. 20 registered the case in

Crime No. 743 of 1985 for offences under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. After the registration of the case, he sent express F.I.Rs. to the

concerned officials and informed P.W. 24, the Inspector of Police as respects the case over phone, after detaining the accused in the police

station. P.W. 24, rushed and reached Tiruchengode Police Station at 12.00 noon, and arrested the accused. On interrogation the accused was

stated to have given a confession statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act, the admissible portion of which is Exhibit P. 1. Pursuant to the said

confession, the accused was stated to have taken out and produced M.O. 2. Aruval and M.O. 3. series five cartridges kept in the tool box

available in the lorry M.O. 1. The accused also took P.W. 24, to Veppankadu at Pillanatham Village at about 2:00 P.M. and pointed out

deceased 1 and 2 lying dead. Then he took P.W. 24. to Vennanohur and pointed out a ditch situate in front of Senthil Corporation located at

Rasipuram Main road and from out of the ditch, dhothi M.O. 9. had been recovered under Exhibit P. 5. Mahazar.

Apart from these recoveries, the clothes worn by the accused, viz., M.O. 10. pant, M.O. 11. shirt, M.O. 12. banian and M.O. 13. underwear

had also been seized under Exhibit P. 6. Form 95 attested by P.W. 5. The button knife M.O. 19. had not at all been recovered pursuant to the

confession inasmuch as the said button knife had been recovered by P.W. 22. Inspector of Police, Vahapadi Circle in Crime No. 361/85 in the

scene where the body of deceased Sengoda Gounder was lying. The clothes of the accused were found to contain human blood of ''B'' group

origin, while the blood group of D. 1 and D. 2. happened to be of ''C'' Group origin as disclosed by the Serologist''s report Exhibit P. 14. M.O. 2.

Koduval said to have been recovered pursuant to the Section 27 confession made by the accused contained human blood of ''B'' group origin. The

button knife M.O. 19, recovered not pursuant to the confession Statement of the accused, but seized by P.W. 22. Inspector of Police in Crime

No. 361/85 near the scene, where the dead body of the deceased Sengoda Gounder was lying was found to contain human blood, but its origin

could not be traced as disclosed by the Serologists Report, Exhibit P. 23.

It is not at all the case of the prosecution that M.O. 2. Keduval had been utilised in committing the murders of the deceased 1 and 2. But, it is

the case of the prosecution that M.O. 19, button knife had been utilised in the commission of the murders of the deceased 1 and 2. In the absence

of the blood group having been traced in M.O. 19, it is well nigh not possible to connect the said weapon with the murders of deceased 1 and 2. It

is also equally not possible to infer by way of any inductive analysis, that the accused could have been present and participated in the commission

of the murder of deceased 1 and 2, since his clothes were found stained with human blood of the origin of ''B'' Group alone.

Even assuming for arguments sake that the arrest, confession and consequent recoveries effected at the instance of the accused had been duly

proved and are having some connection with the Crime, even then, such evidence alone, in the absence of any evidence aliunde is rather grossly

insufficient and inadequate to come to the safe conclusion that the accused and he alone was responsible for committing the murders of deceased 1

and 2. Such an evidence, can, if at all, serve us a lending assurance factor, if there is any evidence aliunde pointing out the factum of the accused

having a vital hand in the commission of the murders of deceased 1 and 2. We have already found that there was no evidence - direct or

circumstantial sufficient and adequate enough to point out that it was the hand of the accused that was responsible for the commission of the

murders of deceased 1 and 2.

For the reasons as above, the accused deserves to be acquitted by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt by finding him not guilty of the

offences with which he stood charged and consequently setting aside the conviction and sentence, as had been imposed upon him by the Court

below.

In fine, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence as had been imposed upon the accused-appellant u/s 302 (2 counts) I.P.C. are set

aside and he is acquitted thereof, by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt.

Appeal allowed.