Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. Of the ten accused, namely, accused 1 to 10 who faced trial, accused 1 and 2 alone were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively. The rest of the accused, namely, accused 3 to 10 were acquitted of all the charges. No appeal against acquittal had been preferred by the State. Accused 1 and 2 aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, came forward with this appeal. 2. The brief facts are: a. Kesampatti, the scene village is situate nine miles away from Kottampatti Police Station. The village is predominantly occupied by people belonging to Moopanar Community, very few families in the village belonged to Chettiar community. One Maruthi Chettiar (since deceased) belonged to Chettiar Community. P.Ws.4 and 5 are his wife and son respectively. The family of the deceased owns some lands situate four furlongs away from the village. P.W.6 owns lands adjacent to the lands of the deceased and warned him to cease his illicit connection with P.W.7. Despite this, the illicit connection continued as ever before, with the result there were skirmishes and quarrels between the deceased and accused 1. b. Sometime prior to the occurrence, which happened on 7.7.1982, accused 1 cut the deceased with an aruval terminating in criminal proceedings. Since then there prevailed feelings of animosity and rancour between accused 1 and the deceased. c. At 8 a.m. on the day of the occurrence, the deceased along with his wife P.W.4 and son P.W.5 went to his fields. At about 8.30 a.m. they returned from their fields carrying on their heads bundles of harvested stems of maize crops for covering the roofing of their house. When they were coming along the footpath at the land of one Thotha Pillai accused 1 came from the opposite direction and crossed him. Suspecting the movements of accused 1, the deceased threw the bundle on the floor and got alerted toward off attack, if any, from accused 1. At that time, the deceased was having in his hand an aruval. On seeing the posture of the deceased, accused 1 raised a hue and cry. The rest of the accused rushed there, some of them arming with weapons like aruvals and sticks. At that time, the deceased was having in his hand an aruval. On seeing the posture of the deceased, accused 1 raised a hue and cry. The rest of the accused rushed there, some of them arming with weapons like aruvals and sticks. Thereafter, the deceased P.W.4 and 5 ran towards their fields. The deceased took shelter behind a big margosa tree and threatened the accused with dire consequences. All the accused standing from a distance then started pelting stones towards the accused. P.W.4 sensing some untoward incidents thereto happen, craved the accused by doing “Namaskarams” not to harm her husband, the deceased. The accused 1 told P.W.4 to make her husband, the deceased to throw away the aruvals as an act of truce. P.W.4 accordingly requested the deceased to do so and he in turn complied with her request. Thereafter, quite unexpectedly all the accused rushed towards the deceased. Accused 4 beat the deceased on his head with a stick and accused 3 gave a beating on his back with a stick. On receipt of the beatings, he fell down. Accused 2 snatching aruval thrown by the deceased inflicted cuts on his legs indiscriminately. Accused 1 inflicted several cuts with aruval he was having in his hand on the neck portion of the deceased and severed his head. Thereafter, accused 1 with the severed head and the weapon ran away towards north followed by the other accused. d. P.W.9 a menial servant in the village, on hearing that a trunk portion of the corpse was lying near the fields of the deceased, went there and saw the trunk portion of the body to be that of the deceased. P.W.2 also went and saw the trunk of the deceased lying in the field. P.W.9 then went to Melur and informed P.W.1 the Revenue Inspector of Malavalaru firka at about 2.30 p.m. about what he had seen. P.Ws.1 and 9 came to the scene at 4.30 p.m. P.W.1 recorded Exhibit P1 statement from P.W.4. He prepared his report Exhibit P2 to the police. He despatched Exhibits P1 and P2 through P.W.9 to Kottampatti Police Station, besides sending a copy of the same to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Melur. He was awaiting for the arrival of the police. He prepared his report Exhibit P2 to the police. He despatched Exhibits P1 and P2 through P.W.9 to Kottampatti Police Station, besides sending a copy of the same to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Melur. He was awaiting for the arrival of the police. e. P.W.17 Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottampatti on receipt of Exhibits P1 and P2 at 7.30 p.m. registered a case in Crime 47/82 under Section 147, 148 and 302, I.P.C. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned official through P.W.14. Exhibits P11 is the printed F.I.R. f. P.W.20, Inspector of Police on receipt of the V.H.F. message at 8.30 p.m. rushed to the scene village and reached there at 10 p.m. He got the copy of the express F.I.R. from P.W.17 who was there and looked up further investigation in the case. He went to the scene and found the trunk portion of the corpse lying there. Since it was night time, he could not make any further progress in the investigation. He posted constables to guard the body during night hours. g. The next day morning, namely, 8.7.1982, at 6.30 a.m. he prepared observation mahazar, Exhibit P15. He drew a rough sketch, Exhibit P16 of the scene of occurrent. He caused photographs to be taken of the trunk portion of the corpse by P.W.18. M.Os.4 and 20 are the negatives. Between 7.30 and 10.30 a.m. he held inquest over the trunk. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 4, 10 and 11. Exhibit P17 is the inquest report. After inquest, he sent the trunk to the Government Hospital, Melur, through the constable, P.W.15 along with Exhibit P3 requisition for purpose of autopsy. At 11 a.m. he seized from the scene M.O.16 dothi, M.O.17 bloodstained earth and M.O.18 sample earth under Exhibit P18. At 11.30 a.m. he seized M.Os.5 and 6 sticks and M.O.7 series five stones under Exhibit P19. He seized the bundle of harvested stems of maize crops M.O.10 from the Lands of Thotha Pillai under Exhibit P20. Exhibits P15 and P18 to P20 were attested by P.Ws.10 and 11. He searched for the accused and all of them were absconding. h. P.W.3 the doctor attached to the Government Hospital Melur conducted autopsy over the trunk at 4.30 p.m. Exhibit 4 is the post mortem certificate. Exhibits P15 and P18 to P20 were attested by P.Ws.10 and 11. He searched for the accused and all of them were absconding. h. P.W.3 the doctor attached to the Government Hospital Melur conducted autopsy over the trunk at 4.30 p.m. Exhibit 4 is the post mortem certificate. The Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to decapitation of head and injury to big vessels of neck and multiple injuries over the left side thigh, neck and shoulder. He further opined that injury Nos.1 to 6, 9 and 10 could have been caused by a weapon like M.Os.1 and 2 aruvals; that the other injuries could have been caused by stone or stick and the death could have occurred 30 to 32 hours prior to autopsy. After autopsy, P.W.15 seized from the trunk M.O.8 towel; M.O.9 bronze ring and M.O.19 waist chord and handed them over at the police station. i. On 10.7.1982 at 11 a.m. P.W.20 arrested accused 1 and 2 at Sambapatti branch Road. Accused 1 and 2 voluntarily gave confessional statements in the presence of P.Ws.12 and 13 and their statements were recorded separately. Exhibit P21 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of accused 1. Exhibit P22 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of accused 2. Pursuant to Exhibit P21 accused took P.W.20 and other to his coconut tope and produced M.O.2 aruval from the manure pit. M.O.2 was seized under Exhibit P23. Pursuant to Exhibit P22 accused 2 also took out and produced M.O.1 from a manure pit and the same was seized under Exhibit P24. Then accused 1 and 2 took P.W.20 and others to Alagarmalai took out and produced a severed head kept concealed underneath a Karuvel tree. The same was found inside M.O.11 canvass bag. The severed head and M.O.11 were seized under Exhibit P26 mahazar. P.W.20 prepared an observation mahazar Exhibit P25 respecting the place where the severed head was buried. Exhibits P21 to P26 were attested by P.Ws.12 and 13. Between 5 and 6 p.m. P.W.20 held inquest over the severed head. Exhibit P27 is the inquest report. After inquest, he sent the severed head through P.W.16 along with requisition Exhibit P5 to the Government Hospital, Melur for the purpose of autopsy. Exhibits P21 to P26 were attested by P.Ws.12 and 13. Between 5 and 6 p.m. P.W.20 held inquest over the severed head. Exhibit P27 is the inquest report. After inquest, he sent the severed head through P.W.16 along with requisition Exhibit P5 to the Government Hospital, Melur for the purpose of autopsy. He then took accused 1 and 2 to the police station and seized from accused 1 his dhothi M.O.12 and underwear M.O.13. He seized from accused 2 his dhothi M.O.14 and trouser M.O.15. j. The doctor P.W.3 conducted autopsy at 12.30 p.m. on 11.7.1982. Exhibit P6 is the post-mortem certificate. During the course of autopsy, he sent the skull and vertebra to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory, Madras for opinion. On receipt of the reports, Exhibits P13 and P14 from P.W.19, Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, Madras. The doctor P.W.3 opined that the trunk and the head belonged to one and the same person. k. P.W.20 sent accused 1 and 2 to the Judicial Second class Magistrate’s Court for remand. The rest or the accused 3 to 10 were subsequently arrested and sent to Court for remand. 1. On 17.7.1982, P.W.20 gave a requisition Exhibit P28 to P.W.3 to send through Court the incriminating articles skull and vertebra of the deceased to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis. m. P.W.8, Assistant attached to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate’s Court, Melur sent the incriminating articles to the chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis as per the directions of the Magistrate, under the Original of Exhibit P8, office copy of the latter. Exhibits P9 and P10 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist respectively. n. After completing the formalities of the investigation P.W.20 laid a report under Sec.173, Crl.P.C. before the Judicial Second class Magistrate, Melur on 16.12.1982 for the offences under Secs.147, 148, 336 and 302, I.P.C. appeared to have been committed by the accused. 3. Upon committal, the learned Sessions Judge framed the following charges against the accused: Firstly, under Sec. 147, I.P.C. against accused 3 to 10; Secondly, under Sec.148, I.P.C. against accused 1 and 2; Thirdly, under Sec. 302 read with Sec.304, I.P.C. against accused 1 to 4. Fourthly, under Sec.302 read with Sec.149, I.P.C. against accused 5 to 10; Fifthly, under Sec. 201, I.P.C. against accused 1, 2 and 5. 4. Fourthly, under Sec.302 read with Sec.149, I.P.C. against accused 5 to 10; Fifthly, under Sec. 201, I.P.C. against accused 1, 2 and 5. 4. The accused, when questioned as respects the charges framed against them, denied the same and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution, in proof of the charges against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 20, filed Exhibits P1 to P28 and marked M.Os.1 to 25. 6. The accused when examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, denied their complicity in the crime. They did not choose to examine any witness on their side. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, on perusal of the evidence placed before him and after hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the defence found accused 1 and 2 alone guilty under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. and Sec.201, I.P.C. convicted and sentenced them as stated above, while acquitting the rest of the accused in respect of the charged framed against them and accused 1 and 2 in respect of the charged under Sec.148, I.P.C. 8. Thepoint that crops for consideration is: Whether the conviction and sentence, in the circumstances of the case are sustainable in Law? 9. Accused 1 had a strong motive, the prosecution would say, to commit the murder of the deceased. He is the agent of P.W.7’s husband. The deceased developed illicit intimacy with P.W.7 sometime prior to the occurrence. This attracted the attention of not only her husband but also accused 1. Despite the warning emerging from accused l, the deceased not heeding to the same, continued his illicit relationship with her. The conduct of the deceased, a man belonging to the minority community of the village, posed a challenge, besides affront and insult to accused 1 and his community men, a majority group in the village. An attempt had been made by accused 1 on the life of the deceased for inflicting a cut on his person by means of an aruval terminating in criminal proceedings in court. The animosity and rancour between accused 1 and the deceased ever since then reached a climax. Accused 1 was probably waiting for an opportune moment for putting an end to the life of the deceased. The animosity and rancour between accused 1 and the deceased ever since then reached a climax. Accused 1 was probably waiting for an opportune moment for putting an end to the life of the deceased. The moment actually got fructified on the day of the occurrence, when accused 1 happened to meet the deceased returning from his fields carrying the bundles of harvested stems of maize crops. To prove these aspects of the matter, the prosecution examined P.W.7. Though all these aspects had been adverted to by P.W.7 in her earlier statement before the police, yet for the reasons best known to her, she would resile from the same and pose as if she was the paragon of virtue, in the sense of not having any sort of illicit connection with the deceased. The prosecution of course sought the permission of the Court to treat her as hostile and after obtaining such permission, put question in cross-examination drawing her attention to her earlier statement made to the police utilising the provisions of Sec.145 of the Indian Evidence Act and brought on record her earlier version in proof of the impelling motive accused 1 had towards the deceased. Such proved version of P.W.7 cannot at all be utilised by the prosecution for any purpose whatever, in view of the fact that it is very well settled that the evidentiary value that could be attached to the testimony of the witness treated as hostile wholesale is practically nil and therefore it is the testimony of P.W.7 can by no stretch of imagination be stated to improve or advance the case of the prosecution. 10. Turning to the occurrence proper, accused 2 is stated to have indiscriminately inflicted cuts on both the legs of the deceased while accused 1 severed the neck of the deceased by inflicting several cuts on the neck region with an aruval. Thereafter, accused 1 is stated to have run away from the scene carrying the severed head towards north, followed by the other accused. In proof of this part of the occurrence the prosecution relied upon the testimony of P.Ws.4, 5 and 6. P.Ws.4 and 5 are non-else than the beloved wife and son of the deceased. P.Ws.4 and 5 were virtually available in the scene, having accompanied the deceased to the fields in the morning. In proof of this part of the occurrence the prosecution relied upon the testimony of P.Ws.4, 5 and 6. P.Ws.4 and 5 are non-else than the beloved wife and son of the deceased. P.Ws.4 and 5 were virtually available in the scene, having accompanied the deceased to the fields in the morning. P.W.6 a neighbouring land owner, getting attracted by the hue and cry emerging from the scene had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence. Though P.Ws.4 to 6 reflected the reality of the situation regarding the occurrence, during the course of their examination by the police, yet for reasons best known to them, they turned hostile to the prosecution and therefore their earlier statements to the police have been proved in the manner allowed by the law. As adverted to earlier, the testimony of these hostile witnesses is of no use to the prosecution for any purpose whatever and as such, the same has to be eschewed out of consideration. As such, the materials available on record can, by no stretch of imagination be stated to have proved the commission of the offence of murder of the deceased by accused 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention. Therefore, the conviction of accused 1 and 2 under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. and sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Court below are not sustainable and deserve to be set aside. 11. Coming to the conviction under Sec.201, I.P.C. the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would pose a question in submitting that in the event of the appellants being acquitted of the charge of commission of the offence of murder, then it is legally permissible to convict them under Sec.201, I.P.C. for causing the disappearance of the evidence of the commission of murder. To this, we are unable to affix our seal of approval. A similar situation arose before us in Criminal Appeal No.437 of 1984, where we happened to deal with the question and held that the offence under Secs302 and 201, I.P.C. are distinct offences and on the proof forthcoming of any these two offences in respect of which the accused was charged, criminal liability can be fastened upon him for the proved offence, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Dahin Singh v. Stale of U.P., A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 2013. Their Lordships have observed in that case as follows: “It seems to us that no persons other than the appellants would be anxious to bury the body. They had been seen by many witnesses with the deceased in village Chitbarageon and Village Ballia. They had left village Ballia in the company of the deceased and were last seen in village Sardahi with the deceased. In order to avoid suspicion falling upon them, they would be keen to get rid of the body, even if the deceased was not murdered by them. That they buried it in their own field further shows their complicity. Burying in somebody else’s field might have been dangerous. Their presence in other fields, if noticed, might have engendered suspicion. Their filed is only about 100 paces from their house. Rabindra Bahadur Singh, appellant, who pointed out the place of burial, was about 13 years old and is Ram Dahin’s son. He could not have buried the body alone. Further, the appellants denied the whole prosecution story. This again lands some assurance that they were denying the facts in order to conceal their participation in the crime”. In this view of the matter, there is no legal impediment to convict the appellants herein for the offence under Sec.201, I.P.C. provided there is evidence for the commission of such offence even though there is dearth of evidence for the commission of the offence of murder. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants would, however, snatch an argument that in order to mulct criminal liability upon the appellants under Sec.201, I.P.C., there must be definite evidence available on record to point out there the deceased had been done to death by homicidal violence that the accused had the knowledge or reason to believe that such an offence had been committed and that they caused the evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear with a view to screen themselves from legal punishment. He would also construct an argument based on the edifice of the factual foundation that the trunk that was lying the fields of the deceased and the severed head laterally recovered from a place called Alagarmalai cannot at all be stated to relate to the same person, in the circumstances of the case and if it is found that they do relate to the same person, even then it cannot be stated that they represented the trunk and head of the deceased. 13. The prosecution in its bid to prove that the head and the trunk relate to the same person tried their sinews and nerves to produce the best of evidence possible in the circumstances of the case. The doctor P.W.3 conducted the autopsy not only over the trunk but also over the head, of course on different dates. The doctor while conducting the autopsy over the trunk with a clairvoyant mental frame preserved the vertebra with a view to correlate the trunk with the head, if it was to be secured at a later point of time. The doctor’s expectation never proved futile and the head had been subsequently traced and subjected to autopsy and on the requisition received from the investigating agency, the doctor sent the skull and vertebra preserved by him to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory, Madras for opinion, which in its turn sent them for the expert opinion to P.W.19, the Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, Madras. On the examination of the skull and the vertebra P.W.19 gave his opinion, finding expression in Exhibits P13 and P14 to the effect that the vertebra preserved from the trunk and the skull belonged to one and the same individual. Based on the opinion given by P.W.19 and P.W.14 to the effect that the vertebra preserved from the trunk and skull belonged to one and the same individual and based on the opinion given by P.W.19, P.W.3 would express his final opinion that the trunk and the head belonged to one and the same person. When P.Ws.3 and 19 were in the box the defence did not hurl any question during their cross examination challenging the opinion expressed by them that the trunk and the head belonged to one and the same person. When P.Ws.3 and 19 were in the box the defence did not hurl any question during their cross examination challenging the opinion expressed by them that the trunk and the head belonged to one and the same person. The net result is that such formal evidence, the expert states at the face of the defence and consequently the argument now raised by the learned counsel for the appellants on this aspect of the matter bristles next to nothing. 14. Once it is proved that the head and trunk related to the same person, there is no difficulty for the prosecution to point out that they were the head and trunk of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.1 Revenue Inspector would reveal that when reached the scene at 4.30 p.m. on the day of occurrence, he saw P.Ws.4 and 5 there near the trunk that was lying there was that of the deceased. The evidence of P. W.1 on this aspect remains as a solid rock without the same being challenged by putting any question in cross examination. 15. This apart, quite unusually the evidence of the post-mortem constable P.W.16, assumes signal importance, in giving a very valuable clue that the traced out head subsequently was the head of the deceased, After the autopsy of the head was over the remaining portion of the head, after the removal of the skull, had been handed over by P.W.3 to him and he in turn handed over the same to P.W.4 the wife of the deceased, who accepted the same without any demur, obviously to do the last rites. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 16 clinches the issue of the head and trunk on record clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was due to homicidal violence, by decapitation of head and injury to big vessels of the neck and multiple injuries over left side thigh, neck and shoulder. 16. Coming to the question of separation of the evidence of commission of the offence of murder, the head of the deceased had been traced out by the Inspector of Police P.W.20 pursuant to Exhibits P21 and P22 confessions given by accused 1 and 2 respectively. The head was in fact kept buried underneath the earth in a place called Alagarmalai far away from the place where the trunk was lying. The head was in fact kept buried underneath the earth in a place called Alagarmalai far away from the place where the trunk was lying. The places where the head was buried was within the exclusive knowledge of accused 1 and 2 and but for the information provided by them, the severed head could not have been traced out. No doubt true it is, that the independent witnesses cited, namely P.Ws.12 and 13 for the proof of their confession and discovery of the severed head of the deceased from the place of concealment turned hostile to the prosecution. But nonetheless the evidence of the investigation officer. P.W.20 remains intact as regards the confession and recovery of the severed head, in the since that the lone and bald suggestion that was thrown to the investigating agency is that the confession and recovery are stage-managed show, which in fact had been denied. The mere fact that P.W.20 happened to be an investigating officer is by itself not sufficient to eschew his testimony out of consideration. His evidence has to be construed as any other witness when he speaks to certain matters traceable to his personal knowledge. Nothing is shown or elicited in the course of his cross-examination to discredit his testimony as respects the confession of the accused and consequent recoveries affected therefrom. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the appellants had no knowledge or reason to believe that an offence of murder has been committed and that their act of secreting the severed head of the deceased, far away from the place of occurrence, did not amount to causing the disappearance of the evidence of the commission of the offence of murder. As such the conviction of the appellants under Sec.201, I.P.C. imposed by the Court below is sustainable. 17. Coming to the question of sentence, it cannot be stated that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec.201, I.P.C. in the circumstances of the case, is unduly harsh or excessive, calling for interference at the hands of this Court. 18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Sec. 302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on them are set aside and they are acquitted of the same. 18. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Sec. 302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on them are set aside and they are acquitted of the same. But, the conviction under Sec.201, I.P.C. and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year on them are confirmed.