Judgment :- (Appeals against the judgment dated 31.10.2002 made in S.C.No.299 of 2001 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.) M. Jeyapaul, J. The first accused in S.C. No.299 of 2001 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore has preferred the present appeal. The learned First Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore has convicted the first accused, who is the appellant herein and also the second accused for offences under Sections 120 (b), 364, 302, 392 r/w 397 and 201 IPC. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore has sentenced the appellant to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 120 (b) and in default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment; to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 364; to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302; to undergo 10 months imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 392 r/w 397 IPC; and also to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution has examined as many as 28 witnesses and marked 30 documents and 19 material objects to establish their case. No oral or documentary evidence was let in on the side of the appellant herein. 3. The case in brief of the prosecution as reflected in the evidence adduced by the prosecution is as follows: (i) The first accused was a driver in Gajendra Corporation dealing in cigarettes. The second accused is the brother of the first accused. The deceased Muthukrishnan was serving as a Branch Manager of the said company at Tatabad, Coimbatore. He used to deposit the money collected from the Tatabad branch regularly at the Head Office in R.G.Street, Coimbatore. The second accused is the brother of the first accused. The deceased Muthukrishnan was serving as a Branch Manager of the said company at Tatabad, Coimbatore. He used to deposit the money collected from the Tatabad branch regularly at the Head Office in R.G.Street, Coimbatore. The first accused and the second accused hatched a conspiracy to commit robbery of the amount which was usually taken by the said Muthukrishnan to the Head Office by car. Doraisamy, P.W.11, one of the customers of the branch, has spoken to the amount paid by him along with other customers in the branch, where the deceased was serving as a manager. Velmurugan, P.W.12 also has spoken to the amount paid by him to the said branch on the fateful day. (ii) Ramesh P.W.1, who is the Branch Manager working in the Head Office of the Gajendra Corporation, received a phone call from Muthukrishnan on the evening of 07.08.2000 that he had received an amount of Rs.5,75,000/- from various customers. He expressed his intention to deposit the said amount with the Head Office. The said Muthukrishnan also has promised over phone that he would come within half an hour to the Head Office for the purpose of depositing the collection he has received from the customers. (iii) Ashok Ramanicklal, P.W.21 is the proprietor of the said Gajendra Corporation. He sent a car bearing Registration No.TN 37 T 4906 for the purpose of taking the said Muthukrishnan to the Head Office. The first accused Loganathan was engaged as the driver of the car on that day. (iv) Sethu, P.W.3, one of the customers of the said company spotted the company car driven by the first accused. The second accused, who is the brother of the first accused, had taken the back seat in the said car. He was under the impression that the car was proceeding to the Head Office as usual. (v) Yet another customer of the said company Sarangapani, P.W.4, also spotted the company car at the signal on the 100 feet road. The first accused was found driving the car and next to him the manager Muthukrishnan was seated. The car was proceeding towards Ganapathy. (v) Yet another customer of the said company Sarangapani, P.W.4, also spotted the company car at the signal on the 100 feet road. The first accused was found driving the car and next to him the manager Muthukrishnan was seated. The car was proceeding towards Ganapathy. (vi) Saravanakumar, P.W.6, who is one of the staff members of the said corporation, has deposed to the fact that the first and second accused were found conspiring to rob a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 07.08.2000 at about 1.30 p.m. (vii) Rangasamy, P.W.15, saw a car parked by the side of his agricultural field at about 8 p.m. on 07.08.2000. The first accused stood by the side of the car. When P.W.15 enquired about the purpose for which the car was parked over there, the first accused informed him that he had parked the car just to attend nature's call. (viii) Beerkan, P.W.5, was working in a STD Booth. The first accused Loganathan came to his booth at about 9 p.m. on 07.08.2000 and contacted the telephone bearing No.0422 392367. Having availed the facility, the first accused Loganathan paid the charges thereafter and left therefrom. (ix) Sandhya, P.W.20 is the wife of Ashok Ramanicklal, P.W.21, the proprietor of Gajendra Corporation. She has spoken to the fact that on 07.08.2000, the first accused took Muthukrishnan in the company car, but he failed to return in time. As the family members were discussing about the non-arrival of the vehicle given to the first accused, a call came to her house at about 8.15 p.m. on 07.08.2000 from the first accused. When P.W.20 attended the call, she found that there was no response from the other side at the beginning and thereafter, the first accused spoke over the phone stating that he and Muthukrishnan were abducted by somebody. He has further informed that they were near Bhavani Sagar at that time. (x) Ramesh, P.W.1, was working as a Manager in the Head Officer of the said corporation. On instructions of P.W.21, he lodged a complaint (Ex.P.1) on 07.08.2000 at about 8.30 p.m. at B-3, Kattur Police Station, Coimbatore, not only against the first accused, but also against the Branch Manager of Tatabad, Muthukrishnan, alleging that both of them have committed criminal breach of trust by taking the car along with a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- of the Gajendra Corporation. (xi) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ravichandran attached to B-3, Kattur Police Station, Coimbatore, registered the complaint (Ex.P.1) in Cr.No.668 of 2000 under Section 408 of I.P.C. and prepared the printed First Information Report, Ex.P.24. He despatched the original thereof to the learned Judicial Magistrate and the copies to the higher officials concerned. (xii) Mr.Subbu Singh, P.W.25, the Inspector of Police attached to the said police station took up the case for investigation at about 11 p.m. on 07.08.2000, examined Ramesh, P.W.1, Subbu, P.W.3, Sarangapani, P.W.4, Doraisamy, P.W.11 and Velmurugan, P.W.12 and recorded their statements. (xiii) On 08.08.2000 at about 10 a.m., P.W.25 rushed to Uthandayur, the native village of the first accused Loganathan and arrested him in the presence of the Village Administrative Office, P.W.16. The first accused gave a confession statement voluntarily in the presence of the aforesaid witness and on the basis of the admissible portion Ex.P.6, the car bearing Registration No.TN 37 T 4906 (M.O.12) and the nylon car seat safety belt (M.O.19) were recovered under seizure mahazar, Ex.P-25. At the instance of the first accused, the suitcase (M.O.1) which contained a cash of Rs.87,000/- (M.O.2) was also recovered under the relevant seizure mahazar, Ex.P-9. Thereafter, the first accused took the witnesses along with P.W.25 to Senbagapudur, L.V.P. Channel and identified the place where the dead body was thrown. P.W.25 prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P-2 concerning the location where the dead body was allegedly thrown in the presence of Ravi, P.W.13. He also drew rough sketch, Ex.P-26 reflecting the said spot. The accused also identified the dead body, which was found lying in the said channel. (xiv) P.W.25 held inquest on the dead body between 2.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. on 08.08.2000 and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P-27. During the course of the inquest, he examined Ramesh, P.W.1, Kesavan, P.W.2, Beerkan, P.W.5, Ravi, P.W.13, Subramaniam, P.W.16 and recorded their statements. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Sathyamangalam through the Head Constable Rathina Sabapathi, P.W.24 for the purpose of postmortem examination. The accused was remanded to Judicial custody and the material objects were also forwarded by the next day. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Sathyamangalam through the Head Constable Rathina Sabapathi, P.W.24 for the purpose of postmortem examination. The accused was remanded to Judicial custody and the material objects were also forwarded by the next day. Based on the breakthrough that emerged during the course of the investigation, the case registered under Section 408 I.P.C, was altered into one under Sections 364, 309 and 379 I.P.C. He also prepared the Express Report, Ex.P-28 and despatched the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned. (xv) The second accused Sivakumar was the friend of the brother of Ayyammal, P.W.9. Having come back from a sojourn at Chennai, he admitted the commission of murder of Muthukrishnan by himself and his brother Loganathan. (xvi) Ramasamy, P.W.10 is the husband of Ayyammal, P.W.9. The second accused was known to him and he used to come to see his brother-in-law. The second accused confessed that he and his brother Lognathan committed the murder of the Manager of the Cigarette Company and unfortunately his brother Loganathan was caught by the Police. (xvii) Dr. Murugesan, P.W.14, conducted the Postmortem examination on the dead body of Muthukrishnan, aged 65 years at about 6.30 p.m. on 08.08.2000. He noted down the following features found on the dead body during the course of postmortem examination: "(a) The body was first seen by the undersigned at 10.30 A.M. on 09.08.2000. (b) Its condition then was RM absent in all the four libms. Postmortem commenced at 10.30 a.m. on 09.08.2000. Appearance found at the postmortem body of a well built male lies on its back. The whole body is bloated with skin peeling all over the body. The face is dark in colour with eyes protruded with tongue protruded bitten in between jaws Teeth 437/123456 / 45/123 present upper jaws front teeth missing. Lower jaw 5th right side missing. (c) External Injuries: The whole body is bloated. 1) A wound encircling the neck starting from just below left ear to just below right ear leaving the bare area over the nape of the neck 32 cmx5 cmx 1/2cm. This wound is contusion with abrasion. 2) Contusion front of the neck red in colour 8 cm breadth x 35 cm length. 3) Lacerated wound dorsum of all fingers. & Left thumb 8 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm. Others 4 cm x 3 cm x `1/2 cm. This wound is contusion with abrasion. 2) Contusion front of the neck red in colour 8 cm breadth x 35 cm length. 3) Lacerated wound dorsum of all fingers. & Left thumb 8 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm. Others 4 cm x 3 cm x `1/2 cm. 4) Lacerated wound right F 4 on its dorsal aspect 4 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm. 5) Lacerated wound dorsal of the foot Left 4 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. 6) Multiple abrasion Right foot dorsum. 7) Scrotum swollen. 8) Peeling of the skin ingluteal. Region and the whole back." (xviii) The Doctor opined that the deceased had died 40 to 45 hours prior to the autopsy. He has also concluded based on the postmortem examination and the Hyoid Bone test that Hyoid bone was found fractured and that the deceased had died due to strangulation. (xix) Mr.Charles, Inspector of Police, P.W.27 took up the case for further investigation on 31.08.2000 and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements in connection with the investigation relating to the role of the second accused in the crime. (xx) The apparels found on the dead body, M.O.13 to M.O.16, were recovered after the postmortem examination was over by the Head Constable, P.W.24, and the same were sent for chemical examination. The shirt, M.O.13 and underwear, M.O.16 were found containing human blood of ‘A’ Group as per the Serology Report, Ex.P-22. He also examined the other witnesses concerning the second accused and having completed the investigation, laid charge sheet as against both the accused under Sections 120 (b), 364, 302, 392 r/w 397 and 201 IPC. on 31.03.01. (xxi) The first accused has stated that a false case was foisted on him when he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., relating to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence let in on the side of the prosecution. 4. We are concerned only with the case of the first accused who has preferred the appeal before this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the first accused would submit that there is no evidence to show that the first accused served in Gajendra Corporation as driver. There is no legal evidence to establish the case of the prosecution, he would further contend. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the first accused would submit that there is no evidence to show that the first accused served in Gajendra Corporation as driver. There is no legal evidence to establish the case of the prosecution, he would further contend. The prosecution has relied upon the weak links in the chain of circumstances to prove its case, he would lastly submit. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that all the links in the chain of circumstances have been established beyond reasonable doubt as against the first accused. It is his contention that all the witnesses who were connected with Gajendra Corporation have spoken in one voice that the first accused was serving as a driver and the car was entrusted to him on the fateful day to take Muthukrishnan, Manager of the said Corporation to the Head Office. He would persuade us to rely upon the testimony of the witness who has spotted the accused at or about the time of occurrence, the extra judicial confession given by the second accused implicating the role of the first accused and the recovery of the material objects, which had been unearthed on the basis of the admissible portion in the confession statement given by him. Lastly, he would submit that Beerkan, P.W.5, has categorically spoken about the call made by the first accused through the booth to the telephone installed at the house of the proprietor of Gajendra Corporation. Therefore, he contends that the trial court has rightly returned the verdict of conviction on all counts. 7. Ramesh, P.W.1, Manager working at the Head Office of Gajendra Corporation, who set the law in motion, has cogently spoken to the fact that the first accused Loganathan was engaged as a driver to drive the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 37 T 4906, owned by the Gajendra Corporation. 8. Sethu, P.W.3 and Sarangapani, P.W.4 were customers of the said Corporation. They had spotted the first accused driving the vehicle just prior to the occurrence. Saravanakumar, P.W.6 is one of the employees of the Corporation, who has also deposed that Loganathan, A1 was working as driver. Rangasamy, P.W.15 is an independent witness, who identified the first accused, who was found standing by the side of the car at or about the time of the occurrence. Saravanakumar, P.W.6 is one of the employees of the Corporation, who has also deposed that Loganathan, A1 was working as driver. Rangasamy, P.W.15 is an independent witness, who identified the first accused, who was found standing by the side of the car at or about the time of the occurrence. Ashok Ramanicklal, P.W.21 and his wife Sandhya, P.W.20 have also categorically stated that the car owned by Gajendra Corporation was entrusted to the first accused Loganathan, who was the driver of the Corporation for the purpose of taking the Manager Muthukrishnan. 9. When there is such a clinching evidence to establish without any pale of doubt that Loganathan, A1 was the driver of Gajendra Corporation, we have no hesitation to reject the weak submission made by the learned counsel for the first accused/appellant that the prosecution had failed to establish that the first accused was the driver working in Gajendra Corporation. 10. Ramesh, P.W.1, the Manager of the Head Office, Sandhya, P.W.20, wife of the proprietor of Gajendra Corporation and Ashok Ramanicklal, P.W.21, the proprietor of Gajendra Corporation have clearly deposed before the Court that the car bearing Registration No.TN 37 T 4906 was entrusted to the first accused for taking Muthukrishnan, the Manager of the Tatabad branch to the Head Office. They have also stated that a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- was taken by the said Muthukrishnan at the time when he boarded the car driven by the first accused. Further, it is seen from the testimony of Ramesh, P.W.1 that the said amount collected by the Tatabad Branch was also not found in the said branch. It is proved that the deceased possessed the said amount while travelling in the car. 11. Saravanakumar, P.W.6 would state that the first and second accused conspired together, scheming to rob a sizeable amount. Such a confession of P.W.6 is found to be artificial. No conspirator would speak openly about his gameplan. Therefore, the testimony of P.W.6 that he found A1 and A2 conspiring to commit the robbery is found not acceptable to us. 12. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Sethu, P.W.3 and Sarangapani, P.W.4 who have spotted the accused on the fateful day. The first accused was found driving the vehicle taking Muthukrishnan, Manager of Tatabad Branch. The deceased Muthukrishnan was lastly found in the company of the first accused. 12. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Sethu, P.W.3 and Sarangapani, P.W.4 who have spotted the accused on the fateful day. The first accused was found driving the vehicle taking Muthukrishnan, Manager of Tatabad Branch. The deceased Muthukrishnan was lastly found in the company of the first accused. No plausible answer was given by the first accused as to the fate of the Branch Manager, Muthukrishnan who was very much found in his company. 13. The testimony of Beerkan, P.W.5 is found to be very important in this case. According to his version, the first accused came to his telephone booth at about 9 p.m. on 07.08.2000 and dialed 0422 392367, which is the number of the telephone installed at the house of P.W.20 and P.W.21. P.W.20 has categorically deposed before the Court that the first accused furnished a false information over the phone, when the family was gripped with the anxiety to know the fate of the vehicle and the Manager, who took the cash of Rs.5,75,000/-, that the first accused and the manager were abducted by somebody and that they were stranded near Bhavani Sagar. 14. Loganathan, A1 had made an attempt to mislead slyly that somebody else was involved in the occurrence, but the clinching testimony found on record would unerringly point to the guilt of the first accused. 15. The car was found parked only in the village of the first accused. There is no explanation from the first accused as to why he had taken the car of the Corporation to his village. A cash of Rs.87,000/- (M.O.2) was recovered on the basis on the confession statement given by him. That apart, the dead body of Muthukrishnan was detected by the investigating sleuth only based on the clue given by the first accused. The dead body would have gone undetected if the first accused had not supplied such a vital information, which was privy to his personal knowledge. 16. The postmortem examination would indicate that Muthukrishnan was strangulated to death. The weapon of offence, namely car seat safety belt, was recovered only from the possession of the first accused. Dr. Murugesan, P.W.14 has deposed before the court that there is every possibility of causing death by strangulation using the car seat safety belt. 16. The postmortem examination would indicate that Muthukrishnan was strangulated to death. The weapon of offence, namely car seat safety belt, was recovered only from the possession of the first accused. Dr. Murugesan, P.W.14 has deposed before the court that there is every possibility of causing death by strangulation using the car seat safety belt. Had there been no conspiracy as projected by the prosecution, the murder of Muthukrishnan would not have been committed and the amount of Rs.5,75,000/- would not have been robbed. The murder has been committed only after abduction of Muthukrishnan by the first accused in the car entrusted to him by Gajendra Corporation. The dead body had been thrown away to camouflage the commission of the crime. 17. We find that the prosecution had established the role of the first accused in the offences alleged against him. Interference with the well considered judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge is not warranted. 18. In the result, the Judgment passed in S.C.No.299 of 2001 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, as regards the first accused / appellant herein is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P. No.10326 of 2003 is also dismissed.