Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 728 (KER)

Kanakaraj v. State of Kerala

2013-08-20

K.T.SANKARAN, M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

body2013
JUDGMENT : M.L. Joseph Francis, J. Crl.Appeal No.1186 of 2011 is an appeal filed by the second accused Kanakaraj in S.C.No.592 of 2010 on the file of Additional Sessions Court No.1, Palakkad against the conviction and sentence imposed on him under Sections 302, 449 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the I.P.C.'), and Sections 307 and 392 read with Section 397 of the I.P.C. Under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., he was sentenced to death. D.S.R.No.1 of 2011 is a reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for confirmation of death sentence imposed on the second accused Kanakaraj. 2. Crl.Appeal 1211 of 2012 is filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal of the third accused Manikandan in S.C.No.592 of 2010 on the file of Additional Sessions Court No.1, Palakkad. The three accused persons stand charge sheeted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palakkad, for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 307, 397 and 201 of the I.P.C. 3. According to the prosecution, the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention to commit robbery and causing death of Sheela in the house with Door No.V/842 of Palakkad Municipality situated at Puthur in Palakkad, where Jayakrishnan (PW2) and his family were residing, reached the courtyard of the said house at 11.30 a.m. on 23.3.2010. The third accused Manikandan was asked by the first accused Sampath and second accused Kanakaraj to keep watch in the courtyard. The accused 1 and 2 stepped up to the front of the aforesaid house and the first accused pushed the switch of the calling bell. Hearing the ringing of the calling bell, deceased Sheela opened the front door and immediately, accused 1 and 2 rushed into the house and they pounced on her. The second accused pushed her down in the dining hall and after that he got over her body and punched and hit her with a tea cup. He also hit the head of deceased Sheela against the floor causing injuries to her. The second accused tied both her hands with a thorthu which was found in the room and covered her face tying with another thorthu. Hearing the cry of deceased Sheela, her mother Karthiayani Amma (PW4), who was in the kitchen, came to the dining hall. He also hit the head of deceased Sheela against the floor causing injuries to her. The second accused tied both her hands with a thorthu which was found in the room and covered her face tying with another thorthu. Hearing the cry of deceased Sheela, her mother Karthiayani Amma (PW4), who was in the kitchen, came to the dining hall. At that time, the first accused pounced upon Karthiayani Amma and pushed her down. He got on her body and punched and hit her with a tea cup. The second accused hit on the forehead of PW4 with a tea cup causing grievous injuries to her. The first accused tied the neck of PW4 with a thorthu and tightened the thorthu. The first accused took a pair of gold studs and a sum of 30,000/- kept in the bed room. The first accused also forcibly took the thali chain, jimikki, studs, two bangles and three rings from deceased Sheela. The second accused forcibly took gold rudraksha chain, a locket with the figure of Lord Guruvayoorappan, three bangles and stud from PW4 Karthiayani Amma. The second accused took a knife from the kitchen and handed over the same to the first accused Sampath to cause the death of deceased Sheela. The second accused held her, tied hands and lower jaw firmly backwards and then the first accused brutally cut her neck with the knife and killed her. After that they tied her neck with a thorthu to prevent blood spurting out. They cleaned the knife with the intention to cause disappearance of evidence of the offences. The accused persons committed robbery of articles worth Rs.1,75,000/- including three mobile phones and a liquor bottle from the said house. After the incident, in order to escape from the scene of occurrence, the accused persons travelled in different autorikshaws. Thereafter, they reached at Walayar Forest, where they, with the intention to destroy the evidence of the offences, poured liquor over the blood stained clothes and stolen Tata Indicom Phone and those articles were set alight. All the three accused persons were subsequently arrested by the police. The first accused Sampath died while he was in police custody. The second accused Kanakaraj and the third accused Manikandan faced the trial. 4. All the three accused persons were subsequently arrested by the police. The first accused Sampath died while he was in police custody. The second accused Kanakaraj and the third accused Manikandan faced the trial. 4. Before the Additional Sessions Court, on the prosecution side, PW1 to PW52 were examined and Exts.P1 to P136 were marked and MO1 to MO58 were identified. On the defence side, DW1 to DW7 were examined and Exts.D1 to D20 series were marked. The learned Additional Sessions Court, on considering the evidence on record, found that second accused Kanakaraj committed offences under Sections 449 and 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., Sections 307 and 392 read with Section 397 of the I.P.C. The second accused is sentenced to death directing that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead, subject to the confirmation by the High Court, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. The second accused is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 449 of the I.P.C. The second accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 307 of the I.P.C. The second accused is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the I.P.C. Set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. It is directed that the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently and that those sentences would lapse upon the execution of the death sentence. 5. The third accused Manikandan was found not guilty and he was acquitted. Against the conviction and sentence, the second accused Kanakaraj filed Crl.Appeal No.1186 of 2011. D.S.R.No.1 of 2011 is a reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the confirmation of death sentence. Challenging the acquittal of the third accused Manikandan, the State filed Crl. Appeal No.1211 of 2012. 6. Against the conviction and sentence, the second accused Kanakaraj filed Crl.Appeal No.1186 of 2011. D.S.R.No.1 of 2011 is a reference under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the confirmation of death sentence. Challenging the acquittal of the third accused Manikandan, the State filed Crl. Appeal No.1211 of 2012. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/second accused in Crl.Appeal No.1186 of 2011 and the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent/third accused in Crl.Appeal No.1211 of 2012. 7. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/second accused in Crl. Appeal No.1186 of 2011 raised the following arguments : The court below seriously erred in relying upon the evidence of PW4. The court below failed to take into consideration the admission made by PW4 that she had not given any previous statement to the police or to the Investigating Officer. Hence, it is clear that there is no 161 Statement given by PW4 and the statement produced by the prosecution is to be discarded. The court below further seriously erred in coming to the conclusion that there is no material improbability, defect or contradiction which has been brought out in the evidence of PW4. The court below ought to have disbelieved the evidence of PW7 regarding the identification of the appellant since he had opportunity to see the photos and name of the appellant prior to the identification parade conducted by PW17 on 9.4.2010 and the said witness is falsely planted by the prosecution as supplemental witness to prove the identity of the appellant before the court below. The court below ought to have discarded the evidence in Ext.P26, the report of the identification parade conducted by PW17, whereby, appellant was identified by PW4 and PW7 since the learned Magistrate, who was examined as PW17 had not complied or adopted the fundamental principles regarding identification parade. The court below failed to take into consideration, the deposition of PW10 Narayanan, the? appraiser. His evidence is to be totally discarded. PW10 is a stock witness of the police. He has admitted that he had deposed on behalf of the police in more than 50 cases in various courts in Palakkad. The lower court failed to consider the very crucial aspect regarding the arrest of the appellant. appraiser. His evidence is to be totally discarded. PW10 is a stock witness of the police. He has admitted that he had deposed on behalf of the police in more than 50 cases in various courts in Palakkad. The lower court failed to consider the very crucial aspect regarding the arrest of the appellant. It is the definite case of the prosecution that CW78 (DW4) C.K.Ramachandran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palakkad, on 28.3.2010 reached the wife's house of the appellant at Desamangalam on the suspicion that MO32, the mobile phone stolen from the house of the deceased Sheela was used by the appellant and that the appellant was taken into custody at about 8.30 p.m. and produced before the Circle Inspector (PW51) at the Town North Police Station. The Investigating Officer (PW51) has given a complete go-by to the above evidence. He has categorically stated that the appellant was not produced before him either on 28.3.2010 or on 29.3.2010. PW51 further deposed that he had not arrested the appellant on 29.3.2010 as per Ext.P92 arrest memo. PW51 further deposed that he had neither seized MO32 and other articles as per the seizure mahazar (Ext.P45) nor prepared the said mahazar. Except for the solitary evidence of PW4 unsupported by any previous statement contemplated under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is absolutely no connecting evidence to prove the involvement of the second accused/appellant. The court below went wrong in convicting the appellant and sentencing him to death by hanging on the finding that this is rarest of rare cases, mandating such extreme punishment. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the court below in convicting the second accused. 8. In Crl.Appeal No.1211 of 2012, the learned Public Prosecutor raised the following arguments : The trial court ought to have found that without the aid, active participation and connivance of the third accused in tune with their common intention, the other accused could not have succeeded in the commission of the offence. The call charts of mobile phones used by accused Nos.1 to 3 during the relevant period have been proved through the evidence adduced by PW44, PW45 and PW46, the competent officers of Tata Tele Services, Idea Cellular and Bharatee Airtel respectively and these scientific evidences have not been appreciated by the trial court in a proper perspective. The call charts of mobile phones used by accused Nos.1 to 3 during the relevant period have been proved through the evidence adduced by PW44, PW45 and PW46, the competent officers of Tata Tele Services, Idea Cellular and Bharatee Airtel respectively and these scientific evidences have not been appreciated by the trial court in a proper perspective. There was evidence before the trial court that the third accused had purchased dresses for other accused from PW25 and the blood stained dresses were set ablaze by the third accused by pouring whisky and all these matters have been clearly revealed through Ext.P113 confession statement given to PW52and the same has not been considered by the trial court in a legal manner. The recovery of gold ornaments from the third accused by PW52, subsequent to the brutal murder, clearly gave an indication as to the active role of the third accused in relation with the incident and the credibility of the seizure mahazar is further strengthened by the evidence adduced by PW10 and PW14. All these matters have not been taken into consideration while examining the role of the third accused in relation with the incident. The learned counsel for the respondent/third accused supported the judgment of the court below regarding the acquittal of the third accused. 9. PW1 Prabhath, who gave Ext.P1 F.I. Statement before the Police, is not an eye witness to the occurrence. He is residing at Puthur. During March 2010, he was the President of Gangothri Nagar Residents Association. Deceased Sheela and her husband PW2 Jayakrishnan were residing at Puthur. PW1 deposed that on 23.3.2010 at about 2 P.M., Jayakrishnan contacted him over phone informing that somebody had attacked his wife Sheela and her mother PW4 and asked him to come to the house of PW2. Immediately PW1 went to the house of PW2 where deceased Sheela and PW4 were found lying on the floor of dining hall in a pool of blood. A police jeep came to the house compound and Sheela was taken to the District Hospital, Palakkad. PW2, PW6 and one Jose Mathew accompanied her to the hospital. PW4 was taken to the District Hospital, Palakkad in another vehicle. When PW1 reached the hospital, he came to know that Sheela died. From the District Hospital, Palakkad, PW4 was taken to the hospital at Coimbatore for expert treatment. PW2, PW6 and one Jose Mathew accompanied her to the hospital. PW4 was taken to the District Hospital, Palakkad in another vehicle. When PW1 reached the hospital, he came to know that Sheela died. From the District Hospital, Palakkad, PW4 was taken to the hospital at Coimbatore for expert treatment. PW1 gave Ext.P1 F.I. Statement before the Police on the same day at 3.30 P.M. 10. PW2 Jayakrishnan is the husband of deceased Sheela. They have two daughters, the elder daughter was residing at Dubai with her husband and the second daughter is a third year Engineering student at Amrutha Institute, Coimbatore. Sheela was murdered on 23.3.2010. At that time PW4 Karthiayani Amma - the mother of Sheela was residing in the house of PW2. On 21.3.2010, PW4 came to the house of PW2 from Ernakulam for medical check up at Palakkad. PW2 deposed that he used to leave his house between 9 and 9.30 a.m. to his business establishment. PW2 used to come back to his house at 1.30 p.m. for taking lunch and used to return back to his business establishment at 3.00 p.m. PW2 deposed that his wife/deceased Sheela used to come to the Mobile shop of PW2 at 11.00 a.m. for assisting him. On 23.3.2010, PW2 went to his business establishment at 9.00 a.m. and at that time, PW4 and deceased Sheela were in the house. Sheela informed PW2 over phone that the part-time servant did not come to the house. The house of PW2 is situated on the eastern side of Palakkad - Malampuzha road. The tyre shop of PW2 is on the side of Victoria College Road, 1 k.m. away from the house of PW2. 11. When PW2 was in his tyre shop at about 1.15 p.m., his second daughter called him over phone informing that she could not contact her mother as her mother's phone was switched off. Sheela was using Nokia mobile phone. At about 1.30 p.m., PW2 reached his house in his car. He parked his car outside the gate of his house and he entered the house compound opening the gate. Then he saw the car of his wife in the compound. As usual, he pushed the button of the calling bell. However, nobody came to open the door. T.V. was turned on and the same was working in high volume. He waited for some time. Then he saw the car of his wife in the compound. As usual, he pushed the button of the calling bell. However, nobody came to open the door. T.V. was turned on and the same was working in high volume. He waited for some time. When he opened the window of the dining hall and looked through it, PW4 was found lying in a pool of blood. She was groaning calling her daughter. PW2 felt that the foot of PW4 might have slipped and she would have fell down. The back door of the work area near the kitchen was found open. PW2 entered the dining hall through that door. The wife of PW2, deceased Sheela was lying in a pool of blood near PW4, in front of the T.V. Deceased Sheela did not respond though he shook her. When PW2 called PW4, she kept groaning. More blood was found near the head of deceased Sheela. PW2 on seeing the above scene, got tired. He opened the door and came out from the house. He requested the persons who were found in the road for help for taking the injured persons to the hospital. But nobody turned up. PW2 informed his brother about the incident over phone. PW2 also requested PW51 over phone to help him to take the injured to the hospital. PW2 informed PW1 about the incident. PW1 and others reached there immediately. The gold ornaments worn by deceased Sheela and PW4 were not found on their body. Police jeep reached there in which PW2 and others took Sheela to the District Hospital, Palakkad. She was declared dead on arrival at the hospital. PW4 was also brought to the hospital within 5 to 8 minutes. After giving first aid, PW4 was taken to the hospital at Coimbatore. The mobile phones of deceased Sheela and PW4 were found missing. Deceased Sheela used to wear two bangles, thali chain with locket, jimikies, and three rings. PW4 used to wear rudraksha chain, three bangles, studs and a ring. Both the hands of deceased Sheela were tied together. The neck of deceased Sheela was tied with a thorthu. The neck of PW4 was also tied with a thorthu. A sum of Rs.30,000/- , studs and one liquor bottle which were kept in the almirah in the bedroom of the house of PW2 were stolen. Both the hands of deceased Sheela were tied together. The neck of deceased Sheela was tied with a thorthu. The neck of PW4 was also tied with a thorthu. A sum of Rs.30,000/- , studs and one liquor bottle which were kept in the almirah in the bedroom of the house of PW2 were stolen. All the almirahs kept in the bedrooms were found open. The entrance to the dining hall is through the sitting room. Curtain was hung covering the entrance to the dining hall through the sitting room. The said curtain was found lying at the side of PW4. Other clothes smeared with blood were found lying there. The money kept in the purses of Sheela and PW4 were also found missing. Three mobile phones were missing. The mobile phone of PW4 was of Tata Indicom. Of the two mobiles of deceased Sheela, one was Nokia-N-97 and the other was Nokia - 6233. The house of PW2 is situated on the eastern side of Palakkad - Malampuzha road. The tyre shop of PW2 is on the side of Victoria College road, 1 k.m. away from his house. PW51 showed some stolen articles to PW2 after one week of the incident. MO1 bangle of PW4, two broken pieces of rudraksha chain of PW4 and MOs. 3 and 4 jimikies of deceased Sheela were shown by PW51 to PW2. PW52 and PW19, (the Additional Tahsildar) showed the other stolen articles to PW2 in the presence of PW4 at the house of PW2. Nokia-N-97 mobile phone, two rings and two bangles of deceased Shela, one stud of PW4 and a stud of deceased Sheela were shown by the aforesaid persons to PW2. MOs. 5 and 6 are the bangles which were worn by deceased Sheela. MOs. 7 and 8 are the rings which were worn by deceased Sheela. MOs. 9 and 10 studs which belonged to Sheela were stolen from the bedroom. M.O.11 is the stud of PW4. MO12 is the locket with the figure of Lord Vinayaka attached to thali chain of deceased Sheela. The properties worth Rs.1,75,000/- were stolen from the house of PW2. MOs. 13 and 14 are the teacups, and MO.15 is the kitchen knife. MO.16 is the bloodstained curtain. Ext.P2 is the purchase bill of Nokia-N-97 mobile phone. Ext.P3(a) bill is related to the Nokia-6233 mobile phone. Both the mobile phones had memory cards. The properties worth Rs.1,75,000/- were stolen from the house of PW2. MOs. 13 and 14 are the teacups, and MO.15 is the kitchen knife. MO.16 is the bloodstained curtain. Ext.P2 is the purchase bill of Nokia-N-97 mobile phone. Ext.P3(a) bill is related to the Nokia-6233 mobile phone. Both the mobile phones had memory cards. A news appeared in the newspaper saying that three accused persons involved in the incident were arrested by the police and one accused died. The photograph of the deceased accused was published in the newspaper. Deceased accused Sampath had worked for 14 days in the shop of PW2, two years before the incident. MO.30 is the Nokia-N-97 mobile phone and MO.32 is the Nokia-6233 mobile phone. 12. PW4 Karthiayani Amma is the mother of deceased Sheela. PW4 is the only eye witness examined on the side of the prosecution to prove its case. PW4 was residing at Ernakulam. Her husband was no more. They have one daughter and a son. Deceased Sheela is her daughter. When the leg of PW4 was fractured she was operated by a doctor at Palakkad. On 21.3.2010, she came to the house of Sheela for the purpose of medical check-up. Deceased Sheela used to go to the mobile shop of her husband PW2 for assisting him in that business and she used to return at 1.30 p.m. PW4 deposed that on 23.3.2010 between 11 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. she sustained injuries in the occurrence in which Sheela was murdered. On that day PW2 left the house after his breakfast at about 10.30 a.m. While Sheela was preparing to go to the mobile shop, the part-time servant informed her through phone that she would not come on that day. 13. So deceased Sheela, taking a broom went to the front of the house to sweep the floor. After that, she came to the dining hall and started folding down the clothes. When PW4 was in the kitchen, she heard the ringing sound of the calling bell. PW4 heard Sheela talking to somebody after opening the door. PW4 again heard the ringing sound of the calling bell. After two minutes, Sheela fell into the dining hall calling her mother. PW4 went to the dining hall running. Deceased Sheela was found lying in the dining hall. PW4 heard Sheela talking to somebody after opening the door. PW4 again heard the ringing sound of the calling bell. After two minutes, Sheela fell into the dining hall calling her mother. PW4 went to the dining hall running. Deceased Sheela was found lying in the dining hall. A big fat man was found sitting on the body of deceased Sheela and punching her and also hitting the head of deceased Sheela against the floor. The said fat man was not familiar to PW4. The fat man is the second accused present in the court. When PW4 came near her daughter, another person pushed PW4 down. The another person punched PW4 and tied her neck with a thorthu and tightened the thorthu saying that he would kill PW4. The second accused took the thorthu kept on the sofa and he tied both the hands of deceased Sheela together with the thorthu. Deceased Sheela was gagged by the second accused with a thorthu. At that time, PW4 who felt feared, laid on the floor without uttering a word. The second accused also assaulted PW4. The second accused and the other person went to the bedrooms. PW4 heard the sound of opening the almirah. Both of them came back to the dining hall. The person who assaulted PW4, forcibly took the gold ornaments of deceased Sheela. At that time, Sheela asked the other person, 'Oh Sampath, are you doing this to me". The second accused took all the gold ornaments of PW4. The mobile phones of deceased Sheela and PW4 which were kept on the dining table were taken away by the second accused. When Sheela asked as mentioned above, the other person who had taken the gold ornaments of Sheela, told the second accused that Sheela had identified him, and that she would tell every body. At that time, the second accused stated that she should be finished. The second accused went to the kitchen and came back with a kitchen knife and he handed over the same to the other person. The second accused raised the hands and head of deceased Sheela and at that time the other person got on the body of deceased Sheela and cut the neck of Sheela. PW4 cried requesting not to assault Sheela. The second accused took the teacup which was kept under the sofa and hit the forehead of PW4 with the teacup. The second accused raised the hands and head of deceased Sheela and at that time the other person got on the body of deceased Sheela and cut the neck of Sheela. PW4 cried requesting not to assault Sheela. The second accused took the teacup which was kept under the sofa and hit the forehead of PW4 with the teacup. PW4 sustained injuries and she lost her consciousness. PW4 did not subsequently see the person who cut the neck of deceased Sheela. However, she saw the photograph of the said person published in the newspaper when she was in the hospital at Coimbatore. 14. PW4 identified the second accused in the presence of Magistrate while identification parade was conducted. She deposed that she handed over Ext.P5 and P5 (a) newspapers which contained the photograph of first accused Sampath, who cut the neck of deceased Sheela. PW4 saw the second accused hitting deceased Sheela with a tea cup. PW4 regained her sense while she was undergoing treatment at Kovai Hospital, Coimbatore. She was in the I.C.U. for one week. PW4 identified MO15 as the kitchen knife taken by second accused Kanakaraj from the kitchen and the first accused Sampath cut the neck of Sheela by using MO15 kitchen knife. In re-examination, PW4 stated that while she was undergoing treatment in Coimbatore hospital, she gave statement before the police which was recorded by the police. 15. At the time of occurrence, PW4 was wearing rudraksha chain with the locket having the figure of Lord Guruvayurappan. She was also wearing two bangles. She was wearing one bangle in her left hand. She was also wearing studs. She had handed over her clothes viz., blood-stained underskirt, shawl etc. to the police. MO17 is the shawl and MO18 is the underskirt produced before the police. MO1 bangle, the parts of rudraksha chain contained in MO2 packet, and MO11 stud with its thirukku belong to PW4, MO3 and MO4 jimikies, MO5 and MO6 bangles, MO7 and MO8 rings, MO9 and MO10 studs and MO12 locket belonged to deceased Sheela. The person who first assaulted PW4, cut the neck of deceased Sheela with the knife. The accused persons assaulted deceased Sheela and PW4 with MOs.13 and 14. PW4 subsequently identified the gold ornaments, knife etc. before the police. The person who first assaulted PW4, cut the neck of deceased Sheela with the knife. The accused persons assaulted deceased Sheela and PW4 with MOs.13 and 14. PW4 subsequently identified the gold ornaments, knife etc. before the police. MO19 photograph of the person who cut the neck of deceased Sheela, was subsequently shown by the police to PW4 who then identified the photograph. As PW4 had sustained injuries to her neck, she could not speak for some days. PW4 had remained in the hospital at Coimbatore as an in-patient for about two weeks. 16. PW7 was conducting a tea shop at Puthur near to the house of PW2. He deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 10 to 10.15 a.m., two or three persons who were not familiar to him were found standing in the bus stop near to his tea shop. PW7 identified 2nd accused Kanakaraj in the identification parade conducted by the Magistrate as one of the persons standing in the bus stop. He was not sure whether third accused was present in the bus stop along with the second accused. 17. PW16, Dr.P.B.Gujral who was working as District Police Surgeon attached to District Hospital, Palakkad conducted post-mortem examination of deceased Sheela on 24.3.2010 and issued Ext.P23 certificate. In Ext.P23, the following injuries (ante-mortem and fresh) are noted: “(i) Contused abrasion 3x1.5 c.m., curved with convexity upwards and to left,on right forehead, 1.5 c.m., above eyebrow and 3 c.m. outer to midline with contusion 7x5x1.5 c.m. underneath, at and above eyebrow. (ii) Crescentic abrasion 0.9x0.3 c.m. with convexity upwards, on right upper eyelid, 0.5 c.m. above outer end of eye. (iii) Crescentic abrasions with convexity downwards, 0.9x0.2 c.m. each, placed 0.4 c.m. apart, on right side of face, 1.2 c.m. below outer end of right eye. (iv) Multiple contused abrasions over an area of 3x3 c.m. on right side of face, 1 c.m. below lid margin and 2 c.m. outer to nostril. (v) Crescentic abrasion 1x0.4 c.m., vertical on right side of nose, just below root of nose with contusion 3x2x0.3 c.m. underneath. (vi) Contused abrasion 2x1 c.m. on right half of lower lip, just inner to right angle of mouth with contusion 2x1.5x0.5 c.m. underneath. (vii) Contused abrasion 0.5x0.4 c.m. on right half of upper lip, just outer to midline. (viii) Contused abrasion 1x0.5 c.m. on lower lip in midline. (vi) Contused abrasion 2x1 c.m. on right half of lower lip, just inner to right angle of mouth with contusion 2x1.5x0.5 c.m. underneath. (vii) Contused abrasion 0.5x0.4 c.m. on right half of upper lip, just outer to midline. (viii) Contused abrasion 1x0.5 c.m. on lower lip in midline. (ix) Contusion 4x3x0.5 c.m., on right side of chin and right jaw margin, 3 c.m. below right angle of mouth and 3 c.m. outer to midline. (x) Incised wound 12x6x3.6 c.m. transversely oblique on front and left side of neck, right upper end 6 c.m. above right collarbone and 4 c.m. outer to midline. The left lower end was 5 c.m. above left collarbone 5.5 c.m. outer to midline. In midline front of neck, the wound was 9 c.m. below tip of chin and 4.5 c.m. above sterna notch. The ends of the wound were sharp cut. The left end had a tailing for 0.3 c.m. From the right upper end, a faint skin contusion 8x2 c.m., extended upwards and backwards to hair margin 3.5 c.m., behind left ear lobule. The wound had a side cut 3x0.5 c.m. on the upper edge, at 3.5 c.m. from the left end. There was a side cut 1x0.5 c.m., along the lower edge at 1.5 c.m. from the right end. The edges of the wound showed mild irregularity with contusion and mild blackening of the cut skin and subcutaneous tissues, apparent over an area of 6 c.m. on front and left side of the lower edge and 3.5 c.m. along the right end of upper edge. The wound cut the skin, subcutaneous tissues and muscles underneath and cut the air passage between thyroid and cricoid cartilages. The cut ends of air passages with soft tissues were seen retracted to either side giving the wound a hollow appearance and exposing the partially cut esophagus and soft tissues attached to the front aspect of spinal column. The wound cut the blood vessels including the jugular veins and carotid arteries on both sides and just cut the front portion of the esophagus. The muscles, ligaments, blood vessels and nerves in the depth of the wound were cut in an irregular manner and showed a blackish staining at places. The wound was directed backwards and downwards. The wound cut the blood vessels including the jugular veins and carotid arteries on both sides and just cut the front portion of the esophagus. The muscles, ligaments, blood vessels and nerves in the depth of the wound were cut in an irregular manner and showed a blackish staining at places. The wound was directed backwards and downwards. (xi) Incised wound 4.5x0.4x0.3 c.m. curved with convexity upwards, on front and left side of neck,1 c.m. above and parallel to the upper edge of the previous injury, right end at 1 c.m. to the right of midline front of neck. (xii) Superficial incised wound 7x0.3 c.m., transversely oblique on front and left side of neck, curved with convexity slightly downwards, left upper end at just below left lower end of injury No.10. The right lower end was at 1.2 c.m. below lower edge of injury No.10, at 1.4 c.m. to the right of midline front of neck. (xiii) Superficial incised wound 1.2x0.2 c.m. on right half of front of neck, 0.4 c.m. below right lower end of previous injury. (xiv) Superficial incised wound 1.4x0.2 c.m. on right half of front of neck, 0.2 c.m. below and parallel to previous injury. (xv) Superficial incised wound 1.4x0.2 c.m. on left half of front of neck, transversely oblique 0.5 c.m. below and parallel to injury No.10 with lower right end at 1.5 c.m. to the left of midline front of neck. (xvi) Superficial incised wound 5x0.4 c.m., transversely oblique on front and left side of neck, curved with convexity slightly downwards, left upper end 2 below lower edge of injury No.10 and 3.5 c.m. to the left of midline front of neck. The right lower end was 2.3 c.m. below lower edge of injury No.10 at 1.2 c.m. to the right of midline front of neck. (xvii) Superficial incised wound 1.8 x 0.3 c.m. oblique on left half of front of neck, upper front end at just below right lower end of injury No.10. The lower outer end was seen merging with the previous injury at 1.5 c.m. outer to midline front of neck. (xviii) Incised wound 1x0.2x0.2 c.m. vertically oblique on front of left chest, upper inner end at 4 c.m. below top of shoulder at root of neck. (xix) Incised wound 2x0.3x0.2 c.m. on front of left chest, 0.4 c.m. outer to and parallel to previous injury. (xviii) Incised wound 1x0.2x0.2 c.m. vertically oblique on front of left chest, upper inner end at 4 c.m. below top of shoulder at root of neck. (xix) Incised wound 2x0.3x0.2 c.m. on front of left chest, 0.4 c.m. outer to and parallel to previous injury. (xx) Contused abrasion 2.5x0.5 c.m. on front of left chest, transversely placed with inner end at 9 c.m. below top of shoulder and 7 c.m. outer to midline front of chest. (xxi) Contusion 3x2.5x1 c.m. on back of right elbow. (xxii) Contusion 3x2x0.5 c.m. on inner aspect of right elbow. (xxiii) Incised wound 0.5x0.2x0.2 c.m. on back and inner aspects of right index finger 2 c.m. below root of finger. (xxiv) Contused abrasion 0.5x0.2 c.m. vertical on back and outer aspects of right ring finger just above root of nail. (xxv) Crescentic abrasion with convexity outwards and downwards, 0.7x0.2 c.m. on back of right hand, vertically oblique at just above top of web space between thumb and index finger. (xxvi) Contused abrasion 0.3x0.3 c.m., on back of left hand, 1.2 c.m. above root of index finger. (xxvii) Contused abrasion 1.5x1 c.m. on back and inner aspects of left elbow. The internal injuries noted in Ext.P23 are the following: (a) Three circular scalp contusions, each having an inner diameter 3.5 c.m. and rim thickness of 1 c.m. were seen overlapping over an area of 9x7 c.m. over the left frontal prominence 3 c.m. above eyebrow and 2 c.m. outer to midline. Four circular scalp contusions of similar dimensions were seen overlapping to another scalp contusion 10x10 c.m. over the right frontal prominence, just above eyebrow and 3 c.m. outer to midline. Scalp contusion 7x7 c.m. was seen on left half of back of head 3 c.m. behind top of left ear. Scalp contusion showing circular contusions merged together over an area of 6x5 c.m. was seen also on right side of head 1 c.m. above and behind top of right ear. Subdural and sabarachnoid bleeding was present over both cerebral and cerebellar hemispheres, thicker over both frontal and temporal lobes. Brain was edematous. (b) Contusion internally, 5x4x1 c.m. on front of abdomen in midline, 8 c.m. below xiphisternum. (c) Contusion internally 4x4x2 c.m. on front and outer aspect of right chest wall, 10 c.m. below top of front armpit fold with fracture of 7th rib underneath. Brain was edematous. (b) Contusion internally, 5x4x1 c.m. on front of abdomen in midline, 8 c.m. below xiphisternum. (c) Contusion internally 4x4x2 c.m. on front and outer aspect of right chest wall, 10 c.m. below top of front armpit fold with fracture of 7th rib underneath. The evidence of PW16 further shows that Ext.P24 and Ext.P24(a) are the certificates of chemical analysis received from the Laboratory and based on Ext.P24, he issued his final opinion, Ext.P25. Based on the post-mortem findings and the result of laboratory examination, the opinion of PW16 as to the cause of death is as under : “The deceased died due to cut injury sustained to neck. She had sustained head injury prior to death, sufficient to incapacitate her. There are injuries on the body suggestive of attempted smothering. The ligature on the wrist is suggestive of attempted tying together of wrists. The ligature on neck is suggestive of attempt to prevent blood spurts from the neck wound.” Injury No.10 in Ext.P23 is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The two numbers of thorthu mentioned in Ext.P23 were handed over to the police. The items collected for chemical examination, comparison etc. were also handed over to the police. The items collected for chemical examination and comparison were packed and sealed and thereafter, those items were handed over to the police on the same day. The thorthu shown to me were the ones handed over to the police. Injury No.10 in Ext.P23 has side cuts. Those side cuts might have occurred as the weapon was used with a sawing action. That was why, there were irregularities noted in injury No.10. The mild blackening of the cut skin and subcutaneous tissues mentioned in injury No.10 in Ext.P23 is the result of the use of a kitchen knife which is in regular use in the kitchen. The irregularity of the edges of the wound shown 'in injury No.10 in Ext.P23 shows the relative less sharp edge of the blade of the knife. It is stated under injury No.10 in Ext.P23 that “the cut ends of air passages with soft tissues were seen retracted to either side giving the wound a hollow appearance and exposing the partially cut esophagus and soft tissues attaches to the front aspect of spinal column”. From the forensic point of view, that indicates necessarily fatal nature of the wound. From the forensic point of view, that indicates necessarily fatal nature of the wound. The interpretation is that throat including air passage and blood vessels is completely cut. All the midline structures up to esophagus which is positioned in front of the spinal column, are completely cut. Esophagus is partially cut. Injury Nos.10 to 19 and 23 in Ext.P23 could be produced with MO15 knife. Circular scalp contusions shown under internal injuries are patterned contusions and could be caused by an object having a circular rim at least on one side. The above circular scalp contusions could be caused by MO13 and 14 cups. The scalp contusion seen on left half of back of head 3 c.m. behind top of left ear shown under internal injury No.1 is not a patterned injury and the site of the said injury is suggestive of head hitting against a hard surface, caused by forceful hitting on the floor. The brain edematous is suggestive of at least a few minutes gap between sustaining the head injury and the terminal injury to neck. Considering the nature of the internal injury Nos.2 and 3 together and also the cut injury to neck, the said two injuries could be caused by the assailant kneeling on the body of the victim. Both knees might have been positioned on the right chest and abdomen. That is the probability. Injury No.3 under ante-mortem injuries, is indicative of forceful retraction of head backwards. Besides, the nature of the said injury is indicative of the involvement of another person, and the situation of injury No.10 also indicates such forceful retraction by another person. Injury Nos.1, 4 and 6 to 8 under ante-mortem injuries, could be caused by forceful contact of that part with a hard surface. Those injuries could be caused by forceful contact of that part with floor and by hitting also. Injury No.9 could be caused by fisting. It is noted under the heading “General” in Ext.P23 that there were three black broken hairs of size 11 cm., 4cm and 3 c.m. held in partially clenched right hand in cadaveric spasm. That indicates that in the dying moment, she grasped those hairs with blood smeared hand and that was her last act. Those hairs were smeared with blood.” 18. PW18 Dr.K.Kesava Moorthy was working as Medical Officer of Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital on 23.3.2010. That indicates that in the dying moment, she grasped those hairs with blood smeared hand and that was her last act. Those hairs were smeared with blood.” 18. PW18 Dr.K.Kesava Moorthy was working as Medical Officer of Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital on 23.3.2010. The evidence of PW18 shows that when he examined PW4 at Kovai Medical Centre and Hospital at 4.20 p.m. on 23.3.2010, he noted the following injuries on her body: “(i) Head injury, sutured wound on left forehead 6 c.m., another sutured wound on right forehead right side 2 c.m., scalp contusion on left parietal occipital region. C.T. Scan done for the brain showed focal subarachnoid haemorrhage left frontal. (ii)Facio maxillary injury, bilateral echymosis. C.T. Scan showed fracture medial wall and floor of left orbit. (iii)Small laceration on the left side of face and neck with oedema over the face and neck. (iv)Circular bruise mark front of the neck. (v) Tenderness over the right hand. X-ray showed undisplaced fracture middle phalenx of middle finger of right hand.” The evidence of PW18 further shows that injury Nos.3 and 4 in Ext.P27 wound certificate are simple injuries. PW4 was brought from the District Hospital, Palakkad after giving first aid. Though the patient was conscious, she was disoriented. She was admitted to I.C.U. She was discharged on 5.4.2010. Injury Nos.1 and 2 in Ext.P27 are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injury Nos.1 and 2 in Ext.P27 are lacerations. Injury Nos.1 and 2 in Ext.P27 could be produced by MOs.13 and 14 cups. Injury No.5 in Ext.P27 could be caused during the course of pushing down by force. Injury Nos.3 and 4 in Ext.P27 could be caused by strangulation by hand or thorthu. 19. PW29 Nigar Babu was a Finger Print Expert at Palakkad. He deposed that he along with PWs.15, 30 and 31 inspected the scene of occurrence involved in this case and conducted the examination between 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. He developed some chance prints from the scene of occurrence. He developed chance print from the screen of the television kept in the drawing-cum-dining hall and also from the sliding cupboard under the television. The chance prints were photographed by PW31. On 30.3.2010, the fingerprint slip of one Kanakaraj (second accused) was received in the Bureau from the Investigating Officer. He developed chance print from the screen of the television kept in the drawing-cum-dining hall and also from the sliding cupboard under the television. The chance prints were photographed by PW31. On 30.3.2010, the fingerprint slip of one Kanakaraj (second accused) was received in the Bureau from the Investigating Officer. The said fingerprint slip was registered as daily arrest slip No.116/DA/2010-P. On comparison of the above fingerprint slip with the chance print, it was found that the chance print developed by PW29 from the screen of the television was identical with the right little finger impression of Kanakaraj. The evidence of PW29 also shows that the said chance print was marked as 'TN' and the specimen right little finger impression of Kanakaraj taken from daily arrest slip was marked as 'S'. According to PW29, the said chance print and specimen finger impression are identical since they possessed identical ridge characteristics in their nature and relative positions. Ext.P38 is the report of PW29 which contains the opinion of PW29 as follows : “The chance print TN is made by right little finger of Kanakaraj”. 20. PW46 Vasudevan was working as Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel at Ernakulam. The evidence of PW46 shows that the customer of the mobile phone No.9003747147 is the second accused Kanakaraj. Ext.P73 call details and Ext.P74 tower identification chart in respect of the aforesaid mobile phone number show that on 23.3.2010 at 7.7.24 hours, the tower location of the aforesaid mobile phone number was Ottappalam. At 7.20.09 hours on the aforesaid date, the tower location of the said mobile phone number was Pathiripala Tower. At 8.14.33 hours, the tower location of the said mobile phone number was Palakkad West Fort Tower. At 10.58.03 hours on the aforesaid date, the tower location of the aforesaid mobile phone number was Victoria College Tower. At 13.1.18 hours on the aforesaid date, the tower location of the aforesaid mobile phone number was Walayar Entry Tower. It is evident from the aforesaid tower locations that at about 11.00 a.m., the second accused was present within the local limit of Victoria College Tower. The evidence of PW2 shows that his tyre shop is situated on Victoria College Road, 1 K.M., away from his house. It shows that the second accused was present in the vicinity of the house of deceased Sheela at about 11.00 a.m. on 23.3.2010. The evidence of PW2 shows that his tyre shop is situated on Victoria College Road, 1 K.M., away from his house. It shows that the second accused was present in the vicinity of the house of deceased Sheela at about 11.00 a.m. on 23.3.2010. This supports the version of PW4 concerning the presence of the second accused in the house of deceased Sheela at the time of occurrence. 21. PW15 Abdul Rahim was working as Finger Print Expert in Single Digit Finger Print Bureau Palakkad. He deposed that on 23.3.2010, he took chance finger prints from the house of deceased Sheela from the door frame leading to the kitchen and chance prints were photographed by PW31 Police Photographer. The finger print of first accused was received from Palakkad Town North Police Station from daily arrest slip. PW15 deposed that after the death of first accused Sampath, he took the finger print of the dead body of Sampath at the mortuary of District Hospital Palakkad in the presence of PW30. PW30 is the Tester inspector of Single Digit Finger Print Bureau, Palakkad. The testimony of PW15 shows that the chance prints taken from the door frame leading to kitchen were identical with thumb impression of the first accused Sampath taken in the daily arrest slip and the thumb impression taken from the dead body of first accused Sampath. Therefore, it can be inferred that first accused Sampath was present at the time of occurrence in the house of deceased Sheela. 22. PW29 was working as a Finger Print Expert at Single Digit Finger Bureau at Palakkad. PW29 deposed that he developed chance prints from the screen of television kept in the drawing-cum-dining hall and also from sliding cupboard under the television kept in the house of PW2. When compared with the finger print taken at the time of arrest of the second accused/Kanakaraj, it was found that they were identical with the right little finger impression in the daily arrest slip of the second accused. The finger print of the second accused was taken in the arrest slip by PW47, who was working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Palakkad. The finger print of the second accused was taken in the arrest slip by PW47, who was working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Palakkad. The court below refused to accept that expert evidence on the ground that there was nothing on record to show that finger print was taken by the police for the purpose of investigation under the orders of the Magistrate, as stated in Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act. 23. PW51 P.Vipindas was the Circle Inspector of Police, Palakkad Town North Police Station. He took over the investigation on 23.3.2010. But, he turned hostile to the prosecution case at the time of examination before court. PW51 was not prepared to admit that he arrested the accused persons and as he was not sticking to the documents prepared by him in connection with the arrest of the accused. The prosecution sought permission of the court to put leading questions. The relevant portion of the judgment relating to the evidence tendered by PW51 reads as follows : "PW51 has deposed that he did not arrest the accused persons 1 to 3 in this case. But he has admitted that Ext.P45 seizure mahazar bears his signature. Ext.P45 shows that M.Os.31 to 33 were seized from the second accused who was arrested by PW51 on 29.3.2010 at 8.30 a.m. at Palakkad Town North Police Station. PW51 also admitted his signature in Ext.P8 seizure mahazar dated 29.3.2010 under which two broken parts of rudraksha chain contained in MO2, MO3 and MO4 were taken into custody from the first accused. PW51 also admitted his signature in Ext.P9 seizure mahazar under which MO1 bangle was taken into custody from the third accused on 29.3.2010. The evidence of PW51 shows that he produced the accused persons 2 and 3 in the court on 30.3.2010 and he filed Ext.P89 remand report in the court on the aforesaid date. The arrest of the accused persons is mentioned in Ext.P89. The evidence of PW51 illustrates that Ext.P92 arrest memo of the second accused bears the signature of PW51, that Ext.P93 inspection memo in respect of the arrest of the second accused bears the signature of PW51, and that Ext.P94 arrest memo in respect of the accused persons 1 and 3 bears the signature of PW51. The evidence of PW51 illustrates that Ext.P92 arrest memo of the second accused bears the signature of PW51, that Ext.P93 inspection memo in respect of the arrest of the second accused bears the signature of PW51, and that Ext.P94 arrest memo in respect of the accused persons 1 and 3 bears the signature of PW51. According to PW51, Ext.P95 which is the inspection memo in respect of the arrest of the first accused and Ext.P96 inspection memo which was prepared in respect of the arrest of the third accused, bear the signature of PW51, and that the said two documents were produced in the court by PW51. PW51 produced Ext.P97 report showing the names and addresses of the accused persons in the court. PW51 produced Ext.P98 property list when the items viz., notes, parts of rudraksha chain and a pair of jimikies seized from the first accused were produced in the court. PW51 filed Ext.P100 report in the court on the intimation given to the relatives of the accused persons about their arrest. PW51 filed Ext.P101 forwarding note in the court requesting to send the M.Os. for chemical examination. The evidence of PW51 shows that the place and time of the arrest of the accused persons are mentioned in the arrest memo, inspection memo etc. He has admitted that in the case diary, the arrest of the accused persons by PW51 is recorded. PW51 has also admitted that the statements of the accused persons 1 to 3 have been recorded in his handwriting. In Exts.P8 and P9, the time of the arrest and the details of the M.Os. taken into custody are shown. PW51 has admitted that the accused persons were remanded to judicial custody on the basis of the remand report submitted by PW51 to the court. PW51 has admitted that it is stated in Ext.P89 that the second accused was arrested at the Palakkad Town North Police Station at 8.30 a.m. on 29.3.2010, and that when the second accused was questioned, the involvement of the accused persons 1 to 3 and their location were revealed. According to PW51, it is also stated in Ext.P89 remand report that the accused persons 1 and 3 were arrested as shown by the second accused and the details of the M.Os. seized from the accused persons 1 and 3 are mentioned in Ext.P89. According to PW51, it is also stated in Ext.P89 remand report that the accused persons 1 and 3 were arrested as shown by the second accused and the details of the M.Os. seized from the accused persons 1 and 3 are mentioned in Ext.P89. The evidence of PW51 shows that in Ext.P89, it is stated that when the police along with the second accused reached Koundanpalayam, the accused persons 1 and 3 attempted to run away and then PW51 and the police party chased after them and arrested the said accused persons using sufficient force. PW51 has admitted that he prepared Ext.P9, and that the M.Os. mentioned in Exts.P8 and P9 were produced by PW51 in the court along with Exts.P98 and P99 property lists. PW51 has admitted that in Ext.P98, it is stated that PW51 arrested the first accused at 12.30 p.m. on 29.3.2010 and took the M.Os. found on his body into custody under a mahazar, and that in Ext.P99 it is stated that PW51 arrested the third accused at 1.30 p.m. on 29.3.2010 and took the M.Os. found on his body into custody under a mahazar. PW51 has also admitted that in the arrest memo and inspection memo produced in the court, it is stated that PW51 arrested the accused persons, and that the date and time of the arrest are also mentioned therein. It is evident from the evidence of PW51 that it is stated in Ext.P102 that on 29.3.2010 at 8.30 a.m., the second accused was arrested at Palakkad Town North Police Station, and that the accused persons 1 and 3 were arrested from Koundanpalayam at 12.30 p.m. on 29.3.2010. Admittedly, on 29.3.2010, PW51 was conducting the investigation into this case. The evidence of PW51 shows that the first accused Sampath died on 29.3.2010. According to PW51, in Ext.P103 property list filed by PW51 in the court, it is stated that the second accused was arrested at 8.45 a.m. on 29.3.2010. Admittedly, on 29.3.2010, PW51 was conducting the investigation into this case. The evidence of PW51 shows that the first accused Sampath died on 29.3.2010. According to PW51, in Ext.P103 property list filed by PW51 in the court, it is stated that the second accused was arrested at 8.45 a.m. on 29.3.2010. The evidence of PW51 shows that as the first accused died in police custody on 29.3.2010, a case was registered under Section 302 of the I.P.C. at Palakkad Town North Police Station as crime No.251/2010, that though the said case was investigated by Crime Branch, the investigation was subsequently handed over to C.B.I., that PW51 has been placed under suspension after the death of the first accused, and that PW51 is one of the accused persons in the said case. The suggestion put by the learned Special Public Prosecutor to PW51 shows that if PW51 has admitted in this court that he prepared the documents, the said admission will have detrimental effect on him in the case registered against him and so PW51 has deposed falsely in this case with intent to get away from the case registered against him. It is true, PW51 has denied the said suggestion. But the evidence of PW51 discussed above shows that PW51 who had conducted investigation into this case from 23.3.2010 to 5.4.2010 had arrested the accused persons and he produced the accused persons 2 and 3 in the court, and that as PW51 is arrayed for the death of the first accused in police custody, PW51 has deposed as mentioned above in this case with intent to get away from the case registered against him following the death of the first accused in the police custody." 24. PW52, M.K.Pushkaran was the Administration Dy.S.P., Palakkad, who took over the investigation on 6.4.2010, as per the order of the Superintendent of Police, Palakkad. The relevant portion of the judgment of the court below regarding the investigation reads as follows : "100. The evidence of PW52 shows that when he questioned the second accused, he received Ext.P107 information and in consequence of that information, MO22 was recovered from PW11 under Ext.P10 mahazar on 12.4.2010. PW11 and PW36 have supported the said version of PW52. The relevant portion of the judgment of the court below regarding the investigation reads as follows : "100. The evidence of PW52 shows that when he questioned the second accused, he received Ext.P107 information and in consequence of that information, MO22 was recovered from PW11 under Ext.P10 mahazar on 12.4.2010. PW11 and PW36 have supported the said version of PW52. The evidence of PW52 also shows that when he questioned the third accused, he received Ext.P108 information from the third accused and in consequence of that information, M.Os.5,6, 9 and 10 were recovered from PW12 under Ext.P11 mahazar on 12.4.2010. PW12 has supported the aforesaid version of PW52. It is evident from the evidence of PW52 that when he questioned the second accused, he received Ext.P110 information from the second accused and in consequence of that information, M.O.7 was recovered from PW13 under Ext.P12 on 12.4.2010. PW13 has supported the said version of PW52. It is evident from the evidence of PW52 that when he questioned the second accused, he received Ext.P112 information from the second accused and in consequence of that information, MO30 was recovered from PW37 under Ext.P44 on 12.4.2010. Pws.37 and 38 have supported the said version of PW52. The evidence of PW52 shows that when he questioned the second accused, Ext.P114 information was received from the second accused and in consequence of that information, Mos.8, 11, 12 broken parts of thirivu contained in M.O.23 packet and M.Os.24 to 26 were recovered under Ext.P30 on 13.4.2010. PW48 has supported the aforesaid version of PW52. 101. The evidence of PW52 shows that he took over the investigation into this case on 6.4.2010 and before that PW51 was conducting investigation into this case. The evidence of PW52 further shows that when the accused persons were questioned by him, they gave statements to PW52 similar to the statements given by them to PW51. It shows that PW51 had already received the informations from the accused persons 2 and 3 concerning the articles recovered by PW52. It has come out in evidence that PW51 had received the aforesaid informations from the accused persons before 6.4.2010 and that PW52 had received the said informations from the accused persons on 12.4.2010. It shows that the informations conveyed by the accused persons to PW52 were previously known to the police. It has come out in evidence that PW51 had received the aforesaid informations from the accused persons before 6.4.2010 and that PW52 had received the said informations from the accused persons on 12.4.2010. It shows that the informations conveyed by the accused persons to PW52 were previously known to the police. This is not a case where the informations were received by one police officer and the recovery was effected by another police officer on the basis of that informations. This is a case where informations allegedly conveyed by the accused persons to PW52 were previously known to the police. In the circumstances, it has to be found that the informations received from the accused persons, mentioned by PW52, are not admissible." 25. D.Ws.1 to 3 are examined on the side of the defence to show that the second accused was not arrested by PW51 from Palakkad Town North Police Station at 8.30 p.m. on 29.3.2010. It has already been found from the entry in Ext.D18 series that PW51 was not present in Palakkad Town North Police Station at 8.30 a.m. on 29.3.2010. 26. In the decision of the Apex Court reported in State of Rajasthan v. Kishore (AIR 1996 Supreme Court 3035), it was held thus : “Mere fact that the investigating officer committed irregularity or illegality during the course of the investigation would not and does not cast doubt on the prosecution case nor trust worthy and reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on that account.” 27. The Apex Court has also observed in State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (AIR 2000 Supreme Court 185) thus : “19. x x x x x x It is well nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise criminal trial will plummet to the level of the Investigating Officer ruling the roost. The Court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by Investigating Officers. Criminal justice should not be made the casualty for the wrongs committed by the Investigating Officers in the case. In other words, if the Court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the Court is free to act on it albeit Investigating Officer's suspicious role in the case”. 28. Criminal justice should not be made the casualty for the wrongs committed by the Investigating Officers in the case. In other words, if the Court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the Court is free to act on it albeit Investigating Officer's suspicious role in the case”. 28. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the court below found that the illegality or irregularity committed by the Investigating Officers during the course of investigation cannot be a ground to discard the trustworthy and reliable evidence. Since PW4 sustained grievous injuries in the incident, her presence at the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. PW4 identified the second accused Kanakaraj in court and at the time of conducting identification parade. PW4 also identified the photograph of the first accused Sampath as the person who was present along? With the second accused. Since the testimony of PW4 is corroborated by medical evidence and other evidence, we are of the view that the court below is fully justified in finding that the second accused Kanakaraj committed the offence along with the first accused Sampath. Since second accused Kanakaraj caught hold of the hands and head of deceased Sheela in order to facilitate the first accused Sampath to commit murder by sawing her neck by using the kitchen knife, the second accused shared the common intention of the first accused to commit murder of deceased Sheela. As found by the court below, the prosecution has succeeded to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the second accused along with the first accused committed house trespass, in order to commit murder of deceased Sheela and robbery of the gold ornaments of deceased Sheela and PW4 and other items including mobile phones and that the second accused caused grievous injuries to PW4 with the intention to cause her death. Therefore, the court below is perfectly justified in convicting the second accused under Sections 449 and 302 read with section 34 of the I.P.C., Sections 307 and 392 read with Section 397 of the I.P.C. 29. The normal sentence for murder is imprisonment for life and not sentence of death. The court must give special reasons for awarding death sentence. Special reasons mean special facts and circumstances obtained in the case justifying the extreme penalty. The normal sentence for murder is imprisonment for life and not sentence of death. The court must give special reasons for awarding death sentence. Special reasons mean special facts and circumstances obtained in the case justifying the extreme penalty. In the present case, it has come out in evidence that accused 1 and 2 trespassed into the house of PW2 with the main objective to commit robbery and they were not carrying any weapons with them and there was no pre-meditated plan to commit murder of any person. The first accused Sampath had worked in the shop of PW2 for 14 days, two years before the incident. Accused 1 and 2 were compelled to murder Sheela when she identified the first accused as Sampath. The first accused Sampath, who actually committed murder of Sheela died while he was in police custody. The question whether accused 1 and 2 trespassed into the house of PW2 with the knowledge that it was the house of PW2 or not is not clear from the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution. It has also come out in evidence that the first accused Sampath died in police custody just before the completion of investigation after collecting all possible evidence. In the decision reported in Devendra Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1759), it was held that sentence of death should not be imposed where all the true facts have not been fully brought to light though guilt has been proved. In the present case, even though the guilt of the second accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt, the entire facts leading to the death of Sheela and the first accused Sampath have not been brought to light. Considering all these aspects of the matter, we are of the view that the sentence of death imposed on second accused by the court below under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. has to be set aside and to be converted into imprisonment for life and the sentence imposed under other Sections has to be confirmed. 30. As already mentioned, in Crl.Appeal No.1211 of 2012, the State is challenging the judgment in S.C.No.592 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court No.1, Palakkad in acquitting the third accused Manikandan. In the decision reported in Lalit Kumar Sharma and others v. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Govt. 30. As already mentioned, in Crl.Appeal No.1211 of 2012, the State is challenging the judgment in S.C.No.592 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court No.1, Palakkad in acquitting the third accused Manikandan. In the decision reported in Lalit Kumar Sharma and others v. Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Govt. of W.B. (AIR 1989 Supreme Court 2134), it was held thus : “It is now well settled that the power of an appellate Court to review evidence in appeals against acquittal is as extensive as its powers in appeals against convictions, but that power is with a note of caution that the appellate Court should be slow in interfering with the orders of acquittal unless there are compelling reasons to do so. If a finding reached by the trial Judge cannot be said to be an unreasonable finding, then the appellate Court should not disturb that finding even if it is possible to reach a different conclusion on the basis of the material on record.” 31. The prosecution case against the third accused Manikandan is that he was asked by accused 1 and 2 to keep watch in the courtyard of the house of PW2 while accused 1 and 2 trespassed into the house of PW2 in order to commit robbery and murder. PW44 Sheela Sara Abraham was working as the Nodal Officer at Tata Tele Services, Ernakulam. Regarding the call details of the mobile phone of the third accused, the court below discussed in the judgment as follows : “The evidence of PW44 shows that the subscriber of the mobile phone No.8015810668 is the third accused Manikandan. Ext.P54 is the call data records of the aforesaid mobile phone number issued by PW44. Ext.P54 covers the period from 20.3.2010 to 28.3.2010. Ext.P57 is the tower location chart. It is evident from Exts.P54 and P57 that on 23.3.2010 at 7.07.21 hours, there was an outgoing call from the aforesaid mobile phone number to mobile phone No.9003747147 and at that time, the tower location of mobile phone No.8015810668 was Coimbatore. At 08.03.11 hours on the aforesaid date, there was an incoming call from mobile phone No.9003747147 to mobile phone No. 8015810668 and at that time, the tower location of mobile phone No. 8015810668 was ACC at Coimbatore. At 08.03.11 hours on the aforesaid date, there was an incoming call from mobile phone No.9003747147 to mobile phone No. 8015810668 and at that time, the tower location of mobile phone No. 8015810668 was ACC at Coimbatore. At 08.45.56 hours on 23.3.2010, there was an outgoing call from the mobile phone No.9003747147 to mobile phone No. 8015810668 and at that time, the tower location of mobile phone No. 8015810668 was Chandranagar. At 16.43.35 hours on the aforesaid date, there was an outgoing call from the mobile phone No.8015810668 and at that time, the tower location of the said mobile phone was Big Bazaar Street at Coimbatore. From the aforesaid call data records, it is evident that on 23.3.2010 at about 8.46 a.m., the mobile phone No. 8015810668 was being used within the limit of Chandranagar tower at Palakkad. It has already been found that the third accused was the subscriber of the said mobile phone number. It shows that the third accused was present within the local limits of Chandranagar tower at the aforesaid time on 23.3.2010. The incident took place on the aforesaid date. The evidence of PW46 shows that the customer of mobile phone No.9003747147 was the second accused Kanakaraj. The evidence of PW46 further shows that on 23.3.2010 at 08.03.11 hours, there was no outgoing call from the mobile phone No.9003747147 to the mobile phone No. 8015810668, and that at 8.45.56 hours on 23.3.2010, there was no outgoing call from the mobile phone No.9003747147 to the mobile phone No. 8015810668. In view of the above version of PW46, it is rather difficult to rely on Exts.P54 and P57 to find that the third accused was present within the local limits of Chandranagar tower at Palakkad at 8.45 a.m. on 23.3.2010. So the evidence of PW44 and Exts.P54 and P57 cannot be relied upon to find that the third accused was involved in the commission of the offences brought against him.” We fully agree with the said finding of the court below. 32. Regarding the recovery of articles at the instance of the third accused, the court below discussed the same in paragraph 101 of the judgment. Paragraph 101 reads as follows : 101. The evidence of PW52 shows that he took over the investigation into this case on 6.4.2010 and before that PW51 was conducting investigation into this case. 32. Regarding the recovery of articles at the instance of the third accused, the court below discussed the same in paragraph 101 of the judgment. Paragraph 101 reads as follows : 101. The evidence of PW52 shows that he took over the investigation into this case on 6.4.2010 and before that PW51 was conducting investigation into this case. The evidence of PW52 further shows that when the accused persons were questioned by him, they gave statements to PW52 similar to the statements given by them to PW51. It shows that PW51 had already received the informations from the accused persons 2 and 3 concerning the articles recovered by PW52. It has come out in evidence that PW51 had received the aforesaid informations from the accused persons before 6.4.2010 and that PW52 had received the said informations from the accused persons on 12.4.2010. It shows that the informations conveyed by the accused persons to PW52 were previously known to the police. This is not a case where the informations were received by one police officer and the recovery was effected by another police officer on the basis of that informations. This is a case where informations allegedly conveyed by the accused persons to PW52 were previously known to the police. In the circumstances, it has to be found that the informations received from the accused persons, mentioned by PW52, are not admissible.” 33. Therefore, practically, there is no reliable evidence to connect the third accused with the crime committed by accused 1 and 2. In that view of the matter, the court below is fully justified in acquitting the third accused Manikandan. Therefore, Crl. Appeal No.1211 of 2012 is liable to be dismissed. 34. Accordingly, Crl. Appeal No.1186 of 2011 is allowed in part. The conviction of the second accused Kanakaraj under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., Sections 449, 307 and 392 read with Section 397 of the I.P.C. is confirmed. The sentence of death of the second accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is set aside and converted into imprisonment for life. The sentence imposed for the other offences is confirmed. The substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The second accused is entitled to get set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court below is directed to issue revised committal warrant against the second accused. The sentence imposed for the other offences is confirmed. The substantive sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The second accused is entitled to get set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court below is directed to issue revised committal warrant against the second accused. D.S.R. No.1 of 2011 is answered as follows : The death sentence imposed on the second accused Kanakaraj under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. is set aside and converted into imprisonment for life. Crl.Appeal No.1211 of 2012 filed by the State is dismissed as it is without any merits.