Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 760 (MAD)

Suthakaran v. State Rep. By Inspector of Police

2016-02-25

P.DEVADASS, S.NAGAMUTHU

body2016
JUDGMENT : S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 respectively in S.C.No.185 of 2010 on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. They stood charged for offences under Sections 120(B) r/w 302, 302 r/w 201 and 307 of IPC. By judgment dated 27.09.2012, the trial court convicted them under all the charges and sentenced them under Section 307 IPC to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months; under Section 302 IPC, to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and under Section 201 r/w 302 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. No separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 120-B IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Mr. Sivashanmugam. P.W.12 is his wife. They were residing at the house bearing door No.14/10, R.V.Nagar, Tiruppur. The deceased was doing Mydha business. The first accused was also doing the same business. On account of the business transaction, the deceased and the first accused were closely moving with each other and they used to go out for making collections and for the purchase of materials. Thus, the first accused was the family friend of the deceased. The deceased also used to visit the house of the first accused frequently, as a family friend. The first accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the deceased. On few occasions, the deceased had visited the house of the first accused when the first accused and his father were not available and his mother alone was available. The first accused had a suspicion that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with his mother. On one occasion, when the deceased had visited the house of the first accused, the first accused questioned the deceased as to what for he had come to his house. The deceased explained to him that he had come there only to demand payment of Rs.50,000/-, which he had already lent. On one occasion, when the deceased had visited the house of the first accused, the first accused questioned the deceased as to what for he had come to his house. The deceased explained to him that he had come there only to demand payment of Rs.50,000/-, which he had already lent. It is further alleged that on account of the above suspicion, the first accused had decided to do away with the deceased. The second accused is a close relative of the first accused. It is further alleged that on 19.06.2016, both the accused had conspired to commit the murder of the deceased. 3. It is further alleged that on 19.06.2006 at about 5.00 p.m., the first accused came to the house of the deceased. At that time the deceased was not available. The first accused was talking to the wife of the deceased (P.W.12) for some time. Then her husband returned around 9.00 p.m. on the same day. The first accused and the deceased together went out in a motorcycle belonging to the deceased for the purpose of collection. Normally, the deceased would return after collection within a short while. But, on that day, he did not return. 4. It is alleged that the first accused, who went out along with the deceased in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN.39 AA 0978, after completing the collection by returning towards Thiruppur, the deceased intended to drop the first accused at his house. When the motorcycle came near the culvert, which is few yards away from the house of the first accused, the second accused was already waiting for them. The second accused made a gesture to the deceased to stop the motorcycle. Accordingly, he stopped the motorcycle. Immediately, the second accused attacked the deceased with wooden reaper on his head and the other parts of the body. The first accused snatched the said wooden reaper from the second accused and he also repeatedly attacked him. Thus, on account of the attack made by both the accused, the deceased died on the spot. This occurrence, according to the prosecution, was witnessed by P.W.10. Thereafter, with a view to erase the evidence, accused 1 and 2 carried the dead body in the very same motorcycle and threw the same in a pit near Rohini Garments. They abandoned the motorcycle in a different place. 5. This occurrence, according to the prosecution, was witnessed by P.W.10. Thereafter, with a view to erase the evidence, accused 1 and 2 carried the dead body in the very same motorcycle and threw the same in a pit near Rohini Garments. They abandoned the motorcycle in a different place. 5. Meanwhile, P.W.12, on coming to know that her husband had not returned home, tried to speak to him over phone. At 11.30 p.m., the deceased himself came on phone and informed P.W.12 that he along with the first accused had finished their dinner and therefore, she need not prepare food for him. He advised P.W.12 to go for sleep informing that he would return soon. Till 1.00 'O' clock, the deceased did not return. In normal course, the deceased would have returned by 12'.00 mid night. Therefore, by 1.20 a.m., she tried to contact her husband over cell phone. But, there was no response. The cell phone of her husband was in the switch off mode. 6. Since, the first accused had gone along with the deceased, at 1.30 a.m., P.W.12 contacted him through his cell phone. He told P.W.12 that since, the motorcycle had developed a snag, he along with the deceased was returning by walk and therefore, it would take some more time for reaching their respective houses. P.W.12 believed the words of the first accused and she was waiting for the return of her husband. 7. Around 2.00 p.m., when P.W.12 was inside her house, she heard that somebody was knocking at the door of the main entrance of the house. When she opened, she found the second accused standing with gloves in both of his hands. The first accused was also standing. But, he was not wearing any gloves. The first accused, to the shock of P.W.12, informed her that the deceased had met with a minor accident. He wanted P.W.12 to get ready to go and see her husband. P.W.12 agreed with the same and entered into her bedroom for changing her dress and when she was so changing her dress, suddenly, the first accused entered into the room with a nylon rope and by putting the rope around her neck, constricted her neck. P.W.12 tried to safeguard herself by trying to remove the rope from her neck. P.W.12 agreed with the same and entered into her bedroom for changing her dress and when she was so changing her dress, suddenly, the first accused entered into the room with a nylon rope and by putting the rope around her neck, constricted her neck. P.W.12 tried to safeguard herself by trying to remove the rope from her neck. She begged the first accused not to cause any harm to her and if he wanted he could take the jewels owned by her. She further told that she would inform her husband about the same. The first accused replied that the story of her husband had already been finished and they had come there only to finish her life. When the first accused was still constricting her neck, the second accused was holding her shoulders facilitating the first accused to further constrict. P.W.12 bite the hands of the second accused and cried for help. She raised alarm calling the name of one Vasanthi (P.W.5), who was a neighbour. 8. P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6, who are all neighbors, on hearing the alarm raised by P.W.12, rushed out of their houses towards the house of the deceased. On seeing them, both the accused fled away from the seen of occurrence. All the witnesses claimed that they saw both the accused inside the house of P.W.12, when they ran out from the house of the deceased. 9. In the above occurrence, P.W.12 has sustained injuries on her neck and other parts of the body. P.W.1 and others told her to wait till the morning, since, it was too late in the night to make complaint to the Police. When she was at her home, the patrol police came that way, in a routine fashion. P.W.12 and others informed the Police about the occurrence. The patrol police took P.W.12 in the police van to the police station. At the police station, P.W.12 made a compliant in respect of the said occurrence under Ex.P.7. 10. P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P.7, registered a case in Crime No.947 of 2006 under Section 307 IPC. Ex.P.16 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded Exs.P7 and P.16 to the Court. Then he referred P.W.12 for treatment to the Government Hospital at Thiruppur. P.W.3, Dr.Somasundaram examined P.W.12 at the hospital at 2.00 a.m. on 20.06.2006. 10. P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P.7, registered a case in Crime No.947 of 2006 under Section 307 IPC. Ex.P.16 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded Exs.P7 and P.16 to the Court. Then he referred P.W.12 for treatment to the Government Hospital at Thiruppur. P.W.3, Dr.Somasundaram examined P.W.12 at the hospital at 2.00 a.m. on 20.06.2006. P.W.12 told P.W.3 that she was attacked by one known person and one unknown person and they constricted her neck. On examination, P.W.3 found the following injuries on P.W.12: 1. Aberration on the left cheek. 2. Ligature measuring 7X2 c.m. on the right side of the neck. 3. An aberration measuring 1X.5 c.m. on the lower left lip. Ex.P1 is the wound certificate. 11. P.W.21, the then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation at 6.30 a.m., and proceeded to the place of occurrence. In the place of occurrence, in the presence of P.W.12 and another witnesses, he recovered M.Os.4 to 8 and 16 to 19 from the place of occurrence under Ex.P.8 Mahazar. 12. When the investigation was in progress, P.W.21 got information that a dead body of a male was found near Paraikuzhi near Rohini Garments. P.W.21 along with P.W.12 proceeded to the said place, where P.W.12 identified the dead body as that of her husband Mr. Shivashanmugam. P.W.21, therefore, altered the case into one under Section 302 IPC. 13. Then, at the place of occurrence, where the dead body was found, P.W.21 prepared an observation mahazar at 9.15 a.m. in the presence of witnesses. He also prepared a rough sketch showing the place where the dead body was found. He recovered blood stained earth and the sample earth in the said place and cash of Rs.3,440/- from the dead body under Ex.P11 mahazar in the presence of P.W.12. Then he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P.20 Inquest Report. Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem. 14. P.W.4, Dr.Somasundaram, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 21.06.2006 at 12.00 p.m., and he found the following injuries on the dead body: External Injuries: 1. Lacerated injury on the occipital 3 x 1 bone deep. 2. Lacerated injury on the vertex 3 X 1 bone deep 3. Lacerated injury near injury No.2; Abrasion in the left side of the lower back 4. Abrasion in the left toe 5. Lacerated injury on the occipital 3 x 1 bone deep. 2. Lacerated injury on the vertex 3 X 1 bone deep 3. Lacerated injury near injury No.2; Abrasion in the left side of the lower back 4. Abrasion in the left toe 5. A laceration on the left shoulder 6. Abrasion on the left elbow. Internal injuries: 1. Fracture of the skull in the sagittal plane extending from the middle of frontal bone to the occipital. 2. Membranous lacerated subdural hemorrhage present on both cranial fossa. 3. Brain intact. 4. No fracture in the base of skull. 5. Hyoid intact. 6. Chest wall intact. 7. No fracture in the ribs. 8. Abdomen full with undigested food 200 gms. 9. Liver, spleen, kidneys intact and pale. 10. Bladder empty. 11. Genitalia intact 12. Heart and lungs intact. All viscera pale. 13. Blood preserved for analysis as per police report. Ex.P2 is the Postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. 15. When the investigation was still in progress, P.W.21 came to know that the motorcycle belonging to the deceased was found abandoned at RVE Nagar, 2nd Street. He immediately went to the said place and recovered the same under a mahazar (vide M.O.15). In the motorcycle, there were blood stains. He took the blood stains in a cotton and recovered the same under a mahazar. Thereafter, he handed over the case diary to P.W.23, his successor. 16. The accused 1 and 2 had in the meanwhile surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur. P.W.23, the then Inspector of Police took police custody of both the accused, as per the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirupur on 30.06.2006. While in custody, on 01.07.2006 at 7.00 a.m., both the accused gave independent voluntary confession, in which, the first accused had disclosed the place where he had hidden M.O.1 blood stained shirt and the second accused disclosed the place where he had hidden M.O.2 blood stained shirt. Both shirts were recovered under mahazars in pursuance of the above disclosure statement made by both the accused. On completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer, laid charge sheet against both the accused. 17. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges on the accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. On completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer, laid charge sheet against both the accused. 17. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges on the accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the same, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 23 witnesses were examined, 35 documents and 19 material objects were marked. 18. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 8 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.1, P.W.5 (wife of P.W.1) and P.W.6 (son of P.W.1), neighbours of the deceased have stated that, on the date of occurrence, when they were sleeping in their house, they heard the alarm raised by P.W.12, and when they rushed to the house of the deceased, they found two persons running out of the said house and when they entered into the house, they found P.W.12 with injuries. Then they have further stated that they persuaded P.W.12 to give complaint in the morning as it was too late in the mid night. They have also stated that on 20.06.2006, they went to the police station, where a complaint was made. 19. P.W.3 Dr.Somasundaram has spoken about the admission of P.W.12 in the hospital, the injury found on her and the treatment given to her. According to him, the injuries were simple in nature and the injuries caused on her neck were by strangulation. P.W.4 Dr.Ravichandran has stated about the autopsy conducted on the dead body of the deceased and also his final opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased. P.W.10 is a close friend of the deceased. According to him, on the date of occurrence, when he was going near the house of the deceased, he found these two accused attacking the deceased with a wooden reaper. He has further stated that, he found two persons taking the dead body of the deceased in a motorcycle. P.W.7 stated that he saw two persons throwing the dead body into a pit. P.W.11 has stated about the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 and the disclosure statements made by both the accused. 20. P.W.12, the wife of the deceased has stated about the entire occurrence at her house. P.W.7 stated that he saw two persons throwing the dead body into a pit. P.W.11 has stated about the recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 and the disclosure statements made by both the accused. 20. P.W.12, the wife of the deceased has stated about the entire occurrence at her house. She had stated that the deceased lastly left her house at 9.00 a.m. along with the first accused in the motorcycle in question. She has further stated that the first accused spoke to her over phone and informed that the motorcycle had a snag and therefore, they were returning by walk. She had further stated that at 2.00 a.m. when she was sleeping, both the accused came there and at that time, the first accused told her that the deceased had met with an accident. He wanted her to accompany them to go and see him. She further stated that when she was preparing herself in the bed room, both the accused entered into the bedroom and the first accused suddenly put a rope around her neck and started strangulating her. The second accused also helped him by holding the shoulders of P.W.12. She has further stated that she raised alarm, which attracted P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 to the place of occurrence. P.W.13 has spoken about the observation mahazar prepared at the house of P.W.12. P.W.14 is the Constable, who took the dead body for postmortem. P.W.15, Head Clerk of the Magisterial court has spoken about the fact that he forwarded the material objects for chemical analysis on the orders of the learned Magistrate. The results revealed that there were human bloods on the Material Objects including the wooden reaper. P.W.16 is the Constable, who carried the FIR to the Court. P.Ws.17 and 18 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.19, the then Village Assistant of the Thiruppur District, has spoken about the recoveries of the material objects. P.W.20 has stated that he found the motorcycle of the deceased abandoned and then he informed the same to the police. P.Ws.21 and 23 are the Investigating Officers, who have stated about the registration of the case and the investigation done by them. P.W.22, the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department, has stated that blood stains were found on all the material objects. 21. P.Ws.21 and 23 are the Investigating Officers, who have stated about the registration of the case and the investigation done by them. P.W.22, the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department, has stated that blood stains were found on all the material objects. 21. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side nor did they mark any document. Their defence was a total denial. 22. Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted the accused and accordingly punished them as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. That is how, the accused are now before this court with this criminal appeal. 23. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 24. The narration of the above facts would go to show that there were two occurrences. In the first occurrence, the deceased was killed and the dead body of the deceased was thrown at a distance, in a pit. In the second occurrence, which was in continuation of the first occurrence, P.W.12 was attacked and an attempt to murder was made on her by these accused. 25. Insofar as the first occurrence is concerned, the prosecution relies on the evidence of P.Ws.7 and 10. P.W.10 claims to be a close friend of the deceased. According to him, by chance, he happened to be present near the place where these two accused had attacked the deceased with a wooden reaper. But, this witness had not identified these two accused as those assailants. He has only stated that out of the said two persons, the first accused was one of the persons. The learned Senior counsel would submit that it is difficult to believe the evidence of P.W.10 for the simple reason that even after the deceased being killed, he did not inform the same to anybody including the wife of the deceased. We find force in the said argument of the learned Senior Counsel. It is seen from the records that P.W.10 was a close friend of the deceased. He was not a stranger to him. We find force in the said argument of the learned Senior Counsel. It is seen from the records that P.W.10 was a close friend of the deceased. He was not a stranger to him. If really he had seen the occurrence, whereby the deceased was killed, he would have rushed either to the house of the deceased and informed the same to his wife or to his relatives. But he kept silent for the whole night and even on the next day until the bike was found by P.W.20. Therefore, the conduct of P.W.10 in keeping silent without informing the occurrence to any body, creates enormous doubt in his evidence. Thus, we feel that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.10 and therefore, we reject the same. The next piece of evidence is the evidence of P.W.7. P.W.7 is yet another friend of the deceased. He has stated that he saw two persons throwing the dead body of the deceased into a pit. He also did not inform about the said incident to any body. The silence on the part of P.W.7, without informing the occurrence to any body for such a long time, would again make the evidence unbelievable, and therefore, we hold that the evidence of P.W.7 also cannot be acted upon. If once the evidences of P.Ws.7 and 10 are rejected, in order to prove the charges against the second accused, we find no other evidence. Even in the occurrence, which had taken place at the house of the deceased, in which P.W.12 was attacked, the identity of the second accused has not been made out. At any rate, so far as the murder of the deceased is concerned, as against the second accused, absolutely there is no evidence. The shirt, which was recovered from the second accused on his confession has got no connection with the crime and therefore, the same in any manner as against the second accused. 26. So far as the charge of conspiracy is concerned, there is no evidence at all let in by the prosecution as against the second accused. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the second appellant is entitled for acquittal from all the charges. 27. Now, turning to the first accused, P.W.12 is the vital witnesses for the prosecution. 26. So far as the charge of conspiracy is concerned, there is no evidence at all let in by the prosecution as against the second accused. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the second appellant is entitled for acquittal from all the charges. 27. Now, turning to the first accused, P.W.12 is the vital witnesses for the prosecution. She has stated that the deceased left the house along with the first accused at 9.00 p.m. in the night in the motorcycle in question. She has further stated that in normal course, the deceased would have returned home by midnight. But, 11.30 p.m. the deceased spoke to her over phone and informed her that he along with the first accused had finished the dinner and after completing the collection, they would return home. This would go to clearly establish that the deceased was alive, that too in the company of the first accused till 11.30 p.m. We do not find any reason to reject this part of the evidence of P.W.12. 28. After 11.30 p.m. since the deceased had not come in the usual time, P.W.12 tried to contact the deceased. But his cellphone was kept under switch off mode. Therefore, she could not contact the deceased. This took place at 1.20 a.m. This gives an indication that by 1.20 a.m., the deceased would have been done to death. Thus, from these circumstances, the prosecution has succeeded to some extent that the deceased would have been done to death between 11.30 p.m. and 1.20 a.m. 29. The next vital circumstance is that, according to P.W.12, at 1.30 a.m. since the first accused was in the company of the deceased, she spoke to the first accused through his cellphone. At that time, the first accused responded to the call. He told P.W.12 that the motorcycle had developed a snag and therefore, they were returning by walk and they would reach the home soon. So far as this statement of the first accused is concerned, we find that it only reflects the guilty mind of the first accused. Absolutely, there is no explanation from the first accused, as to why he made such a false statement to P.W.12. We do not find any reason to reject the evidence of P.W.12 in this regard. So far as this statement of the first accused is concerned, we find that it only reflects the guilty mind of the first accused. Absolutely, there is no explanation from the first accused, as to why he made such a false statement to P.W.12. We do not find any reason to reject the evidence of P.W.12 in this regard. In our considered view, this false statement made by the first accused to P.W.12 would go to show the guilty mind of the first accused. It also further goes to establish that before 1.30 a.m. the deceased had been done to death. 30. Believing the words of the first accused, P.W.12 was in her house. By around 2.00 a.m., some body knocked at the door. When she opened the door, she found both the accused standing there. So far as the second accused is concerned, he was not previously known to her and for the first time, she saw him only at that crucial point of time. We have already held that the charge against the second accused has not been proved, because there is no other evidence and the evidence of P.W.12 in respect of the identity of the second accused is not convincing for want of a prior test identification parade. But, at the same time, the first accused was accompanied by another person cannot be doubted. At that time, the first accused told P.W.12 that her husband met with a minor accident. He further told P.W.12 to get ready to go and see him. It is only out of this statement, P.W.12 went into the bed room to change her dress. Regarding this part of the evidence of P.W.12, we have not seen anything on record to disbelieve the evidence P.W.12. Though P.W.12 has been cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve this part of evidence of P.W.12. Neither the first accused has got any explanation in respect of this false statement made by him to P.W.12. As we have already pointed out, the first accused had told P.W.12 that her husband had met with an accident and P.W.12 should accompany him to go and see the deceased. The absence of any explanation for this false statement made by the first accused to P.W.12 clearly would go to prove the guilty mind of the first accused. 31. As we have already pointed out, the first accused had told P.W.12 that her husband had met with an accident and P.W.12 should accompany him to go and see the deceased. The absence of any explanation for this false statement made by the first accused to P.W.12 clearly would go to prove the guilty mind of the first accused. 31. After the said statement, when P.W.12 was changing her dress in the bed room, the first accused, accompanied by another, entered into the bed room. The first accused suddenly put a rope around her neck and started strangulating her. The other man also helped him by holding the shoulders of P.W.12. At that time, P.W.12 begged them to leave her after taking her jewels. When she told them that she would inform about this occurrence to her husband, the first accused told that her husband had already been finished and they had come there only to finish her. Regarding this part of evidence, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that it appears to be quite unnatural. But, we do not find anything unnatural as this part of the first accused in making this statement. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is crystal clear that the first accused strangulated her and the other person held the shoulders of P.W.12. P.W.12 raised alarm, which attracted P.Ws.1, 5 and 6 to the place of occurrence. They had seen the first accused. They were not able to identify the second accused. Thus the presence of the first accused inside the house and fleeing away from the place of occurrence, have been witnessed by the above witnesses. Thus, the attempt made by the first accused to commit murder of P.W.12 has been clearly established by the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5, 6 and 12. We do not find any reason to reject the evidences of these witnesses. 32. The learned Senior counsel would submit that there are some doubts in respect of lodging of FIR. According to P.W.12, since the neighbors persuaded her not to proceed to the police station immediately as it was too late at night, she was waiting and early in the morning, when the police patrol came in a routine fashion, P.W.12 made a complaint. So far this conduct of P.W.12 and that of the other witnesses is concerned, we do not find anything abnormal so as to disbelieve them. So far this conduct of P.W.12 and that of the other witnesses is concerned, we do not find anything abnormal so as to disbelieve them. The conduct, in our considered view, is quite normal which only further strengthens the veracity of these witnesses. Until 6.00 a.m., the fact that the deceased was no more was not known to anybody. P.W.12 was sent to the Doctor, who also found ligature mark on the neck of P.W.12. From the evidence of P.W.12, coupled with the doctor's evidence, it is crystal clear that the attempt of first accused with the company of some one else, was only to commit murder of P.W.12. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has clearly proved that the first accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 33. So far as the commission of murder of the deceased is concerned, as we have already discussed elaborately, this proved circumstances would clearly go to prove his guilt. The deceased was in his company, lastly when he left the house of P.W.12 at 9.00 p.m. and at 11.30 p.m., the deceased had spoken to P.W.12 and informed her that he was in the company of first accused and at 1.20 a.m. the cellphone of the deceased was put under switch off mode and at 1.30 a.m. the first accused gave a false statement to P.W.12 that the motorcycle had developed a snag and therefore, they were returning by walk. The false statement made by the first accused at the house of P.W.12 that her husband had met with an accident and his further statement that he had already finished her husband and lastly his failure to offer any explanation in respect of his false statement would also clearly prove that the first accused had committed murder of the deceased with the help of somebody else. But the prosecution has failed to prove that the person, who accompanied the first accused in the commission of murder of the deceased as well as in the commission of the crime of attempt to commit murder of P.W.12, is the second accused. Therefore, the second accused is entitled for acquittal but not the first accused. The prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the first accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 307 and 302 IPC. Therefore, the second accused is entitled for acquittal but not the first accused. The prosecution has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the first accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 307 and 302 IPC. Similarly by throwing the body of the deceased into this pit, the first accused had caused disappearance of evidence and thus the offence under Section 201 IPC also stands proved. Though the first accused had trespassed into the house of P.W.12 to commit murder of P.W.12, there was no charge framed against him and consequently there has been no conviction which we cannot interfere with. 34. Now turning to the quantum of punishment for the offence under Sections 307 and 302 IPC, both the offences, the trial Court has imposed a very reasonable punishment, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 35. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed in the following terms: 1. The conviction and sentence imposed on the second appellant/second accused are all set aside and he is acquitted from all charges. The fine amount if any paid by him shall be refunded to him. 2. The conviction of the first accused under Section 120(B) IPC is set aside and he is acquitted from that charge. 3. The conviction of the first appellant/first accused under Sections 302, 201 and 307 IPC are confirmed and the sentence imposed for the said offences are also confirmed and to that extent this appeal is partly dismissed.