A. Subramani v. State, represented by the Inspector of Police,B-2, R.S.Puram Police StationCoimbatore-2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 26.8.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.NAGAPPANAND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JEYAPAULCriminal Appeal No.181 of 2009A.Subramani ..Appellant/Accused No.1Vs.State, represented bythe Inspector of Police,B-2, R.S.Puram Police StationCoimbatore-2.(Crime No.435/2003) ..Respondent/ComplainantPrayer : Appeal against the Judgment, dated 20.1.2009, passed inS.C.No.213 of 2005 on the file of I Additional District and SessionsJudge, Coimbatore.For Appellant: Mr. C.S.DhanasekaranFor Respondent : Mr. Hassan Mohamed Jinnah Addl. Public ProsecutorJ U D G M E N TC. NAGAPPAN, J. Appellant Subramani is Accused No.1 in S.C.No.213 of 2005 onthe file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatoreand he has preferred this appeal challenging the conviction andsentence imposed on him by judgment dated 20.1.2009 in the case.For the sake of convenience, in this Judgment, the appellant will bereferred to as Accused No.1. 2. Charges under Sections 449, 392 and 302 r/w 34 IPC wereframed against Accused No.1 Subramani and Accused No.2 Manokaran.The learned Additional Sessions Judge found A1 Subramani alone guiltyof the charges and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RigorousImprisonment for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months eachfor the charges under Section 449 IPC and Section 392 IPC and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ convicted and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to paya fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment forsix months for the charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and orderedthe sentences to run concurrently. The learned Additional SessionsJudge found A2 Manokaran not guilty of the charges and acquitted himof the charges. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to14 and marked Exs.P1 to P23 and M.Os.1 to 16.4. The case of the prosecution, as could be discerned fromoral and documentary evidence, can be briefly summarised as follows.PW.1 Rathinam is the husband of deceased Rajam and theywere residing in their own house bearing Door No.18, VenkatachalamRoad, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. After retirement from Governmentservice, PW.1 Rathinam used to go to SITRA Office on Tuesday andThursday in Tourist car belonging to Balaji Travels run by PW.11Suresh and on some occasions, A1 Subramani came as the driver ofthe Tourist Car. PW.4 Rukmani was employed as servant maid in thehouse of PW.1 Rathinam. On 22.5.2003, Thursday, PW.1 Rathinam went to SITRA officein the morning. PW.4 Rukmani, as usual, went to the house ofPW.1 Rathinam at 10.30 am and saw a White Ambassador Car parked infront of the house and two pairs of chappals worn by males lying atthe entrance of the house. PW.5 Shanmugadoss came to SARK Hospitalin Venkatachalam Road at 9.30 am on 22.5.2003 to take treatment forthe injury in his leg and when he was waiting outside the hospital,he saw White Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.TNG.1615 parked at the entrance of the house located just oppositeto the hospital. PW.4 Rukmani went to the backyard of the houseand cleaned the utensils and washed the clothes. By 11.30 am, shecompleted the work and while returning, she saw A1 Subramani andanother person going out of the house and boarding the WhiteAmbassador Car and leaving the place. PW.1 Rathinam returned home from SITRA office at 4 pm inthe car driven by PW.2 Walter and PW.1 Rathinam saw two pairs ofchappals at the entrance and pressed the calling bell and there wasno response and he went to the backside of the house and enteredthrough the back door which was found open and he saw his wifeRajam lying face upwards in the drawing room with blood oozing outfrom the mouth and she did not respond to the call. P.Ws.1 and 2went and brought PW.3 Dr.Stanley Ramesh Babu to the house. PW.3Dr.Stanley Ramesh Babu examined Rajam and found abrasions on the neckand declared her dead. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PW.1 Rathinam gave Ex.P1 Complaint at 5 pm on 22.5.2003 inB.2 R.S.Puram Police Station and PW.14 Inspector Balakrishnanreceived the same and registered a case in Crime No.435/2003 underSections 302 and 380 IPC and prepared Ex.P15 First InformationReport. He went to the occurrence place and prepared Ex.P2Observation mahazar in the presence of PW.6 Balamurugan and another.Ex.P16 is the Rough Sketch drawn by him. He conducted inquest onthe body from 6.45 pm in the presence of panchayatars and preparedEx.P17 Inquest Report. He seized MO.11 (series) Chappals and MO.12Dental set under Ex.P3 mahazar in the presence of same witnesses.He sent the body for post-mortem. PW.12 Dr.M.Sundararajan conducted post-mortem on the body ofRajam at 10.15 am on 23.5.2003 and found the following antemorteminjuries:"External injuries:Abrasions with underlying contusions noted in thefollowing regions:-1. 0.5 x 0.2 cm oblique over right forehead, 2 cms abovemiddle of right eyebrow.2. 3 x 0.5 cms, and 0.5 x 0.2 cm oblique on the lowerpart of right side of nose.3. 4 x 0.5-0.2 cms oblique on the right cheek extendingfrom right angle of mouth downwards and laterally.4. 3 x 1-0.5 cms horizontal on the right cheek starting1 cm lateral to right angle of mouth.5. 1 x 0.5 cm oblique just above lateral aspect ofleft side of upper lip.6. 1 x 0.5 cm horizontal over middle of upper lip.7. 0.5 x 0.5 cm two in number in the submentalregion.8. 1 x 0.2 cm oblique in the right infraorbitalregion.9. 1 x 0.2 cm oblique in the right cheek 2 cms belowthe previous abrasion. 10. 2 x 0.2 cm oblique in the lower part of rightcheek. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. 4 x 0.2 cm oblique in the lower part of leftcheek.12. 1 x 0.2 cm oblique 1 cm above middle of previousabrasion.13. 1 x 0.5 cm and 1.5 x 0.5 cms oblique onebelow the other 1 cm apart seen just below angle of rightlower jaw.14. 2.5 x 1-0.5 cms and 1 x 0.5 cm verticallyoblique seen one below other 1 cm apart on the rightlateral neck. The upper one seen 6 cms below rightangle of lower jaw.15. 2 x 0.5 cms vertically oblique on the right ofneck below right mastoid.16. 2 x 0.5 cms and 1 x 0.5 cms seen one belowthe other 0.5 cm apart on the left side of neck.The upper one is 6 cms below left angle of lowerjaw.17. 1 x 1 cm over lateral aspect of left knee.INTERNAL INJURIES1. Contusions of varying sizes seen in the superficialand deep planes of anterior and lateral aspects of neck.2. Both corners of hyoid bone found fractured withsurrounding bruising.3. Fracture of C6 and dislocation over C7 vertebrawith partial laceration of underlying spinal cord withsurrounding bruising.4. Intra scalpal and subscalpal contusion seen overentire right side of scalp.5. Right temporalis muscle found contused.OTHER FINDINGS1 – Pleural and peritoneal cavities empty.2 – Lungs cut section congested. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 – Heart right side chambers contain blood, left side chambers empty, coronaries patent.4 – Stomach contains 200 gms partially digested cooked food (Rice) particles, No specific smell, Mucosa normal.5 – Small intestine contains 50 ml of bile stained fluid. No specific smell, Mucosa Normal.6. Liver, Spleen, Kidneys and brain cut section congested.7. Urinary bladder empty.8. Uterus atrophic, cut section empty"He reserved his opinion pending Chemical Analysis report and issuedEx.P10 Post-mortem Certificate. After receipt of Ex.P11 Viscerareport, he gave Ex.P12 Final Opinion that the deceased would appearto have died of violent compression of neck and cervical injurysustained. PW.14 Inspector Balakrishnan examined PW.1 Rathinam, PW.2Walter, PW.3 Dr.Stanley Ramesh Babu and PW.6 Balamurugan andrecorded their statements on 22.5.2003 itself. He examined PW.4Rukmani and some other witnesses on 23.5.2003 and recorded theirstatements and at 2.45 pm, he seized M.Os.7 to 10, jewels taken fromthe body and produced before him by Ex.P18 report under Ex.P19 Form95. At 5 pm on 23.5.2003, he arrested A1 Subramani alias Mottaiyannear Thudiyalur Railway Gate in Mettupalayam Road and enquired him inthe presence of PW.7 Saravanan and another and recorded theconfession statement given by him. Ex.P20 is the admissible portion.A1 Subramani took M.Os.1 and 2, Gold Thali Chain and Gold Lakshmidollar from his pant pocket and cash of Rs.2350/- and he recoveredthe same under Ex.P4 mahazar in the presence of same witnesses.At 7.30 pm, A1 Subramani showed Dhanalakshmi Finance and PW.8Mangaram and he recovered MO.3 (series) Gold Bangles from the saidshop under Ex.P5 mahazar in the presence of said witnesses. At 9.15pm, A1 Subramani showed PW.9 Sivakumar who was running Travels andPW.14 Inspector Balakrishnan recovered MO.13 White Ambassador Carbearing Registration No. TNG.1615 from him under Ex.P6 mahazar inthe presence of same witnesses. He sent A1 Subramani for judicialremand. He examined PW.7 Saravanan, PW.8 Mangaram and some otherwitnesses and recorded their statements. On 24.5.2003, he arrestedA2 Manokaran at 6 am at Narasimhanaickanpalayam Junction inMettupalayam Road and enquired him in the presence of PW.10Muthukumar and another and recorded the confession statement given byhim. Ex.P21 is the admissible portion. A2 Manokaran took MO.4Gold Chain and cash of Rs.2500/- and produced the same and herecovered the same under Ex.P7 mahazar in the presence of saidwitnesses. At 8.30 am, A2 Manokaran took them to his house and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ took and produced MO.6 Rold Gold Bangles from the gap in the wall ofthe bathroom and he recovered them under Ex.P8 mahazar in thepresence of said witnesses. At 9.30 am, A2 Manokaran took them toNarayanan jewellers and showed the same and PW.14 InspectorBalakrishnan recovered MO.5 Diamond Ear stud under Ex.P9 mahazar inthe presence of PW.10 Muthukumar and another. He sent A2 Manokaranfor judicial remand. He examined PW.10 Muthukumar and some otherwitnesses and recorded their statements. On 25.5.2003, he examinedPW.11 Suresh and seized Ex.P23 (series) Trip sheets under Ex.P22mahazar in the presence of witnesses. On 6.6.2003, he examinedPW.12 Dr.Sundararajan and recorded his statement. He completedthe investigation on 5.9.2003 and filed final report against theaccused. 5. Both the accused were questioned under Section 313Cr.P.C. and they denied complicity. No witness was examined and nodocument was marked on their side. 6. The Trial Court found A1 Subramani guilty of the chargesand convicted and sentenced him as stated earlier. Challenging thesame, A1 Subramani has preferred the present appeal. 7. Mr.C.S.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel appearing for theappellant/Accused No.1 submitted that the case is based oncircumstantial evidence and the circumstances highlighted areinsufficient, scanty and do not present a complete chain to warrantthe conclusion of guilt on the appellant and PW.4 Rukmani was keptin the Police Station for three days for interrogoation and to escapefrom clutches she has obliged the police by stating that she sawthe appellant/A1 Subramani in the house of the deceased at thetime of occurrence and she is not a reliable witness and PW.5Shanmugadoss did not produce any medical record to show that he wentto SARK hospital on the occurrence day for taking treatment for hisleg injury and he is a chance witness and obliged the police andthe mahazar witness PW.7 Saravanan is a friend of PW.1 Rathinamand he is an obliging witness and there is no specific identity forMO.11 Chappals and they have been foisted in the case andthere is no document produced to show that the appellant rentedM.O.13 Car from PW.9 Sivakumar and the chain links are not completedproperly and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and insupport of his submission, he relied on the decision of the ApexCourt in SYED HAKKIM AND ANOTHER V. STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTYSUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KARUR DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU [(2009) 4Supreme Court Cases 324]. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutorsubmits that the appellant/A1 Subramani was a driver in BalajiTravels and prior to occurrence he was taking PW.1 Rathinam tohis office in the Tourist taxi and PW.4 Rukmani was a servant maidin the house of the deceased for a long time and she had seen the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellant/A1 Subramani going out of the house after the occurrenceand leaving in the White Ambassador Car and the appellant on hisarrest had given information in his confession statement leading tothe recovery of M.Os.1 to 3 Gold Jewels of the deceased and MO.13Car and the prosecution has established the circumstancesclinchingly and proved the guilt of the appellant. 9. To prove the charges against the appellant/A1 Subramani,the prosecution has relied on the following circumstances: "1. Rajam died of homicidal violence. 2. The appellant/A1 Subramani was employed asdriver in Balaji Travels run by PW.11 Suresh and tookPW.1 Rathinam from his house to his office on number ofoccasions prior to occurrence. 3. PW.4 Rukmani, the servant maid in the houseof deceased Rajam, while going for work in the morning onthe occurrence day, noticed a White Ambassador Car infront of the house and two pairs of chappels worn bymales lying at the entrance and after finishing herwork while returning, she saw the appellant/A1 Subramanigoing out of the occurrence house with another person andboarding the Ambassador Car and leaving the place. 4. PW.5 Shanmugadoss while waiting outside theSARK hospital at 9.30 am on 22.5.2003 for takingtreatment, saw White Ambassador Car bearing RegistrationNo.TNG 1615 parked at the entrance of the house locatedjust opposite to the hospital. 5. The appellant/A1 Subramani took on hire theWhite Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. TNG 1615from PW.9 Sivakumar at 7 am on the occurrence day viz.22.5.2003 and returned the car at 6 pm in the eveningon the same day. 6. Arrest of the appellant and the informationgiven by him in his confession statement leading torecovery of M.Os.1 to 3 Gold Jewels belonging todeceased and M.O.13 Car. 7. Seizure of MO.11 Chappal belonging to theappellant/A1 Subramani from the occurrence place." 10. Rajam died of homicidal violence is established by thetestimony of post-mortem doctor. PW.12 Dr.M.Sundararajan hastestified that he found very many abrasions in the neck, lower jawand cheek of the body and on the internal examination, he found https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contusions of varying sizes seen in the superficial and deep planesof anterior and lateral aspects of neck; both corners of hyoid bonefound fractured with surrounding bruising; fracture of C6 anddislocation over C7 vertebra with partial laceration of spinalcord; intra scalpal and subscalpal contusion over entire rightside of scalp; lungs cut section congested and brain cut sectioncongested. Ex.P10 is the Post-mortem Certificate issued by him. Heexpressed Ex.P12 Final Opinion that the deceased would appear tohave died of violent compression of neck and cervical injurysustained. Accepting his testimony, it becomes clear that Rajamsuffered homicidal death due to violent compression of neck. 11. PW.1 Rathinam is the husband of deceased Rajam and theywere residing in their own house bearing Door No.18, VenkatachalamRoad, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore. PW.1 Rathinam has testified thatafter retirement from Government service, he used to go to SITRAoffice on Tuesday and Thursday in the morning and return in theevening and on ten or fifteen occasions A1 Subramani came as thedriver of the Tourist car for picking him from his house to hisoffice and dropping him back at his home. PW.11 Suresh has deposedthat he is running Balaji Travels and A1 Subramani was employed asdriver in his office and they used to send the taxi of the Travels onTuesdays and Thursdays to PW.1 Rathinam for taking him to SITRAoffice from his house and for dropping him back at home and he hassent A1 Subramani as driver on number of occasions to the house ofPW.1 Rathinam and Ex.P23 (series) are the relevant Trip sheetscontaining the name of A1 Subramani as driver and he had also puthis signature in those trip sheets. The learned counsel for theappellant contended that Ex.P23 (series) trip sheets relate toperiod prior to occurrence and the signature of driver found in themare not that of A1 Subramani. This contention is devoid of merit.Ex.P23 are five trip sheets pertaining to the trips made in themonths of January, March and April, 2003 mentioning the startingplace as R.S.Puram and destination as SITRA office. The name ofA1 Subramani is mentioned as the driver of the taxi in them and hehas also put his signature in them. It is relevant to point outthat no suggestion was put to PW.11 Suresh that A1 Subramani wasnot employed in his Travels as driver and in such circumstance, thecontention that the signatures found therein are not that of A1Subramani, is to be brushed aside. 12. PW.4 Rukmani has testified that she was working as servantmaid in the house of PW.1 Rathinam for six years prior to occurrenceand as usual she went to the house of PW.1 Rathinam at 10.30 am on22.5.2003 and saw a White Ambassador car in front of the house andtwo pairs of chappals worn by males lying at the entrance of thehouse and she went to the backyard of the house and cleaned theutensils and washed the clothes and by 11.30 am she completed thework and while returning she saw A1 Subramani and another persongoing out of the house and boarding the White Ambassador Car and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ leaving the place. The learned counsel for the appellant contendedthat PW.4 Rukmani has stated in the cross-examination that she waskept in the police station for three days for interrogoation and inorder to escape from clutches, she has obliged the police and she isnot a reliable witness. It is true that PW.4 Rukmani has statedthat she was interrogated for three days in the Police Station.Merely because of that, we cannot jump to the conclusion that she isspeaking out of coercion. PW.4 Rukmani is not an eye-witness tothe occurrence. She was residing in the locality and was employedfor a long period of six years in the house of the deceased asservant maid. She had seen A1 Subramani coming to the house ofPW.1 Rathinam as driver of the Tourist car to pick and drop him tohis office and he is not a stranger to her. On the occurrenceday, when she went for routine work she happened to see theAmbassador car and two pairs of chappals at the entrance of the houseand she went to backyard to do her work and while returning she hadnoticed A1 Subramani and another leaving the house and fleeing inthe Ambassador car. Her testimony is natural, cogent, convincingbesides being trustworthy and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to discredit her testimony. The prosecution hasestablished this circumstance through the positive evidence of PW.4Rukmani. 13. PW.5 Shanmugadoss is a resident of Lingappa Chetty laneand he has stated that he sustained injury in his leg and came toSARK hospital in Venkatachalam road at 9.30 am on 22.5.2003 to taketreatment and when he was waiting outside the hospital, he saw WhiteAmbassador Car bearing Registration No.TNG.1615 parked at theentrance of the house located just opposite the hospital and on thenext day, he read about the occurrence in the newspaper andpassed on the information to the police. The contention of thelearned counsel for the appellant is that PW.5 Shanmugadoss did notproduce any document to show that he took treatment at SARK hospitalon the occurrence day and his presence is doubtful. Ex.P16 is theRough Sketch showing the topography of the occurrence place. Thehospital is located opposite to the occurrence house on the otherside of Venkatachalam road. There is every possibility for PW.5Shanmugadoss while waiting outside the hospital to have noticed theparking of MO.13 White Ambassador Car in front of the house justopposite the hospital and there is nothing unnatural in it. Nothingis elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve his version.This circumstance is also established. 14. PW.9 Sivakumar was also running Travels and he hastestified that on 21.5.2003 in the evening at 6.30 pm A1 Subramanimet him and asked for a car on hire and he told him that all theTourist taxi cars had gone out on hire and he is having only MO.13White Ambassador Car bearing Registration No.1615 for his personaluse and A1 Subramani pleaded with him to give that car on hire forone day and he agreed and on 22.5.2003 in the morning at 6.30 AM, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A1 Subramani took MO.13 Car on hire and returned the car at 6 pm inthe evening and paid the rent. The contention of the learnedcounsel for the appellant is that no document has been produced toshow that A1 Subramani rented MO.13 White Ambassador Car from PW.9Sivakumar and his testimony cannot be relied on. It is correct tostate that no document has been produced to show the renting of MO.13Car. It has to be borne in mind that MO.13 White Ambassador Car isnot a Tourist Taxi. It is the personal car used by PW.9 Sivakumarand only on the compulsion of A1 Subramani, PW.9 Sivakumar obligedhim by giving the car for a day on rent. There cannot be anydocument evidencing the renting of the above car. It is pertinent topoint out that though PW.9 Sivakumar was cross-examined by A1Subramani, no suggestion was put to PW.9 Sivakumar in the cross-examination to the effect that A1 Subramani did not take MO.13 Car onhire on the occurrence day. In such circumstances, there is noreason to discard the testimony of PW.9 Sivakumar and thiscircumstance is also established. 15. The Investigation Officer PW.14 Inspector Balakrishnanhas stated that he arrested the appellant/A1 Subramani at 5 pm on23.5.2003 near Thudiyalur Railway Gate in Mettupalayam Road andenquired him in the presence of PW.7 Saravanan and another andrecorded the confession statement containing Ex.P20admissible portion given by him and A1 Subramani took M.O.1 GoldThali Chain, MO.2 Gold Lakshmi dollar and cash of Rs.2350/ from hispant pocket and produced the same and he recovered them under Ex.P4mahazar in the presence of same witnesses. The mahazar witness PW.7Saravanan has confirmed in his testimony that A1 Subramani wasarrested and enquired in his presence and confession statement givenby him was recorded in his presence and A1 Subramani took M.Os.1 and2 and cash and produced the same and they came to be recovered in hispresence. It is the further testimony of the Investigation Officerthat A1 Subramani at 7.30 pm showed Dhanalakshmi Finance andpointed out PW.8 Mangaram and the Inspector recoveredMO.3 (series) Gold Bangles from the said shop under Ex.P5 mahazar inthe presence of same witnesses. The mahazar witness PW.7 Saravananhas also stated that A1 Subramani pointed out Dhanalakshmi Financefrom where MO.3 Gold Bangles were recovered in his presence underEx.P5 mahazar. PW.8 Mangaram has stated that he produced four GoldBangles to the Police but he cannot identify them and hence he wastreated as hostile by the prosecution and this does not affect theprosecution case in any way. 16. Yet another contention was raised by the learnedcounsel for the appellant that PW.7 Saravanan is friend of PW.1Rathinam and he is an obliging witness and his testimony cannot berelied on. PW.7 Saravanan is a former Director of Sardar VallabhaiPatel Institute of Textile Management, Coimbatore and he is agedsixty six. It is true that he is a friend of PW.7 Saravanan but onthat ground his testimony cannot be doubted. He is a respectable https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ person in the locality and on the request of the police, he hadaccompanied them while the arrest was made. He has narrated aboutthe enquiry made by the Investigation Officer in his presence and theconfession given by A1 Subramani leading to recovery of articlesabove mentioned. Accepting the same, it is clear that A1 Subramanigave information in his confession statement leading to recovery ofM.Os.1 to 3 Gold Jewels. P.W.1 Rathinam has identified M.Os.1to 3 Gold jewels belonging to his wife Rajam. Thus the crucialcircumstance of recovery of ornaments of the deceased at theinstance of A1 Subramani, is established. 17. The last circumstance pertains to seizure of MO.11Chappals belonging to the appellant from the occurrence place. Asalready seen, PW.4 Rukmani has noticed two pairs of chappals worn bymales lying at the entrance of the house in the morning on theoccurrence day. The Investigation Officer PW.14 InspectorBalakrishnan has deposed that he seized MO.11 (series) chappals andMO.12 Dental set at 8.55 pm on 22.5.2003 under Ex.P3 mahazar inthe presence of PW.6 Balamurugan and another. The mahazar witnessPW.6 Balamurugan has also confirmed in his testimony about theseizure of MO.11 chappals from the occurrence place in his presenceunder mahazar. PW.11 Suresh has testified that A1 Subramani waswearing MO.11 chappals and he identified them. The contention ofthe appellant is that there is no specific mark in MO.11 chappalsand as per the testimony of mahazar witness, it is light green incolour and according to Investigation Officer it is light grey incolour and there is contradiction in their version and it is doubtfulas to whether MO.11 chappals belong to A1 Subramani. Thecontradiction with regard to colour of chappals pointed out by theappellant is not a material one. PW.11 Suresh was the employer ofA1 Subramani and he was able to identify MO.11 chappals as worn byA1 Subramani and there is nothing unusual in it. The above seizureof chappals also implicates A1 Subramani to the crime. 18. All the circumstances relied on by the prosecution arecogently and firmly established and the chain is complete. 19. There were two accused in the case and the charge wasframed under Section 302 read with 34 IPC as against them. The trialCourt found that the prosecution has not proved the charges asagainst A2 Manokaran and acquitted him of the charges. At the sametime, the trial Court held that the prosecution has proved thecharge of murder as against A1 Subramani and found him guilty forthe charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Having foundA1 Subramani alone is guilty of the charge of murder, it oughtto have found him guilty under Section 302 IPC and convicted him forthe same and that has not been done. Hence the conviction ofAccused No.1 Subramani has to be altered into one underSection 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment is to be sustained. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The conviction and sentence under Sections 449 and 392 IPC arecorrect and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. In the result, the conviction of the appellant/A1Subramani under Section 302 read with 34 IPC is set aside andinstead, he is convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC andsentence of Life Imprisonment is sustained for the alteredconviction and the conviction and sentence imposed on him for theoffences under Sections 449 and 392 IPC are confirmed and the appealis allowed to the extent indicated above.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvksTo1. The I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.2. -do– Through the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.3. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai-4.4. The District Collector, Coimbatore District, Coimbatore.5. The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Coimbatore.6. The Inspector of Police, B.2 R.S.Puram Police Station, Coimbatore-2.7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras-600 104. 8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras 104. Judgment in Crl.A.No.181 of 2009LA (CO)GSK 02.09.2009.