Bail SlipThe v. State rep. ByInspector of PoliceG1 Police StationOoty, The NilgirisCrime No.35/03

Bail SlipThe Appellant/Petitioner/Accused No.2 namely Ragila, W/o.ShahulHameed was directed to be released on bail as per the order of thisCourt dated 23.10.2007 in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2007 in Crl.A.No.563/2007on the file of this Court.The Appellant/Petitioner/Accused No.2 namely Nawaz,S/o.Kaseemwas directed to be released on bail as per the order of this Courtdated 1.8.2002 in Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2007 in Crl.Appeal No.599/2007 onthe file of this Court.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28-1-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPALCRL.A.No.563 of 2007Ragila.. Appellant in CA 563/2007/Accused No.2 Nawaz.. Appellant in CA 599/2007vsState rep. ByInspector of PoliceG1 Police StationOoty, The NilgirisCrime No.35/03.. Respondent in CA 563/2007/Accused No.2 State represented byInspector of PoliceUdhagamandalam Town West PoliceStationCrime No.221 of 2002Nilgiris District.. Respondent in CA 599/2007Criminal appeals preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code ofCriminal Procedure against the judgment of the Sessions Judge ofNilgiris at Udhagamandalam in S.C.No.10 of 2005 dated 11.6.2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Appellants : Mr.Kumar Talrejaa in CA 563/2007 Mr.John Satyan for Mr.K.P.Ananthakrishnain CA 599/2007For Respondents: Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional PublicProsecutor COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)This judgment shall govern these two appeals namelyC.A.No.563/2007 by A-1 and C.A.No.599/2007 by A-2. These two appealschallenge a judgment of the Sessions Division, Udhagamandalam, madein S.C.No.10 of 2005 whereby the appellants herein stood chargedunder Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of IPC, tried, found guiltyas per the charges and awarded life imprisonment and 3 years RigorousImprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentencerespectively.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appealscan be stated as follows:(a) P.W.6 is the father of the deceased Sahul Hameed. P.Ws.7and 20 are the sons of P.W.6. A-1 is the wife of the deceased. A-1and the deceased were living along with their two children in WillowBond Road, Udhagamandalam. The deceased was working in theGovernment Higher Secondary School, Annikkorai, where P.W.8 was alsoworking during the relevant time. P.W.9 was also working in the saidschool. P.W.12 was the typist in that school. P.W.28 was theHeadmaster of the said school. P.W.13 was also working as a teacherin the said school. (b) On 29.9.2002, P.W.13, the deceased and 16 others went on atour to Calcutta. At Calcutta, the deceased purchased M.O.1,T.Shirt, which was worn by him at the time of occurrence. P.W.19 wasrunning a karate School in which two of the children of A-1, and thedeceased were put for training. At that time, A-2 was also takingtraining. In that, A-2 developed illicit intimacy with AyishaSiddiqa, the first daughter of A-1. A-2 had often visited theresidence of A-1 in order to meet his love. At that time, hedeveloped illicit intimacy with A-1. This was brought to theknowledge of the deceased by P.W.17, a domestic servant. There oftenarose quarrel between the spouses. (c) On 20.10.2002 at about 9.00 A.M., the deceased, his wife A-1and their children were all in the house. There was a quarrel. Atthat time, A-2 was in the upstairs. On seeing this, he intervenedand asked the deceased not to quarrel, but the quarrel furthercontinued between A-1 and the deceased. A-2 suddenly slapped on thecheeks of the deceased. Thereafter, A-2 and A-1 joined together and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ attacked him. When the deceased swooned, immediately they throttledhim by using a towel, M.O.4. Then, they put the dead body in M.O.8,barrel, of which M.O.9 was a lid, and they poured kerosene and putfire. But, they did not see it was properly burnt. Then, theypurchased firewood (sticks) from the shop of P.W.30, and further theyattempted to fire, but, the dead body became charred half.Immediately, A-2 took M.O.10, Maruthi car, belonging to P.W.21, andthe dead body was put in a gunny bag and was transported in that carby both the accused. It was actually left near Kallatty Check Post.P.W.2 who found the dead body, went over to Kallatty Police Stationand gave Ex.P1 report, on the strength of which a case came to beregistered by P.W.27, the Sub Inspector of Police, in Crime No.221 of2002 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P15, was despatchedto the Court. (d) The investigation was taken up by P.W.32, the Inspector ofPolice, attached to Kallaty Police Station, who proceeded to thespot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P3,and a rough sketch, Ex.P26. The photographs of the dead body weretaken which are marked as Ex.P12 and the negatives are Ex.P13. Then,the Investigator conducted inquest on the dead body in the presenceof witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report,Ex.P27. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the GovernmentHospital for the purpose of postmortem.(e) P.W.22, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to theGovernment Head Quarters Hospital, Uthagamandalam, on receipt of therequisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body on 24.10.2002, and hegave his report, Ex.P11, the postmortem certificate, to the effectthat the deceased would appear to have died of injury to vital organbrain and shock due to extensive burns. (f) Further, the skull and pelvic bone were actually taken. TheInvestigating Officer gave a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate,Udhagamandalam, to send them for chemical analysis. Accordingly,they were forwarded, which brought forth Ex.P40, the chemicalanalysis report, regarding the skull and pelvic bone. (g) On 21.10.2002, A-1 informed to P.W.12, the typist, that herhusband was on leave medically for a period of 10 days. This wasalso recorded in the school attendance register, Ex.P19. Thereafter,P.W.29 also asked about the whereabouts of the husband of A-1. Sheinformed him that he has gone over to Salem for taking treatment.Even the daughters of the deceased namely A-3 and A-4, who werestudents of Bethelehem School, did not attend the school. The elderdaughter did not attend school from 19.12.2002 to 2.11.2002, and thesecond daughter did not attend school from 21.10.2002 till 2.11.2002.When it was enquired, they were informed by A-1 that they alsoaccompanied the father to Salem. The same is also borne by theattendance register of that school, marked as Ex.P16. (h) Pending the investigation, on 3.12.2002 A-1 and A-2 appearedbefore P.W.8, and A-1 made an extra-judicial confessional statement.The same was recorded, and Ex.P4 is the said statement. Thereafter,P.W.8 produced both of them before Kallatty Police Station. TheInvestigating Officer recorded the confessional statementsvoluntarily given by them. Exs.P22 and P23 are the admissible partsof their confession respectively. Pursuant to the same, A-1 producedM.O.8, barrel, and M.O.9, lid, which were recovered under a cover of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ mahazar. A-2 also produced M.O.12, kerosene can, and M.O.13, partlyburnt firewood, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. Theywere sent for judicial remand. (i) On 11.12.2002, the confessional statement given by AyishaSiddiqa was recorded, pursuant to which M.O.11, the remaining part ofT.Shirt, produced by her, was recovered under a cover of mahazar.The Investigating Officer examined the other witnesses and recordedtheir statements. At that juncture, it was found that it was a casewhich should have been proceeded by the respondent police station.Then, the case was transferred to the respondent police, and thecrime number was given as 35/2003. The further investigation wastaken up by P.W.33, the Inspector of Police, who perused the records,and on completion of investigation, he filed the final report. 3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessarycharges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, theprosecution examined 33 witnesses and also relied on 49 exhibits and13 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side ofthe prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of theprosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false. No defencewitness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced,scrutinised the materials available and found the appellants guiltyand awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence this appealat the instance of the appellants.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant/A-1 inC.A.No.563/2007, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instantcase, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer; that it reliedupon certain circumstances; that the circumstances which were placed,have not been proved; and that those circumstances were neithersufficient nor pointing to the guilt of the accused. 5.The learned Counsel would further submit that according to theprosecution, the occurrence has taken place on 20.10.2002, and A-1,A-2 along with the two children of the accused and the deceased wereall available in the house, and the occurrence has taken place in themorning hours; that in and around the place, number of houses weresituated; but, no one independent witness has brought forth truestate of affairs; that according to them, he was strangulated, andthe dead body was found in a room, and kerosene was poured, and hewas set fire, and it did not burn fully, and then, they put thefirewood, and in a charred condition, the dead body was taken out,and it was actually put in a gunny bag and transported in a Maruthicar by A-1 to A-4, and they took it to Kallatty Check Post and leftthe dead body there; and that now, at this juncture, it is pertinentto point out that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring homethe nexus between any one of the accused and the crime in question. 6.The learned Counsel would add that the occurrence has takenplace on 20.10.2002; that it is pertinent to point out that the deadbody was found by P.W.1 only on 23.10.2002; that it was he who wentto the police station and gave a complaint, and the dead body wasfound in a charred condition; that immediately, the case was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registered under Ex.P15, the FIR, directly under Sec.302 of IPC, andit was taken up for investigation; that following the inquest, thedead body was subjected to postmortem, and skull and pelvic bone werealso taken, and the skull was subjected to superimposition test; thatthe photographs were also recovered, and they were also sent; thatthe final opinion that was canvassed would clearly indicate that theexpert could not fix that it was the skull of the deceased SahulHameed, and thus, the identity of the dead body though challenged bythe appellants before the trial Court, the prosecution was unable toprove the same.7.It is further added by the learned Counsel that in the instantcase, the prosecution mainly relied upon the extra-judicialconfession alleged to have been given by A-1 to P.W.8 on 3.12.2002i.e., after 40 days; that there is no reason why A-1 chose P.W.8 andthat too after a period of 40 days, to go and give a confessionalstatement as one placed before the trial Court and marked as Ex.P4;that it is pertinent to point out that in the instant case, what wereall found in the extra-judicial confession alleged to have beenrecorded, was not at all corroborated by any other piece of evidence;that in the case on hand, originally the case was registered byKallatty Police Station in Crime No.221/2002 directly under Sec.302of IPC; that it remains to be stated that the occurrence has nottaken place within Kallatty Polie Station jurisdiction, and if to beso, the case should not have been registered there; that even if amistake is committed by the Sub Inspector of Police by registeringthe case, the case records should have been directly transferred toUdhagamandalam Town West Police Station within whose jurisdiction theoccurrence has taken place, but it is curious that P.W.8 has recordedthe extra-judicial confessional statement and has also produced boththe accused before Kallatty Police Station who had no jurisdiction atall; that apart from that, P.W.32, the Inspector of Police of thatPolice Station, has also recorded the confessional statement of A-1and has further proceeded to recover the material objects; that it isto be pointed out that the whole investigation was done by the PoliceOfficer who had no jurisdiction to do it; that further, at the end,it was transferred to Udhagamandalam Town West Police Station who hadthe actual jurisdiction; and that under the circumstances, it is acase where the Police Officer with knowledge that he had nojurisdiction, has acted, and all records have been manipulated forthe purpose of suiting the prosecution case.8.The learned Counsel would further add that in the instantcase, so long the prosecution is unable to show or prove that thedead body was that of the deceased and also could not prove the deathof the husband of A-1, merely because of the absence of A-1'shusband, it cannot be inferred or presumed that A-1 has murdered herhusband; that it is true that A-1's husband is absent; but, it didnot mean that he died or he has been murdered by A-1 along with A-2;that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed toprove the identity of the dead body, and the extra-judicialconfession alleged to have been made was not worthy to be accepted;that apart from that, a wrong investigation has been made; that allwould go to the root of the matter, and hence she is entitled for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ acquittal in the hands of this Court, which has not been done by thetrial Court. 9.The learned Counsel also brought to the notice of the Courtthe evidence of the postmortem Doctor that he gave a fresh postmortemcertificate as the original postmortem certificate given by theDoctor to the Investigating Agency was misplaced.10.In the second line of argument, the learned Counsel wouldcontend that in the instant case, the occurrence has taken place on20.10.2002; that at that time, when A-1 along with her two matureddaughters, was in the house with the deceased, the deceased as usual,was quarreling with her as he suspected her fidelity, and called her"prostitute"; that he further added that she was not only indulgingin these activities with A-2, but also she has made her daughter alsoprostitute; that it is quite natural for a mother to act so when herdaughter was branded as prostitute, and thus she got provoked by thesame and has acted so; that under the circumstances, the act of A-1is neither intentional not premeditated, but due to suddenprovocation, and hence it would not attract the penal provisions ofmurder, but would fall under one of exceptions to Sec.300 of IPC, andthis has got to be considered by this Court.11.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant/A-2 inC.A.No.599/2007, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instantcase, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer, and it reliedon circumstantial evidence; that as far as the motive part wasconcerned, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.7, 13, 14,17, 28 and 29 that A-1 and A-2 had developed intimacy, and when theyfound the deceased as a hurdle and also pursuant to the incident ofquarrel that took place on 20.10.2002, they committed the crime; thatas far as these witnesses are concerned, even assuming if the crimewas committed, they have not come forward to give any statement likethat; that only after the extra-judicial confession was made by A-1to P.W.8 and after it came to the knowledge of the police, they havecome forward to say like that; that as far as motive is concerned, itis only a weak piece of evidence; that so also the evidence wasweek; that as far as the extra-judicial confession alleged to havebeen made by A-1, is concerned, it should have been rejected for tworeasons; that firstly, it was a weak piece of evidence; thatsecondly, it was allegedly made by A-1 and that too after number ofdays; that even assuming that it had taken place, it would not in anyway bind A-2 in law; that apart from that, it is alleged to have beenmade by A-1 to P.W.8; that P.W.8 was a total stranger; that accordingto him, he went to the house of A-1 only once and if to be so, hecannot be stated to be friendly or acquainted with her; that P.W.29claimed to be a good friend of A-1; that if to be so, there was allpossibility of A-1 making any confession to P.W.29, but not done so,and hence, she could not have made any confession to P.W.8 as putforth by the prosecution. 12.The further submission of the learned Counsel is that P.W.7is actually the younger brother of the deceased; that according tohim, he knew the intimacy between A-1 and A-2, and if to be so, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would have brought the same to the notice of the police immediatelyand expressed his suspicion, but not done so; that these witnesseshave already been examined before the Juvenile Court, and they havespoken about the illicit intimacy; but, when they gave evidencebefore the Court of Sessions, they have not whispered anything aboutthe same; that P.W.17, whose evidence was relied on by the trialCourt, was only a servant maid; that apart from that, it was not herevidence that she found both A-1 and A-2 either sharing the bed orshe entertained suspicion; that even if they were found inside thehouse, it cannot be inferred that they have got intimacy with eachother; that apart from that, P.W.15 has spoken to the fact that hegave M.O.10, Maruthi car, to A-2; and that further, the evidence ofthe witnesses examined would go to show that they found A-1 and A-2and the juvenile accused near the place called Kallatty Check Post,where the dead body was disposed. 13.The learned Counsel would further add that the occurrence hastaken place in the night hours of 20.10.2002; that further the deadbody was taken from the place in a gunny bag the next morning, and ifto be so, the dead body was kept in the house of A-1 for a period ofone day; that it was highly improbable; that apart from that, noevidence was available to show that A-2 was actually in the house ofA-1 at any point of time either on 20.10.2002 or on 21.10.2002; thateven assuming that at the time, when the dead body was left atKallatty Check Post, A-2 was available along with A-1, it could betaken that he was also there along with the other accused forscreening the evidence; that there is no direct or indirect evidencepointing to the involvement of A-2 in the crime of murder; that thetrial Court has not taken into account any one of these aspects, andhence he is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.14.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor onall the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made.15.The prosecution came forward with a case to state thatpursuant to the illicit intimacy between A-1 and A-2 and also thequarrel that arose between A-1 and her husband on 20.10.2002 duringnight hours, it was A-2 who fisted him; that he fell swooned; thatthey immediately planned to murder him and accordingly, put himinside M.O.8, barrel, poured kerosene and set fire; that when thedead body did not burn fully, they put the firewood and burnt thebody; that when it was partly charred, they put it in a gunny bag,took the same and transported in M.O.10 Maruthi car, from the placeof occurrence to Kallatty Check Post; and that both A-1 and A-2along with the juvenile accused left the dead body and came back.True it is, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It ispertinent to point out that the entire occurrence has taken placeinside the house of A-1, the wife of the deceased. It is clear thatthe entire story of the prosecution commenced with the illicitintimacy between A-1 and A-2. From the evidence, it would be quiteclear that the children of A-1 and the deceased were actually put inP.W.19's School for karate training, where A-2 also had his trainingduring the relevant time, and he developed intimacy with the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ daughter of A-1 and the deceased, pursuant to which he used to visitthe house of A-1 where he developed intimacy with A-1 also. Theillicit intimacy between A-1 and A-2 was spoken to by P.W.17, theservant maid, who brought to the notice of the deceased. Then, hewarned his wife A-1. Further, this has also been spoken to by otherwitnesses namely P.W.s,7, 13, 14, 28 and 29 who have actually seenthem in closer terms. As far as this part of the evidence wasconcerned, if the evidence of these witnesses are perused, this Courthas no hesitation to accept their evidence that they fell in intimacywhich was actually disturbing the deceased. 16.The occurrence has taken place on 20.10.2002, and theprosecution mainly relied upon the extra-judicial confession given byA-1 to P.W.8. The intervening circumstance would be the conduct ofA-1. The deceased during the relevant time, was working inGovernment Higher Secondary School, Annikkorai. On 25.10.2002, A-1phoned over to the Headmaster of the school telling that he was onmedical leave for a period of 10 days, and this has also been enteredin the attendance register. The attendance register was also placedbefore the trial Court. It remains to be stated that the same isalso found in the confessional statement. Thereafter, the otherwitnesses who are all close to the deceased, have enquired about thewhereabouts of the deceased to which she answered that he has goneover to Salem for treatment for jaundice. That apart, when theCorrespondent of the Karate School enquired A-1 about the absence ofthe children for a number of days, she has also given a reply thatthe children have accompanied the father to Salem, and thus, she hasgiven a false reply. 17.Above all, the dead body was put in a barrel, and they pouredkerosene and set fire. It was not fully burnt. Then, they took thefirewood, placed the dead body and burnt the same. In that regard,the firewood shop owner has also been examined as P.W.30. He hasalso deposed to the fact that the firewood was purchased from hisshop on that night. Further, when the dead body was found partlycharred, they put it in a gunny bag and took the same in the Maruthicar. The owner of the car, M.O.10, was examined as P.W.15. He hascategorically stated that the car was taken by A-2 for a while. Itis pertinent to point out that A-1, A-2 and the other two juvenileaccused were seen by P.W.10, an auto driver, on 21.10.2002 on themorning hours. 18.Further, P.W.24, a taxi driver, has also seen A-1 to A-4proceeding in the Maruthi car towards the place where the dead bodywas disposed. The evidence of P.W.24 and P.W.10 would clearlyindicate the fact that A-1 and A-2 along with two other juvenileaccused have proceeded from the place of occurrence in the Maruthicar, M.O.10, which belonged to P.W.15, and also disposed the deadbody. At this juncture, it remains to be stated that all the abovewould stand as corroborative piece of evidence. Before accepting theextra-judicial confession, the Court has to apply two tests namelythe circumstances attendant in which the extra-judicial confessionwas made and whether the evidence of the witness to whom it has beengiven has inspired the confidence of the Court. It is true that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ occurrence has taken place on 20.10.2002; but, the extra-judicialconfession was made on 3.12.2002. There were intervening days fornearly about 40 days. This Court is of the considered opinion thatit would not in any way affect the prosecution case for the simplereason that A-1 was adumbrating to the public that he has gone overto Salem for taking treatment and gave false reasons for his absenceto the school authorities and as regards the children, to the KarateSchool. Further, the said information has been entered in theattendance register also. At this juncture, it is pertinent to pointout that as far as the evidence of P.W.8 is concerned, it has got tobe accepted by the Court. P.W.8 has categorically stated that he hasalready gone to the house of A-1 and thus he was already known tothem. A-1 has gone to P.W.8, and when there was a search made, shehas given the confession about the same, and the same has beenrecorded. It was he who took them immediately to the police stationand produced. Only on the confession of A-1, the Investigator cameto know that they have committed the murder, and the truth wasunfolded. 19.The learned Counsel for the appellants made much commentquestioning the identity of the dead body. This contention has gotto be brushed aside for the simple reason that P.Ws.3 and 4 wereactually called immediately at the place, and they have identifiedthe clothes. Also it was P.W.13, a colleague of the deceased, whowent to Calcutta on a tour, and he has also further deposed that aT.Shirt was actually purchased by the deceased at Calcutta, and thesame was worn by him at the time of occurrence. He has alsoidentified the same. In the instant case, as far as the identity ofthe dead body is concerned, no doubt was left in the mind of theCourt. 20.Added circumstance was that A-1 who has actually committedthe crime along with the other accused has suppressed the same andhas misled the school authorities for a while and thereafter, made aconfessional statement in the last pursuant to which the involvementof A-2 was also found. The contention put forth by the learnedCounsel for A-2 that there is no direct evidence pointing to theavailability of A-2 on the date of occurrence or the involvement inthe offence cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that it istrue that the investigating agency came to know about the involvementof A-2 only from the confessional statement given by A-1 to P.W.8 on3.12.2002. But, the illicit intimacy between A-1 and A-2 was clearlyspoken to by the witnesses as mentioned above. Further, it was A-2who went to the house of P.W.15 and got the Maruthi car in which thedead body has been taken. P.W.30 has stated that firewood waspurchased from him. Further the dead body was taken from the placeof occurrence to Kallatty Check Post, and it was also left there.That apart, when A-2 has proceeded to the place along with the otheraccused in the Maruthi car, M.O.10, it was noticed by P.W.24 the taxidriver. At the place where the dead body was disposed namelyKallatty Check Post, P.W.10 has noticed all the accused together.Besides the above, the kerosene can and also the firewood (sticks)have been recovered pursuant to the confessional statementvoluntarily made by A-2. All would go to show the involvement of A- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Now, A-2 cannot simply escape by telling that even assuming thatthe confessional statement was given by A-1 is true, it would notbind A-2. All other circumstances which stood independent of theconfessional statement given by A-1, would indicate that A-2 wasinvolved in the offence. As could be seen from the availablecircumstances, it would be quite clear that A-2 who has nothing to dowith the family of the deceased, developed intimacy with A-1's firstdaughter and thereafter, with A-1, and on the date of occurrence, ina quarrel between the spouses namely A-1 and her husband, A-2intervened unnecessarily and also slapped him. When he swooned, theytook a plan to finish him off and accordingly executed the plan alsoas narrated by the prosecution.21.It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellantsthat Kallatty Police Station had no jurisdiction to conductinvestigation, and the investigation done in the instant case has gotto be brushed aside since it was without jurisdiction. Theoccurrence has taken place on 20.10.2002. The evidence would go toshow that the dead body was left by the accused at Kallatty CheckPost. On seeing the dead body, P.W.1 had gone to Kallatty PoliceStation and gave the report. Thereafter, the case came to beregistered by that police station in Crime No.221/2002, and theinvestigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police, P.W.32.According to the Investigator, since the dead body was found atKallatty Check Post, the investigation was proceeded. At the end,they came to know that it was a case which should have been proceededby Udhagamandalam Town West Police Station, and accordingly, it wastransferred to the respondent police station. P.W.33, the Inspectorof Police, attached to Udhagamandalam Town West Police Station,perused the records, conducted further investigation and filed thefinal report. In the light of what is stated above, it cannot bestated that the investigation was done by the Investigator withoutjurisdiction. Hence this contention has got to be rejected, andaccordingly, it is rejected.22.Now, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for theappellant/A-1 was that she and his first daughter were called asprostitutes by the deceased, and she could not tolerate the same, andtherefore, acted in such a manner cannot be accepted even for amoment for the simple reason that the whole affair was due to theillicit intimacy of A-2 with A-1. A-2 had nothing to do at the nighthours in the house of A-1 and the deceased. At that time, there was aquarrel between the spouses, and A-2 intervened and there arose aquarrel between A-1 and the deceased. In that process, A-2 slappedhim, and when he swooned, they took a plan to finish him off due tothe hurdle in the past. The trial Court has marshalled the evidenceproper and found the appellants guilty for committing the act ofmurder and also screening the evidence. Thus, all the contentionsput forth by the learned Counsel for the appellants do not carrymerit, and they are liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23.In the result, both these criminal appeals fail, and they aredismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court. It is reportedthat the appellants are on bail. Hence the Sessions Judge shall takesteps to commit them to prison to undergo the sentence.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarnsv/To:1.The Judicial Magistrae,Udhagamandalam.2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Nilgiris at Udagamandalam.3.The Sessions Judge Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam4.The Inspector of Police G1 Police Station Ooty, The Nilgiris Crime No.35/035.The Inspector of Police Udhagamandalam Town West PoliceStation Crime No.221 of 2002 Nilgiris District6.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.7.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore Women Prison.8.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.+2ccs to M/s. K.P.Anantha Krishna, Advocate Sr 4224SR (CO)km/6.2.CRL.A.Nos.563 and 599 of2007