- (1.)This appeal arises out of final judgment and order dated 21.9.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Referred Trial No. 1 of 2010 and Criminal Appeal No. 299 of 2010 confirming the judgment and order of death sentence dated 12.3.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C.No. 198 of 2009.
(2.)The facts and circumstances arising out of this Criminal Appeal are that:
A. Murugesan (PW.1) and his wife Indirani (PW.2) had left for a Padayatra to Palani hills leaving their daughter Palaniammal, the deceased herein, aged 9 years and studying in fourth standard, with her grandfather Karnaiyan (PW.3).

B. On 12.2.2009, the deceased had left for her school at 8.30 a.m. after informing Valli (PW.4). Since the deceased did not return from the school as usual, Karnaiyan (PW.3) after making a search, conveyed the message over the phone to her parents Murugesan (PW.1) and Indirani (PW.2).

C. In early hours of 13.2.2009, Murugesan (PW.1) and Indirani (PW.2) returned home and after making a search got registered a missing complaint of her daughter.

D. On the same day, the accused Selvam, appellant herein, appeared before Vijayan (PW.9), the Village Administrative Officer (V.A.O) and made a confessional statement. Vijayan (PW.9) produced the appellant before the police and another confessional statement was recorded on the basis of which, the case of missing person was converted into one under Sections 302, 376, 379 and 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'). Thereafter, the appellant took Shanmugam (PW.16) I.O., Vijayan (PW.9) and Murugesan (PW.1) and got recovered the dead body of the deceased.

E. A Sessions Case No. 198 of 2009 was instituted, wherein the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and relied on various exhibits and objects. The trial court after hearing the parties convicted the appellant for the charges framed and awarded death penalty vide judgment and order dated 12.3.2010.

F. The matter was submitted to the High Court for confirmation of death sentence under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') and the appellant also filed an appeal against the said judgment and order. The High Court vide its impugned judgment and order dated 21.9.2010 upheld the conviction as well as the death sentence awarded by the Sessions Court.

Hence, this appeal.

(3.)Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there is no eye-witness. The depositions made by Marimuthu (PW.5) and Amudha (PW.8) cannot be relied upon as their version is quite unnatural and no evidence has been produced to corroborate the version given by the said witnesses, particularly, about the character of the appellant given by Amudha (PW.8). His wife and sister-in-law who alleged to have been mis-behaved with by the appellant had not been examined. More so, it was not a case where death sentence could have been awarded