- (1.) THIS revision has been preferred by the Poplin (P. W. 1)against the order of acquittal of the accused, who was facing the charges under sections 364,302 and 201 of IPC in S. C. No. 241 of 2004 on the file of the First additional Sessions Judge, Erode.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that in order to satisfy the lust against P. W. 2 Mary a neighbour, the accused had kidnapped Joselin Prince 3 = years old minor second son of Poplin and in furtherance of it, the accused had murdered the child by causing suffocation to him by throttling his neck with a rope and has also screened the offence by putting the body of the deceased boy into a well. Hence the accused has been charged under Sections 364,302 and 201 of IPC. The case was taken on file by the trial Court and on appearance of the accused on summons, copies under Section 207 Cr. P. C were furnished to the accused and when charges were framed under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC and questioned the accused pleaded not guilty. Before the trial Court, P. Ws 1 to 16 were examined and exs P1 to P25 were exhibited and M. Os 1 to 12 were marked.
(3.) P. W. 1 would depose that his first son Perlin Prince was studying in Second standard at the time of occurrence and his second son joselin Prince was aged 3 years and 5 months and he (P. W. 1) and his wife were employed and second son, Joselin Prince was looked after only by his mother and sister. On 29. 1. 2004, when he was out of station to Coimbatore, he was informed that his second son was found missing and immediately he had preferred a complaint with Kanchikoil Police Station under Ex P1 and the corpse of the child was seen floating in the well on 31. 1. 2004. He could see ligature mark on the neck of the child,. He has identified M. O. 1 shirt worn by the child and m. O. 2 is the waist rope and M. O. 3 is the inner garment of the child. 5a) P. W. 2 is the sister of P. W. 1. She has corroborated the evidence of P. W. 1 to the effect that her brother and his wife were employed. They used to leave the second son , aged three years and five months in the house and she and her mother used to look after him till, her brother and his wife returned from their workplace. According to her, on 29. 1. 2004, thursday at about 10. 00a. m. , the second son of P. W. 1 Joselin was playing in front of the house, but later, he was found missing. Thereafter, since she was failed to support the case of the prosecution, she has treated as hostile witness. 5b) P. W. 3 is owning 3 1/2 acres of dry land at karukanthottam wherein there is a well and on 31. 1. 2004, he saw a gunny bag floating in the well and the leg of the child was protruding out from the gunny bag. Immediately, he rush up to Kanchikoil, Village Administrative Officer and informed the same. The Village Administrative Officer and his assistant ravichandran immediately came to his land and retrieved the gunny bag from the well and on opening of the gunny bag , he could find a corpse of a child with ligature mark on his neck. 5c ). P. W. 4,p. W. 5,p. W. 6, P. W. 7 have not supported the case of the prosecution. P. W. 15 is the Investigating Officer in this case, who had took up investigation and the first information report registered under Crime no. 12 of 2004 by P. W. 15 on 30. 1. 2004 at about 20. 30 hours. Ex P21 is the first information report. P. W. 15 has proceeded to the place of occurrence and drawn a rough sketch Ex P22. He has also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On the basis of the information received from the Village administrative Officer, he had proceeded to the well belonging to P. W. 3 with the help of the Assistant of the Village Administrative Officer, P. W. 9. Retrieved the gunny bag which was floating in the well. P. W. 1 had identified the corpse as his child. Ex P23 is the altered first information repot. 5d) P. W. 16 is the successor of P. W. 15. He has also visited the place of occurrence and prepared Ex P3 Observation mahazar and also another rough sketch Ex P24 in the presence of same witness P. W. 9 Palanisamy. He has conducted inquest before the panchayatars on the corpse of the deceased boy from 6. 30 p. m. , till 9. 30p. m. , on 31. 1. 2004. Ex P. 25 is the inquest report,. He had recovered M. O. 4 gunny bag. M. O. 6 wearing apparel of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 9 and another witness. He has examined the other witness and recorded their statements. On 1. 2. 1994 at about 7. 00 a. m, he had recovered blood stained sand M. O. 8 and sample sand M. O. 9 in the presence of P. W. 9 and another witness under Ex P5 mahazar. He had arrested the accused on 9. 2. 2004 at about 4. oop. m. , and had recorded the voluntary confession statement of the accused in the presence of P. W. 10 and another witness. Ex P6 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of the accused. On 9. 2. 2004 at about 6. 00p. m. , On the basis of the confession statement, the accused had took him and other witnesses to his place and produced a plastic bag M. O. 10, Trouser m. O. 11 and a piece of inskirt cloth. M. O. 12 which were recovered under Ex P7 in the presence of witnesses. He had sent the corpse for postmortem through p. W. 13. P. W. 13 had identified the corpse to the post mortem doctor P. W. 11. The wearing apparels from the corpse were recovered by P. W. 13 after post mortem and handed over to the Investigating Officer under his special report Ex P11. 5e) P. W. 11 had conducted autopsy on 1. 2. 2004 at about 8. 30a. m. , exhibited Ex P9 his post mortem report. The doctor has opined that the boy would have died 72 hours prior to the commencement of post mortem. The doctor has opined that due to asphyxia, the boy would have died. His final report is Ex P10. The doctor has further opined that due to strangulation, asphyxia would have been caused to the victim boy. 5f) P. W. 14 is the head clerk of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate's Court, Perunthurai. He had forwarded the material objects connected with this case with a requisition letter Ex P13 to the Court to forensic laboratory for chemical examination. Ex P20 is the report regarding the hyoid bone. Exs P18 and P19 are the requisition letters. 5g) P. W. 8 is the photographer who had taken photos at the place of occurrence. M. O. 4 series are positives and M. O. 5 series are the negatives. P. W. 16, after completing the formalities, had filed the chargesheet against the accused on 6. 7. 2004 under Sections 364, 302 and 201 of IPC. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, the accused would totally deny his complicity with the crime. He has not examined any witness on his side.;