P.N.Prakash, J. - (1.)The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.596 of 2015, on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The Trial Court framed as many as three charges, as detailed below.
JUDGEMENT_219_LAWS(MAD)3_2019_1.html

(2.)By Judgment dated 22.09.2016, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him, as detailed below:-
JUDGEMENT_219_LAWS(MAD)3_2019_2.html

The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.

(3.)The facts of the case lie a narrow compass:- The appellant, a shepherd and native of S.S.Puram in Tirunelveli District, was tending cattle in Kerala. He came to his native village on 12.02.2015, for harvesting the crops in his lands and stayed in his natal home with his brother and sister. At the request of his brother-in-law - Krishnan, he took around 300 goats to the lands belonging to his family for grazing. The goats strayed into the fields of the deceased - Esakkimmal and devoured the crops. On coming to know of this, the deceased saw the appellant on 25.02.2015, near the village temple and berated him for allowing his cattle to destroy her crops and made snide remark about the character of his wife.
3.1. It is alleged that on 26.02.2015, at 11.00 AM, when Esakkiammal was watering the crops in her lands, the appellant is said to have caused her death by belabouring her with a sickle. Thereafter, the appellant is said to have taken a chain belonging to her and had left the village on the same day for his work place in Kerala. Since Esakkiammal did not return home, Devika [PW-1], the daughter of the deceased and the other relatives, namely, Arumugam [PW-2] and Ramiah [PW-3] started searching for her and ultimately, on the same day, around 10.00 PM, they went to the fields and found the body of Esakkiammal. On the complaint [EX-P1] given by Devika [PW-1], Rajaram [PW- 17] registered a case in Crime No.39 of 2015, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, against unknown accused, at 11.00 PM, on 26.02.2015 and prepared the printed First Information Report, [EX-P18], which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 06.45 AM, on 27.02.2015, as could be seen from the endorsement made therein.

3.2. The investigation of the case was taken over by Joseph Jatson [PW- 18], [who, hereinafter, shall be referred to as "the I.O"]. The I.O came to the place of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses - Kumaresan [not examined] and Murugan [PW-4], prepapred the Observation Mahazer [EX-P2] and Rough Sketch [EX-P19]. From the place of occurrence, he also seized bloodstained soil [MO-6] and soil without bloodstain [MO-7] under the cover of mahazar [EX-P3]. Jeyaraj [PW-10], the police photographer, took photographs of the body, which were marked as MO-9 series. From the place of occurrence, he recovered a spade [MO-15] and a sickle [MO-5] under the cover of mahazer [EX-P3] in the presence of witnesses - Murugan [PW-4] and Kumaresan [not examined]. The I.O conducted inquest over the body in the presence of panchayadars and the inquest report was marked as EX-P20. Thereafter, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem.

3.3. Dr.Rajesh, [PW-10], conducted autospy on the body of the deceased and in his evidence as well in the postmortem certificate, has given his opinion as to the cause of death, which is as under:- "The deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to cut injury to the neck".

3.4. The police were clueless for some time and the break through came when the appellant surrendered before Jawan [PW-14], the Village Administrative Officer, Koodangulam, on 04.03.2015, around 05.00 PM and gave an extra judicial confession [EX-P4]. After recording the confession, Jawan [PW-14] produced him before the I.O, who placed him under arrest and recovered 28 gram chain [MO-4] from his pocket under the cover of mahazer [EX-P6] in the presence of Jawan [PW-14] and Arul Lingam [not examined]. Thereafter, based on the disclosure statement made by the appellant, the I.O seized a sickle [MO-11], a Cycle [MO-12], a full hand shirt [MO-13] and a lungi [MO-14] under the cover of mahazer [EX-P8]. Based on the disclosure statement made by the appellant, the police went to Muthoot Fin Corporation, Nagercoil, on 05.03.2015 and examined the CCTV footages and recorded the statement of Prince [PW-8] and Mery Pravija [PW-9], the jewel appraiser with regard to the chain, that was recovered from the appellant. The police collected the CCTV footages from Muthoot Fin Corporation for investigation purpose. Thereafter, the I.O altered the case into one under Sections 447, 341, 397 and 302 IPC and prepared the alteration report [EX-P21].

3.5. After completing the investigation, the I.O filed final report in PRC.No.36 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor. On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.596 of 2015 and made over to the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, for trial. The Trial Court framed charges against the accused, as detailed in Paragraph No.1, supra. When questioned, the accused pleaded "not guilty". To prove the case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses, marked 21 exhibits and 15 material objects. No witness was examined on the side of the accused nor any document marked. When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The accused gave certain explanations, about which, we will discuss a little later. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, by Judgment dated 22.09.2016, convicted the accused, as detailed in Paragraph No.2 supra. The appellant is, therefore, before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.