important point
In a case where an offence is said to have been established on circumstantial evidence alone, all links in the chain must be found to be complete.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1.Appellant with two others, namely, A2, Vellingiri, and A3, Officer @ Paramasivam, were prosecuted for commission of the offence of murder of one Somasundaram.

Appellant was an astrologer. The deceased was passing through tough times. His son had also remained ill for long time. He allegedly was advised by the appellant to perform some poojas on the bed of the river Bhavani situated at Nanjaipuliyampatti on or about 29.4.1996. He went to the place for the said purpose along with the accused persons. The deceased at that time was said to be wearing a gold chain (M.O.1) and two gold rings (M.Os.2 & 3) engraved with the letters “P.Mani”. The deceased was allegedly last seen by PW-3 and PW-4 namely, Nallasamy and K.Devaraj respectively and his brother-in-law PW-5, Muthusamy. He, however, did not come back. On inquiries having been made from the appellant, the family members of the deceased were informed that he had gone away after performing the said pooja for attending some function.

He was even thereafter not heard of for a long time. An advertisement was issued in a local newspaper on 12.5.1996. Poongodi (PW-1), the wife of the deceased, in order to search out her husband, in turn, sought for the assistance of the appellant, who advised them to perform a pooja at Bannavi Amman Temple.

However, when the parents of the deceased and his grand-mother left for Bannavi Amman Temple for performing the pooja in the company of the appellant, they also did not return home. From a report which appeared in a local newspaper on 3.6.1996 PW-1 came to learn that the said three persons have been found murdered at Erode. He went to Erode and lodged first information report before the Erode, South Police Station, which was recorded by Manoharan (PW16). A first information report was registered being crime No.415/96 under the caption “man missing”. On 4.7.1996 the statement of PW-1 was recorded by the Investigating Officer PW-18. The Banglaputhur police station which had the jurisdiction to investigate into the said matter received the said first information report on 2.9.1996, on the basis whereof PW-17 the Head Constable of the said police station registered a case as Crime No.406/96 against the accused under Sections 302 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC). Accused Nos.1 & 2 were arrested on 6.7.1996 at a bus stop at Erode in the presence of Abdulhasan Ansari (PW-11). Allegedly, on the basis of a purported confessional statement made by the appellant, the Investigating Officer and others went to Coimbatore for recovery of a gold chain which is said to have been sold to one Dhanasekaran. The said gold chain and some bangles, however, were seized in connection with the murder of the deceaseds parents and grand-mother. He also took the police party to a jewellery shop belonging to one Dhanasekaran who produced a long golden chain. The same was seized and marked as M.O.1

2.Accused No.2 allegedly was having a gold ring in his finger which was seized and marked before the learned Trial Judge as M.O.3.

3.Accused No.3 was arrested near a municipal guest house at Erode on 7th July, 1996. Two Criminal cases were instituted against the appellants; one for commission of murder of Somasundaram; and the other for murder of his parents and grand-mother.

Whereas the first case was registered as S.C No.70/97, the second one was registered as S.C No. 100/97.

4.The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and other two accused persons for commission of offence under Section 120B, 302 read with Section 34 and 109 of the IPC as also Section 379 and 201 thereof. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 120B, 302 read with Section 34 and Section 109 of the IPC and one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 379 and three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 of the IPC.

5.Before the learned Trial judge, a large number of witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P