DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Appellant, who was described as A2 in Sessions Case No. 117 of 1990, had filed an appeal to challenge his conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) before the Madras High Court. Judgment dated 3.7.2000 in Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 1990. The appeal was dismissed. Appellant faced trial along with one Doraiswamy who has described as A 1. It was alleged that both of them were responsible for murder of Rajendran (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) on 19.4.1988 at about 10 p.m. Trial court acquitted A 1 while holding appellant guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. Background facts as projected in a nutshell are as follows:

1.1. PW.2 is the father and PW.3 is the younger brother of the deceased Rajendran. They were residents of Valluvampakkam. The accused were also residing in the same village. The deceased was having illicit relationship with the wife of A 1 and PW.2 took his son to task and advised him not to have any relationship with the wife of A 1. It is also the case of the prosecution that the deceased tried to molest PW.5 the wife of A2. This is said to be the motive for the occurrence.

1.2. On 19.4.1988, PW.2 left Valluvampakkam for Madras to see his daughter and when returned at 8.00 p.m. on 21.4.1988 to the house he found his son Rajendran missing from the house. He questioned his other son PW.3 who then told him that the deceased left in the company of A2 for Ranipet and did not return. PW.2 thereafter advised PW.3 to go and search for the deceased at Ranipet. Accordingly, PW.3 went to Ranipet and searched for the deceased, but could not trace him.

1.3. Meanwhile, on 22.4.1988 at 7.0 a.m. PW.1, the Village Administrative Officer of Bagaveli, was informed by his menial that a body is lying in a field. PW.1 went to the spot and found the body. Around the neck of the body, a torn lungi, M.O.5, was seen tied. PW.1 thereafter went to Kaveripakkam Police Station where he gave a complaint to PW.14, the Sub- Inspector of Police, at 11.45 a.m. and the same stands marked as Exhibit P1 in this case. PW.14 on the basis of Exhibit P-1, registered a case in Crime NO.160 of 1988 under Section 17"4 Cr.PC. Exhibit P-14 is a copy of printed First Information Report. P.W.14 reached the scene of occurrence where at 12.10 p.m. he prepared an observation mahasar, Exhibit P-2 in the presence of PW.1 and also drew a rough sketch, Exhibit P-15. the dead body was caused to be photographed and M.O.4 series are the photographs. He also seized M.Os 1 to 3, a shirt, a lungi, and a banian respectively, from the scene under a mahasar Exhibit P3. He has converted the crime to one of suspicious death and sent copies of express report, Exhibit P-16, to the court and to the higher officials. He conducted inquest between 12.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. over the dead body of Rajendran in the presence of Panchayatdars during which he examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 and others. Exhibit P-17 is the inquest report. After the inquest, PW.14 sent the dead body with his requisition through PW.12 for post-mortem.

1.4. On completion of investigation the charge sheet was filed, case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. Accused persons pleaded innocence. Undisputedly the case at hand is a case of circumstantial evidence. While finding that the evidence is inadequate to fasten the guilt on A 1, the trial court held A2, the appellant herein guilty based on the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 8 & 9 who claimed to have seen the deceased last in the company of the appellant. The conviction, as noted above, was challenged before the High Court.

By the impugned judgment the appeal was dismissed.

1.5. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of PWs 3, 4, 8 & 9 should not have been relied upon. It is pointed out that all these witnesses were examined after considerable length of time. Further there was considerable gap betwee