The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of motive and the last seen theory in cases of circumstantial evidence, as well as the admissibility of extra-judicial confession.

R. Banumathi, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the Judgment in S.C.No.11/2002 convicting the first appellant/first accused U/s.302 IPC and second appellant/second accused U/s.302 r/w.109 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each.

2. Briefly stated case of prosecution is that A1 and A2 are close associates and doing business of preparing wash and selling to sellers of illicit arrack. Deceased Yesubalan is distiller of illicit arrack and owed a sum of Rs.500/-to A1 and A2 towards purchase of wash. On the morning of 5. 2001, A1 and A2 demanded money from the deceased. Deceased Yesubalan told them that he has stopped distillation of illicit arrack and requested time for paying the amount which resulted in wordy quarrel. PW1-Prakasam and PW2-John (wife and brother of the deceased) asked deceased to give back money to the accused. On 05. 2001, deceased took meal at about 8.00 P.M. and left for shop and did not return back. Later deceased was found dead with bleeding injuries in the field of Chinnalagan.

3. Case of the prosecution is that on the night of 5. 2001, due to enmity A1 [Philip @ Johnwilliam] assaulted deceased with stone on his face, forehead, head and eyes and caused bleeding injuries and again assaulted Yesubalan with MO3-Big stone, when he turned facing the earth. A2 abetted the Commission of offence by holding the legs of the deceased. Yesubalan succumbed to injuries instantaneously.

4. On the morning of 5. 2001, PW1-Prakasam learnt about lying of body of her husband. After seeing the body, PW1 went to Bommidy Police Station and lodged Ex.P1-Complaint at about 10.00 A.M., on the basis of which Ex.P13-FIR was registered in Cr.No.216/2001 U/s.302 IPC.

5. PW13-Suresh Kumar, Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation and on inspection of scene of occurrence, PW13 prepared Ex.P2-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P14-Rough plan. Bloodstained mud [MO1], sample mud [MO2] were seized under Ex.P3-Seizure Mahazar. In the presence of panchayatdars, Inquest was held on the body of Yesubalan and Ex.P15 is the Inquest Report. After Inquest, body was sent for autopsy.

6. On requisition from PW13-Investigating Officer, PW8-Dr.Meena had conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Yesubalan. PW8 noticed lacerated wounds on the right side of forehead, right eye, right cheek and right temporal region and occipital region. PW8 also noticed fracture of lower jaw cut centre into two pieces. On opening of the skull both sides of the frontal and parietal and occipital bones and both sides of the anterior and posterior are fractured. Opining that death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the head injuries, PW8 Dr. Meena issued Ex.P12-Post-mortem certificate.

7. On 15. 2001, first accused surrendered before PW6-Natarajan[VAO] and has given confession statement which was reduced into writing [Ex.P4]. PW6-VAO handed over Ex.P4 and first accused to Bommidi Ps. On being interrogated, first accused gave a confession statement which led to recovery of Mos.3 and 4-Stones from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P6-Seizure mahazar. On 15. 2001, Investigating Officer has examined and recorded statement of PWs.3 and 4 U/s.161 Cr.P.C. who saw the deceased in the company of the accused. Upon receipt of chemical analysis report and on due completion of investigation, PW13 has filed the charge sheet.

8. To substantiate charges against the accused, PWs.1 to 13 were examined. Exs.P1 to P15 and Mos.1 to 8 were marked. Accused were questioned U/s.313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances and evidence. Accused denied all of them and pleaded that false case is foisted against them.

9. Upon consideration of evidence, learned Addl. Sessions Judge held that the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the appellants/accused U/s.302 and 302 r/w.109 IPC respectively and imposed life sentence and fine as aforesaid in Para (1).

10. Challenging the conviction of the appellants, Mr.M.S