The judgment establishes the importance of proving all circumstances without a snap and the need for the defense to rule out the prosecution's case when the cause of death is specifically stated.

M. Chockalingam, J.

Challenge is made to the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.1,Erode, made in S.C.No.222 of 2008 whereby the appellant ranked as A2 along with the other accused ranked as A1 stood charged, tried and found guilty under sections 364, 379, 302 r/w 34 and 201 I.P.C. and were awarded 10 years rigorous imprisonment, 3 years rigorous imprisonment, life imprisonment and 3 years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the said judgment, A2 has preferred this appeal.

2. Theshort facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:

(a) The deceased Iyer @ Rajagopal was doing a real estate business. P.W.2 was employed in the wine shop where the deceased used to consume liquor. A1 and A2 were employed for construction activities by the deceased. A1 and A2 also used to have liquor along with the deceased in that wine shop. The deceased used to pay not only for himself but also for others who consume liquor with him. In that process, A1 and A2 met him often and hence, P.W.2 was acquainted with A1, A2 and the deceased. On 14. 2008 at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased went to the liquor shop and had liquor along with P.W.2 and thereafter, since the deceased wanted to have more liquor, they went to the wine shop which was situated in front of Sikkanaicker college. At 8.00 p.m. the deceased phoned over to A1 and A2 through his cell phone-M.O.3 and called them to have liquor with them. After sometime, A1 and A2 arrived there. Thereafter, all the four, viz., the deceased, P.W.2, A1 and A2 consumed liquor. The deceased paid Rs.400/-. After paying Rs.400/-, the deceased had Rs.3000/-in his pocket which was noticed by P.W.2, A1 and A2. The deceased was in such a drunken mood that he could not even walk. The deceased asked the accused/A1 and A2 to take him to his house. Hence, A1 and A2 arranged for an auto. At about 10.45 p.m., the accused stopped the auto of P.W.1 who came there. A1 and the deceased got inside the auto. A2 followed the auto in the TVS moped. Since the deceased was in a drunken mood, A1 tried to take Rs.3000/-from the pocket of the deceased but the deceased prevented the same. Hence, there was wordy altercation between A1 and the deceased. On seeing this, P.W.1 who was driving the auto thought that it would lead him in trouble. Therefore, he stopped the auto at Bharathi Nagar near Madha church and asked them to pay the auto charge of Rs.30/- and get down from the auto. At that time, A2 who was following the auto, stopped his bike and gave Rs.100/-to P.W.1. Since P.W.1 did not have change, he went to get change in a nearby provision shop. Taking advantage of the situation, A2 pushed the deceased inside the auto and took the auto and drove the same. A1 followed the auto in the two wheeler. Though P.W.1 cried for help, he could not stop them.

(b) P.W.1 went in search of his auto that whole night. The next day morning, he met P.W.2 and enquired about A1 and A2 and got their address. Then, he proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a complaint Ex.P1 as to the theft of auto. P.W.14, Sub-Inspector of Police, on the strength of Ex.P.1 complaint, registered a case in Crime No. 286/2009 under section 379 IPC. Ex.P23, F.I.R. was despatched to Court. He took up investigation, went to the wine shop and prepared Ex.P3 observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses and also drew a rough sketch Ex.P24. He also examined P.Ws. 1 to 3.

(c) During the course of investigation, on 24. 2008 at 7.00 a.m. P.W.1, again went to the police station and gave a complaint that his auto was found near a temple and in that, the drunkard person who came in his auto on 14. 2008 was found dead. The complaint given by P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P.22. The case in Crime No.286/2008 originally registered under Section 379 was altered to Sections 364 and 302 IPC.

(d) P.W.15, Inspector of that circle, proceeded to t