Prosecution must establish a clear chain of circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime; reliance on uncorroborated confession renders conviction unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.

1. The criminal appeal No.688 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant/accused No.2. The criminal appeal No.734 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant / accused No.1. The criminal appeal No.762 of 2019 has been filed by the appellant / accused No.3.

2. The prosecution story runs thus:

2.1 A1 belonged to Athikanoor Village, A2 belonged to Aruiyur Village, Tirupattur Taluk, and A3 belonged to Seethapatti Village, Aravankurichi Taluk. A2 and A3 are drivers of the brother of A1 and they are friends. A1 is the wife of deceased, Sanjeevan. For the past six months there was illicit intimacy between A1 and A2. The deceased was a drunkard and he used to regularly suspect the character of A1. Having all these things in mind, A1 planned to do away the deceased with the help of A2 and A3. On 31.10.2011, A2 and A3 dropped a TATA SUMO Car bearing Regn.No.TN 70 D 5802 around 2.00 p.m. A1 brought a spade and a crowbar from her uncle’s house and went to Arunapathy Lake to keep them. They parked the TATA SUMO car at Nallagounder Village and took one two wheeler bearing Regn.No.TN 24 S 1857. They went to the lake at 5.00 pm., and they dug a pit. After 11.45 pm, A1 called A2 and A3 to her house. Thereafter, A1 to A3 smothered the deceased with a pillow. Then A2 had cut the throat of the deceased, due to which, the deceased died. Thereafter, A2 and A3 covered the dead body with a bedsheet and tied it around and took the body to the lake and buried the body.

2.2 P.W.1, Indhumathy, the then Village Administrative Officer deposed that she received an information from her Assistant Swaminathan on 09.11.2011 that a body of a male was lying at Arunapathy Lake near Muthampatty bus stop. P.W.1 and her assistant proceeded to the lake to see the body in the evening at 6.00 pm. Thereafter, P.W.1 gave a written complaint Ex.P1 before P.W.24.

2.3 P.W.24, Sivalingam, Inspector of Police deposed that on 09.11.2011, he had received the complaint from P.W.1 and in pursuance thereof, registered the case in Cr.No.581 of 2011 under Section 176 (3) of Cr.P.C and also registered the First Information Report Ex.P.28. He took the case for investigation and he gave a requisition letter to Tahsildar, Uthankarai to exhume the body. On 10.11.2011, P.W.15, Tahsildar, exhumed the body in the presence of P.W.1, her assistant, P.W.23, Sub Inspector of Police. Thereafter, P.W.15 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. P.W.24 has prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P2 and drawn rough sketch, Ex.P.29 in the presence of P.W.1 and one Swaminathan.

2.4 P.W.15, Baskaran, Tahsildar deposed that on 10.11.2011, he had received an information that a body of a male was lying at Arunapathy Lake from P.W.24. He went to the scene of occurrence along with P.W.1 and other witnesses and saw the deceased body and he had given a requisition letter (Ex.P16) through P.W.18-Head Constable to conduct Autopsy. He noticed a pillow, a nylon rope and one rope in the scene of occurrence. P.W.15 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, he found that the body was in a decomposed condition and has prepared inquest report Ex.P.17. At that time, P.W.3 and P.W.4 came there and told that the deceased was their brother, P.W.3 and P.W.4 could identify their brother with the help of inner wear, waist rope, teeth and the ropes tied around his hands.

2.5 Thereafter, P.W.24 sent the deceased body to conduct post- mortem through P.W.18. P.W.24 also recovered green coloured white striped lungi (M.O.1), a white rope (M.O.2) having length of 3 cm. and width of 177 cm., A coconut coir rope (M.O.3) and broken bangle pieces (M.O.4) and a pillow cover (M.O.5) and the same were recovered under mahazar Ex.P.3. After having examining P.W.15, P.W.24, altered the F.I.R. under Section 302 and 201 of IPC. The alteration report is