BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on 22.08.2023 Pronounced on 13.12.2023 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.A.(MD)No.253 of 2021

1.Jahaber Sathik

2.Arivazhakan ..Appellants /

Accused Nos.1 & 2 Vs.

State Represented by The Inspector of Police, Thiruvidaimarudhur Police Station, Thanjavur District. ..Respondent /

Respondent Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in Sessions Case No.13 / 2019, dated 25.03.2021 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, and set aside the judgment and allow this Criminal Appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran for Mr.K.Veilmuthu For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.S.RAMESH, J.

The appellants herein have been arrayed as the 1^st accused (A1) and

2^nd accused (A2) before the trial court. The case of the prosecution is that at about 22.45 hours of 15.04.2018, both the accused had come to the house of the deceased Ajitha Beevi at Aaduthurai South Seniya Street. While A2 rang the calling bell at the door, A1 had entered the house through the back door and strangulated her with her saree. After murdering her, they had stolen 9¾ sovereigns of gold jewelry from the body of the deceased and left the scene, in the bike of A2 and hence, both of them were charged of having committed the offences under Sections 457, 380 and 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC.

2. The trial court had placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.12 and P.W.13, who had last seen both the accused together near the house of the deceased and also on the oral testimony of the finger print expert (P.W.15)

confirming the finger print match of A1, with the finger print recovered at the scene of occurrence, as well as on the recovery of the stolen jewels from the house of both the accused and had come to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved all the charges against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted both the accused to various imprisonments, including rigorous imprisonment for life for the charged offences. This judgment of the trial court passed in S.C.No.13 of 2019, dated 25.03.2021 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Kumbakonam is put under challenge in the present appeal.

3. Before the trial court, the younger sister's son of the deceased was examined as P.W.1. According to his testimony, on 13.04.2018, his mother was with the deceased and had left her house the next day morning. Thereafter at 7.30 p.m., his mother had spoken to the deceased over phone. On the same day at about 10.45 p.m., when his mother had called the deceased over phone, she had heard a male voice, which created a suspicion and therefore, his mother had called P.W.3 and P.W.4, who were residing near the deceased's house to check up on her sister. When P.W.3 and P.W.4 had gone to the house of the deceased, they found the front door locked from inside and the back door open. Inside the house, the deceased was dead with bleeding injuries. The cupboard was broken and the jewels on her body were missing. When P.W.1 heard this news, he along with his mother had come to the house of the deceased and had given a complaint-Ex.P.1 to the Police.

4. The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 also corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1. The prosecution had produced P.W.12 and P.W.13 before the trial court, who had witnessed both the accused together near the scene of occurrence before the incident. In their evidences, both these witnesses had stated that they had seen both the accused together with a rope in their hands.

5. P.W.15 is a finger print expert, who had taken the finger prints from the cupboard in the deceased's house that was broke open and by comparing the prints with that of the sample finger print of A1 and A2, had deposed that the finger print on the cupboard, m