IMPORTANT POINT
The appellants, in this case, have miserably failed to explain their lawful possession of those articles with them (having human blood) that really belonged to the deceased or in possession of deceased when he landed in their car from airport and whose body was found in the way. Courts below rightly convicted and sentenced them for offences under Sections 392 and 302 r/w 34 IPC with the aid of presumption under Section 106 r/w illustration (a) to Section 114 of Evidence Act.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 392 and 302 r/w 34-Offences of robbery and murder with common intention-Based on circumstantial evidence-Stolen articles by robbery recovered from a car-Three accused found in car-Deceased hired the car-Murdered in way-Proximity of time between recoveries and murder-Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 106 r/w illustration (a) to Section 114-Presumption of robbery after murder-Whether proper? (Yes)-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Whether conviction needs any interference? (No) (Paras 8 to 13)-(Constitution of India-Article 136).
       Held : Though, the learned counsel for the appellants attempted to discredit the evidence by pointing out some minor variations and contradictions, we are of the view that the appreciation of evidence by the High Court, and broadly even by the Trial Court, could not said to be either arbitrary or perverse or considered to suffer any patent infirmities or illegalities so as to vitiate the findings. It is not every discrepancy or contradiction that renders the witness or evidence tendered by him unacceptable or tainted so as to call for their rejection in toto. On a consideration of the evidence, to which our attention has been invited and on going through the judgments of the courts below, particularly of the High Court, we find that the evidence has been carefully scrutinized noticing the contradictions and infirmities wherever found and properly marshelled and analyzed before affirming the verdict of guilt recorded by the Trial Court in respect of offences under Sections 392 and 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The possession by the accused, no doubt in the dickey of the car entrusted to the third accused, in which along with him only the 1st and the 2nd accused alone were found present at all relevant and material points of time, of the articles belonging to as well as those supposed to be in the possession of the deceased having been entrusted with them by PW-15 and PW-23 and others, as per the address slips found on the parcels, some of whom are the personal belongings of the deceased, which should have been only in his custody, have been substantiated by the prosecution by cogent and convincing evidence and accepted concurrently by both the courts below. Such possession by the accused is very much proximate in point of time to the death of the deceased to constitute whole thing an integrated affair and the controversy sought to be raised about the actual date of arrival (whether it is 9th or 10th March, 1994) even pales into insignificance, with the strong material glaringly starring against the accused. The accused have not been able to properly or reasonably explain as to the legitimacy or origin of their possession of the articles carried by the deceased when he arrived from abroad at the airport at Chennai. In such circumstances, since the facts relating to the same being especially within the exclusive knowledge of the accused, the legislature engrafted a special rule in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, to meet certain exceptional cases in which not only it would be impossible but disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish such facts which are specially and exceptionally within the exclusive knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The appellants in this case have miserably failed to explain their lawful possession of those articles with them that really belonged to and were in the possession of the deceased when he landed at the airport at Chennai. Consequently, it was legitimate for the courts below, on the facts and circumstances of this case, to draw the presumption not only of the fact that they were in possession of the stolen articles after committing robbery but also committed the murder of the deceased, keeping in view the proximity of time within which the act of murder was supposed to have been committed and body found and the articles recovered from the possession of the accused. The conclusions, in this regard, concurrently recorded by both the courts below are unassailable and do not call for our interference, within the area permissible for interference in an appeal entertained under Article 136 of the Constitution of India - only wherein it is shown that on the proved facts wrong inference of law has been drawn or the conclusions on facts are manifestly perverse and based on no evidence. No such infirmities could be successfully substantiated on behalf of the appellants in this case, to warrant any such interference. (Paras 12 and 13)
       (ii) Question of sentence-Offences of robbery and murder-10 years RI for former and life imprisonment for later-Whether harsh and disappropriate to nature of offences? (No)-Result-Appeals dismissed.
       Held : So far as the quantum of sentence also we are not persuaded to differ from the view taken by the courts below. A grave act of depravity, to kill an innocent person only for the purpose of enriching themselves of the fortunes brought by the deceased, who unaware of their diabolical scheme got lured into their company for a safe travel to his destination, deserves to be dealt with iron hand and the imposition of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence of robbery under Section 392, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence of murder under Section 302, IPC cannot be considered to be either harsh or so grossly disproportionate as to shock the conscience of this court. The appeals fail and shall stand dismissed. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Raju, J.-The three accused in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nagai Quaide-e-Milet District in Tamil Nadu, Ezhil (A-1), Saravanan (A-2) and Mohammed Iqbal (A-3), are the appellants before us. They have been charged for offences under Sections 364, 392 and 302 read with Sections 34, IPC, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. After trial and on consideration of the evidence and materials placed on record, the learned Trial Judge found the first accused guilty under Sections 364, 302, 392 and 201, IPC, the second and third accused guilty under Sections 364, 302 read with Section 34, 392 read with Section 34 and 201, IPC. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the Trial Judge imposed death sentence on the first accused for the offence committed under Section 302, IPC. For the offences committed by the accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Sections 364, a rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years was imposed. For the offence committed by accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, they were awarded life imprisonment. For the offence committed under Section 392 by the first accused and accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offence committed by them under Section 392 read with Section 34, IPC, they were awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years. For the offence under Section 201, IPC, the accused were awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years. The sentences awarded as above, except death sentence, were ordered to run concurrently. So far as the charge under Section 120B, IPC, is concerned, the learned Trial Judge held the same to be not proved against the accused .

2. Thereupon, the accused filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 410, 482 and 492 of 1997, which were taken up for disposal along with R.T. No. 4 of 1997 for confirmation of the death sentence imposed on the first accused. A Division Bench of the High Court thought fit to set aside the conviction of the accused under Sections 364 and 201 of IPC. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court for the offence under Sections 302 and 392, IPC, was upheld, with a modification that all the accused shall stand convicted under Section 392, IPC, read with Section 34, IPC, while choosing not to interfere with the quantum of punishment for the offence under Section 392, IPC. So far as the offence under Section 302, IPC, is concerned, while modifying the death sentence against the first accused into one of rigorous imprisonment for life, such sentence imposed by the Trial Court upon accused Nos.2 and 3 came to be affirmed. Hence, the above appeals.

3. Shri S. Muralidhar, learned counsel for the appellants, strenuously contended that the various circumstances noticed by the courts below to indict the accused of the offences found guilty cannot be said to be proved or substantiated beyond reasonable doubt and even the circumstances found substantiated do not go to form the necessary link to constitute a chain inevitably leading to the guilt of the accused of the offences charged with and held proved. According to the learned counsel, not only there is a strong and reasonable doubt about the case of prosecution, but the stand of the accused reasonably and plausibly explains away the circumstances noticed to hold them guilty and consequently the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal in our hands. Shri S. Balakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State, while relying upon the findings of the courts below, contended that the decisions recorded against the accused for the various offences were on a proper and objective consideration of all the relevant materials and the reasons assigned in support thereof were based on overwhelming material available on record and this Court may not be pleased to interfere with the same in this appeal filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

4. In order to appreciate the respective

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 550

Cases Referred (2)