Back
2011 (3) Supreme 349
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dalveer Bhandari and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu — Appellant
versus
John David — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 2002
Decided on : 20-4-2011
(2010) 1 SCC 529; (2007) 4 SCC 415; (2008) 10 SCC 450; (2008) 17 SCC 225; (2010) 6 SCC 1 – Relied upon
(b) Criminal Trial – Circumstantial evidence – Law relating to circumstantial evidence restated. (Para 20)
(2008) 15 SCC 551 – Relied upon
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Evidence showing motive of the accused – He was last seen with the deceased – Conduct of the accused also suspicious – Gave voluntary confessional statement – Materials recovered at the instance of confessional statement of the accused – Enough circumstantial evidence to show that only the accused could have committed the crime – Prosecution has proved its case. (Paras 36 and 37)
(2007) 2 SCC 310 – Relied upon
(d) Criminal Trial – Circumstantial evidence – Cumulative effect of all the circumstances is to be seen – Failure to explain one of the circumstances would not be fatal for the prosecution case. (Para 38)
(1999) 8 SCC 715 – Relied upon
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 31(2) – Sentence modified to run concurrently and not consequently. (Para 41)
Facts of the case:
1. A young boy, the only son of his parents and a medical student was murdered by another student senior to him.
2. The manner in which he was killed and his dead body was disposed of after cutting it into different pieces was very gruesome and ghastly.
3. The trial court convicted the accused but the High Court acquitted him.
Finding of the Court:
Prosecution has established its case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2001 passed by the High Court of Madras whereby the High Court has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein. The High Court acquitted the respondent under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) by reversing the Judgment and order dated 11.03.1988 rendered by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1997.
2. The facts of this case are very shocking and very distressing. Murder is committed of a young boy, the only son of his parents, who at the relevant time was studying for a medical degree. The manner in which he was killed and his dead body was disposed of after cutting it into different pieces was very gruesome and ghastly. The person in the dock and who was accused of the crime was another senior student in the same campus.
3. Brief relevant facts leading to the registration of the first information report and giving rise to the present appeal are being set out hereunder.
4. In the academic year of 1995-96 the respondent-accused was studying in the senior first year course of MBBS and the deceased-Navarasu, son of Dr. P.K. Ponnusamy [PW-1], a retired Vice-Chancellor of Madras University, was studying in the junior first year course of MBBS in Raja Muthiah Medical College, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar. The respondent was staying in room no. 319 of KRM hostel and the deceased was staying in room no. 95 in E.1 Malligai Hostel belonging to the same medical college campus. PW-1 returned from his foreign trip on 07.11.1996 and was waiting for the arrival of his son-Navarasu from college to celebrate Diwali which in that relevant year fell on 10.11.96. When Navarasu did not return home till 09.11.1996, PW-1 started enquiring from the friends of his son, available at Madras but no information of his whereabouts could be gathered by the father. PW-1 then on 09.11.1996 rang up the university authorities to find out and ascertain the whereabouts of his son. When he was informed that the college authority found his hostel room locked and when it was broken upon, it was found that his belongings along with a small box were lying in the room but he was not available in the room. The college authorities and the father were of the opinion that Navarasu had not left for Diwali to Madras. PW-1 thereafter rushed to the University on 10.11.96 and made a complaint of missing of his son at about 11.30 p.m. on 10.11.96 which was registered as Crime No. 509 of 1996 [Exhibit-P1].
5. While this process was going on and without the knowledge of Annamalai Nagar Police, a torso was recovered at about 8.30 a.m. on 07.11.1996 by G. Boopahty, Inspector of Police, E.5 Pattinapakkam [PW-55], from the PTC Bus Depot at Mandaiveli, Madras based on the information given by Prakash [PW-53], conductor of the bus route NO. 21G. The said recovered torso was sent for post-mortem after inquest. The Annamalai Nagar Police after registering the missing report started investigation and during the course of such investigation gathered materials and also received information from various persons including students of the college pointing the guilt towards the accused, who was also found absconding from the college premises from 12-14.11.1996. On 14.11.1996 the accused surrendered himself before the Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi. The message of his surrender was conveyed to the Annamalai Nagar PS, which got the police custody for five days of the accused from 18.11.1996. On 19.11.1996 at about 1.30 a.m. the accused gave a confessional statement stating that he has put the severed head of the deceased in the boat-canal within the University campus. Pursuant to the said confession, the head was also recovered. Annamalai Nagar PS on 20.11.1996 asked E5. Pattinapakkam PS for sending the records connected with the torso recovered at Madras on the suspicion that it may belong
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
