SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 486

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, DIPAK MISRA, JJ.
PARAMSIVAM & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 593 OF 2010
Decided On : 01-07-2014

IMPORTANT POINTS
In circumstantial evidence, motive becomes material consideration and strong circumstance.
Even if a witness turns hostile his evidence, if trustworthy, can be relied upon.
Presumption u/s 106, evidence Act applied.

Headnote:(a) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Motive – Material consideration and strong circumstance – Instantly, prosecution establishing land dispute as motive for the crime. (Para 8)

       (b) Criminal trial – Hostile witness – Even if a witness turns hostile his evidence, if trustworthy, can be relied upon. (Para 11)

       (c) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Appellants shown to have abducted the deceased – It was for them to explain what happened thereafter – In absence of explanation from appellants, courts below rightly drawing adverse inference. (Para 15, 18)

       (2000) 8 SCC 382; (2001) 4 SCC 375 – Relied upon

       (d) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Material recovery on basis of statement of accused – Such statement – Valid evidence. (Para 19, 23)

       (2006) 13 SCC 36; (1999) 4 SCC 370 – Relied upon

       (e) Criminal trial – Circumstantial evidence – Prosecution establishing every link in the chain of circumstances from abduction to recovery of vehicle, dead body and material articles as also motive – No infirmity in conviction. (Para 25)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellants –accused were tried, convicted and sentenced for murder of the deceased. High Court confirmed the conviction of accused nos.1 to 3 u/s 364 IPC and accused no.1 u/s 302 IPC and accused nos.2 and 3 u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine imposed upon them.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in conviction.

       Result:

       Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated 27th April, 2009, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.441 of 2007. By the impugned judgment appeal preferred by the appellants- accused nos.1 to 3 has been dismissed and conviction of accused nos.1 to 3 u/s 364 IPC and accused no.1 u/s 302 IPC and accused nos.2 and 3 u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine imposed upon them have been confirmed.

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows: Deceased Mani alias Parai Mani took lease of the land in S.F. No. 427/1 of Vadapudur village belonging to PW3-Krishnasamy and PW6-Ramasamy. Accused No.6-Nagarathinam was the neighbouring land owner. Since Accused No.1- Paramasivam and Accused No.6-Nagarathinam threatened the deceased not to break the stone, deceased Mani alias Parai Mani filed suit in O.S. No. 5/2004 before DMC, Pollachi for Permanent Injunction restraining Accused no.6 and PWs.3 and 6 from interfering with quarrying.

There was animosity between the deceased and the family of Accused no.6-Nagarathinam. About 10 days prior to the date of occurrence, Accused no.1-Paramasivam, Accused no.6-Nagarathinam and Accused no.7-Revathi threatened the deceased. About 4 days prior to the date of occurrence, Accused no.2-Selvaraj alias Selvan and another person approached the deceased for purchase of stone and since it was late hours, deceased refused to accompany them and asked them to come on some other day. Again Accused no.2 and another person approached the deceased on 18.1.2004 and asked for stones and deceased accompanied the accused to the quarry. PW1-Kannaiyan and PW2-Kala witnessed that deceased went along with Accused no.2-Selvaraj alias Selvan and Accused no.3-Nirmal.

On the said date i.e.18.1.2004, PW8-Sivakumar and PW9-Doraisamy who were returning from the Petrol Pump, saw white colour Maruthi Van bearing registration No. TN-23 E 5951 (MO1) was parked on the road side. PW9 saw the deceased and Accused no.1 were sitting inside the Maruthi Van. Next day on 19.1.2004, PW23-Pugazhenthi (Railway Key Man), Thirupur saw the dead body on the railway track and informed PW20-Ramachandran (Station Master) who in turn informed the Out-post Police Station, Thirupur. PW24- Sankaralingam (Head Constable) received the report and registered the case for 'suspicious death' in Cr. No. 12/2004 u/s 174 Cr.P.C. PW24-Head Constable went to the scene of occurrence and found the dead body of a male on the railway track, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P15) and Rough Plan (Ex.P16). PW24 also held Inquest on the body of the deceased (Ex.P18) and sent the dead body for autopsy to Government Hospital, Thirupur.

On his request PW27-Nizar Ahemad had taken photographs (MO18 series) of the body lying on the railway track. PW33-Dr.Parimala Devi conducted autopsy over the dead body and noted the injuries, Dr. Devi opined that death was due to multiple injuries on the neck and head injuries about 70 to 80 hours prior to autopsy. Since there was no clue about the identity of the dead body, body was buried at Chellandiamman grave yard Tirupur by PW24-Head Constable with the aid of PW22-Murugasamy (Grave yard watch man). Since, deceased not returned home, PWs.1 and 2 searched for him and on 20.1.2004 PW1 lodged written complaint [Ext.P1]. On the basis of written complaint, PW39-Rajendran (Inspector of Police) registered the case in Cr. No. 27/2004 u/s 363 IPC. PW39 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Plan.

He also enquired PWs.1 to 6 and 15 and recorded their statements. PW41-Shahul Ahmeed (Inspector of Police) took charge of the case on 26.1.2004 and made further investigation. On 28.1.2004 at about 1.45 P.M., PW41 arrested accused no.2-Selvaraj near Vanjipalayam railway gate. On being interrogated, accused no.2 voluntarily gave a confession statement which led to the recovery of Ropes (MO10 series), Banian (MO11), Ba









































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top