2001 (2) Crimes 514
MADRAS HIGH COURT (DB)
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy and C.
Nagappan. JJ.
Chinnadurai & Ors. - Appellants
versus
State by Inspector of Police - Respondent
Referred Trial No. 5 of 2000 and
Criminal Appeal No. 903 of 2000
Decided on 16-2-2001
Counsel for the parties:
For the Appellants in Referred Trial No. 5 of 2000 : Mr. Ilamparithy. Advocate.
For the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 903 of 2000: Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy
for Mr. N. Manokaran. Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Shanmughasundaram, Public Prosecutor.

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Prosecution case can not be disbelieved only for some delay in express FIR reaching Court.
2. Where prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence there must be a chain of evidence consistent and complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and it must be such as to show that within all probability the act must have been done by accused and accused alone.

Headnote:(1) Indian Penal Code 1860 section case based on circumstantial evidence - All circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established - Facts so established should be consistent only .with hypothesis of guilt of accused – In assessing evidence ordinary human probabilities are to be considered.

       Held: The settled legal position from, the various decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court is that in a case of circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The proved circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and definite tendency, unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The Supreme Court further held that the circumstances must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the guilt of the accused beyond, all reasonable doubt. It is not necessary that each circumstance by itself to be conclusive but cumulatively must form unbroken chain of events leading to the proof of the guilt of the accused. If those circumstances or some of them can be explained by any of the reasonable hypothesis then the accused must have the benefit of that hypothesis. In assessing the evidence imaginary possibilities have no role to play and what is to be considered are ordinary human probabilities. In assessing the evidence to find these principles, it is necessary to distinguish between facts which may be called primary or basic facts on one hand and inference of facts to be drawn from them, on the other. In regard to the proof of basic or primary facts to be drawn from judge the evidence in the ordinary way and in appreciation of the evidence in proof of those basic facts or primary facts there is no scope for the application of doctrine of benefit of doubt. In brief, there must be a chain of evidence consistent and complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all probability the act must have been done by the accused and the accused alone. (Para 7)

       (ii) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27 - Pursuant to confession got recorded to police, accused led police party to place from where dead body of deceased was recovered - He also led police party to place from where car of decreased was hired – Police could locate that place and traced P.W 8 and PW 9 who had seen accused having hired taxi of deceased - Entire confessional statement was admissible. (Para 14)

       (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 302, 392, 201 - Accused hired car of deceased, murdered deceased on the way - Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence - Accused were intercepted by police with car at 4 AM and their interrogation led to confession by accused -_Dead body recovered at instance of accused pursuant to confession - Place from where car was hired also located pursuant to disclosure of accused - PW 8 and 9 had seen accused hiring taxi of deceased and they identified accused in test identification parade - Small delay in conduct of TIP was explained satisfactorily - Some delay in express FIR reaching Court would not render prosecution case unbelievable especially when appellant had not sworn any prejudice – circumstances established were consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused Conviction for offences called for no interference. (Paras 9, 15 to 17)

       (iv) Criminal Procedure Code – 1973 Section 164 – Confession - Whether inculpatory part of the statement can be relied on excluding exculpatory part - Where there is no other evidence to show affirmatively that any part of exculpatory element in confession is false, Court must accept or reject confession as a whole. (Para 15)

       (v) Indian Penal Code, 1960 - Sections 364, 302, 392 and 201 Offence of murder - Accused hired car, committed murder of its driver a long and went planned murder - No special reason to award extreme penalty - Death sentence awarded by trial Court reduced to life imprisonment. (Para 18)

       Result: Appeal dismissed with modification in sentence.