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

2001 Supreme(Raj) 842

Supreme Court
Honble K.T. THOMAS & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
State of Tamil Nadu - Appellant
Versus
Kutty @ Lakshmi Narasimhan - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 1991
Decided On : August 10, 2001

Advocates Appeared:
S. Balakrishnan, Senior Advocate, Revathy Raghavan, Shweta Garg & Astha Tyagi, Advocates, with him for Appellant K. Vishwanathan, K.V. Venkataraman, Ajit Mohan Singh, Atul Kr. Sinha for S.R. Setia, Advocates, for Respondents

Headnote:Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 164 and Penal Code, Sec. 302 – Extra judicial confession – Acceptability – Corroboration of confession – Effect of retraction of confession – A judicial confession once made but later on retracted does not become defective or flowed – Even if articles belonging to the victim were recovered before the confession was made, the confession does not become bad – Confession were made voluntarily and the facts contained were true – Death sentence reduced to life imprisonment. (Paras 18 to 21)

       It is not the law that once a confession was retracted, the Court should presume that the confession is tainted. As a matter of practical knowledge we can say that non-retracted confession is a rarity in criminal cases. To retract from confession is the right of the confessor and all the accused against whom confessions were produced by the prosecution have invariably adopted that right. It would be injudicious to jettison a judicial confession on the mere premise that its maker has retracted from it. The court has a duty to evaluate the evidence concerning the confession by looking at all aspects. The twin test of a confession is to ascertain whether it was voluntary and true. Once those tests are found to be positive the next endeavour is to see whether there is any other reason which stands in the way of acting on it. Even for that, retraction of the confession is not the ground to throw the confession overboard. (Para 13)

       We are unable to understand how a judicial confession would become bad by reason of the fact that articles belonging to the victims were recovered prior to the making of the confession. That aspect, instead of vitiating the confession, could be a factor in favour of the voluntariness of the confession. When the culprit finds that the articles concealed by him are all disintered it is possible that he might feel that there is no use in concealing the facts any more. Then he may desire to make a clean breast of everything to any person or authorities. (Para 14)

Honble THOMAS, J.–Rani Padmini, a dainty film actress of the South and her mother Indira Kumari were butchered on an ill-fated morning fifteen years ago, in their own flat at Anna Nagar in Madras (new Chennai). Their driver, watchman and cook were later caught and charge-sheeted by the police for the said double murder. The Trial Court convicted all the three persons and sentenced them to death. But a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras acquitted two of them (the watchman and the cook) while altering the sentence of the driver to imprisonment for life after confirming the conviction. That person (A-1 Jebaraj) moved this Court for special leave to appeal but that special leave petition was dismissed.

(2). The State of Tamil Nadu filed appeals against the acquittal of the two persons (the watchman A-2 Lakshmi Narasimhan and the cook A-3 Ganeshan) but the later was not traced out in spite of repeated searches made for effecting the service of notice on him. Finally this Court dismissed the appeal filed against A-3, Ganeshan on 5.4.1999. Thus the appeal by special leave filed by the State as against the watchman (A-2 Lakshmi Narasimhan @ Kutty) is now surviving.

(3). The dreadful end of the gamboling cine artist and her mother happened in the following manner, as per the prosecution version. The mother and the daughter, while living in their apartment at Anna Nagar, Chennai, wanted to employ a driver a watchman and a cook. They advertised it in the newspaper. A-2 Lakshmi Narasimhan responded to the advertisement and he was eventually appointed as the watchman of the residential apartment of the two ladies. Within a few days A-1 Jebaraj was appointed as driver and later A-3 Ganeshan was employed as a cook. The deceased were apparently wealthy and they had cash and jewellery in good quantity. They negotiated for purchase of a house for about fifteen lakhs of rupees. When A-1 Jebaraj overheard the said dialogue he presumed that the ladies could be having the cash with them to buy the house. Then a wicked idea burgeoned in his mind that he should grab the said cash in whatever manner possible. He thought of killing the two ladies as an easier measure for collecting the cash and jewellery. A-1 Jebaraj disclosed this idea to A-2 Lakshmi Narasimhan @ Kutty and A-3 Ganeshan and sought their help to achieve the target. All the three conspired together and orchestrated a plan to carry out the operation of murdering the unarmed ladies and to share the booty among themselves after accomplishing the murder. A-1 Jebaraj purchased three knives and kept one with him and gave the other two to his co-conspirators.

(4). On the morning of 15.10.1986 the three accused jointly executed the designed scheme of killing both the ladies. First they killed the mother and when the daughter ran to see what was happening to her mother she saw the very persons they employed for their security and help turned out to be their slayers. They pounced on the damsel and killed her too by stabbing her with knives. The killers removed quite a number of movables from the house though they failed to trace out the huge cash stashed away by the wealthy victims.

(5). A-1 Jebaraj was arrested on 24.10.1986, A-2 Lakshmi Narasimhan was arrested on 3.11.1986. As A-3 Ganeshan disappeared to unreachable places the police had to cast the net far and wide and tenaciously persisted to catch him. Though delayed the police ultimately succeeded in 1988 to nab that absconding culprit. Many articles, including valuables, were recovered at the behest of the arrested persons. The confession of A-2 was recorded by a Judicial Magistrate on 24.11.1986. A-3 also confessed to the Magistrate which also was recorded purportedly in terms of Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, both of them retracted from the confessions during the trial of the case. Nevertheless, the Sessions Judge relied on those confessions, among other evidence, and reached the conclusion that the prosecution






















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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top