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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 5004

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
Sivashankar
Versus
The State by Inspector of Police, Salem District
Criminal Appeal Nos.639 & 688 of 2009
Decided On : 23-11-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:R. Nalliappan, B. Vasudevan, S. Karthikeyan, Advocates.
For Respondent: Babu Muthu Meeran, A.P.P.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case.

Headnote:

Criminal Appeal - Murder - Sections 302 and 201 IPC - [302, 201 IPC] - The court found the appellants guilty of murder and disposing of the bodies. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including the last seen theory, recovery of material objects, and identification of the bodies. The court analyzed the evidence and upheld the conviction, finding the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the discovery of two dead bodies, John Bosco and Madhan, and the subsequent investigation leading to the arrest and trial of the appellants for murder and disposal of the bodies. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellants guilty of the charges based on the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The court upheld the conviction, concluding that the prosecution had proven the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the sufficiency and reliability of the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution, including the last seen theory, recovery of material objects, and identification of the bodies. The defense raised concerns about the credibility and timing of witness statements and the recovery of material objects.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing a complete chain of circumstantial evidence without any gaps to prove the guilt of the accused. The court also considered the reliability of witness statements and the timing of evidence presented by the prosecution.

Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellants, finding them guilty of the charges related to the murder and disposal of the bodies. Both appeals were dismissed.

Judgment :-

M. Chockalingam, J.

This judgment shall govern these two appeals, namely, Crl.Appeal No.639 of 2009 at the instance of A-1 and A-2 and Crl.Appeal No.688 of 2009 at the instance of A-3.

2. Both the appeals challenge a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division (Fast Track Court No.II), Salem, made in S.C.No.21 of 2009, whereby the appellants as A-1 to A-3 stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows:

The sentences imposed on the respective accused were ordered to run concurrently.

3. Short facts necessary for the disposal of both the appeals can be stated thus:

(a) P.W.1 is a resident of Senai Nagar, Veeranam. On 17.02.2008 at about 7.00 AM, he went to his farm house for irrigating his lands and he found a white colour gunny bag floating in the well. Entertaining suspicion, immediately, he went to Veeranam Police Station and lodged Ex.P-1 complaint.

(b) P.W.20, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty at that time, on the strength of Ex.P-1, registered a case in Crime No.88 of 2008 under sections 302 and 201 IPC. Printed first information report Ex.P-21 was despatched to the Court.

(c) On receipt of the copy of the said first information report, P.W.26, the Circle Inspector of Police of Mallur, who was in additional charge, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P-2 and rough sketch Ex.P-27. The gunny bag was taken out and there was a dead body of a male, aged about 25, with his hands tied behind. P.Ws.2 and 3, who were the close neighbours of the same place were called and they witnessed the observation made by the investigation officer. Then, on intimation, P.W.6, the father of the first deceased, namely, Murali @ John Bosco, came over there and identified the dead body. P.W.7 is the wife of P.W.6 and P.W.8 is the brother-in-law of P.W.6. The investigator examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

(d) P.W.8 was running a travel agency, in which the said John Bosco was employed as a driver. On 14.02.2008, he took Martuti van bearing registration No.TN-30-L-2869, which was belonging to P.W.8, stating that he has to drop a friend at Salam. When he started from there, he took the second deceased, namely, Madhan also, but he did not return for two days. Hence, P.W.8 was compelled to give a complaint to Yercaud Police Station on 16.02.2008 at about 1.00 PM and the said complaint is marked as Ex.P-4.

(e) On the strength of Ex.P-4, P.W.20, the Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.41 of 2008 for ‘man missing’. Printed first information report is marked as Ex.P-22 and the investigation was going on. Pending investigation, they came to know that a dead body was found within the jurisdiction of Veeranam Police Station. Then, P.Ws.6 to 8 and others went to the place and identified the dead body of Murali @ Johan Bosco.

(f) P.W.26, pending investigation, conducted inquest on the dead body of John Bosco in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P-31, the inquest report. P.W.8 gave Ex.P-25 bill to P.W.26, under which a Nokia cell phone was purchased. He also further informed that it was entrusted to John Bosco. P.W.26, on receipt of Ex.P-25 sent the letter to the Manager, Airtel, Salem, mentioning the Nokias cell IMAI number, seeking call details with cell phone number and tower location for which P.W.25 sent Ex.P-26 call data records, which would clearly indicate that the user of the cell phone was one Sivasakaran and on seeing the address, P.W.26 went to the house of Sivasankaran (A-1) on 01.03.2008 and secured him and therefore, the investigation was taken up in that line.

(g) P.W.26 interrogated A-1 where he came forward to give a confessional statement admitting the crime and the admissible part of the confessional statement of A-1 was marked as Ex.P-7. Then, he has also given the details of the involvement of A-2 and A

3. Pursuant to the confessional statement, A-1 produced M.O.21 cell phone and M.O.20, rope which is attache























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