Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 3309
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JEYAPAUL
Ramesh
Versus
State rep by, The Inspector of Police
Criminal Appeal No.41 of 2009
Decided on : 25-08-2009
For the Petitioner:T. Muruganantham, Advocate. For the Respondent: Hassan Mohamed Jinnah, Additional Public Prosecutor
Admissibility of confession statement under section 164 and the credibility of prosecution's case based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder, Robbery - Section 302, Section 397 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for murder and robbery. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence including confession statements and recovery of material objects. The trial court relied on the recovery and confession statements to convict the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confession statement given by the accused under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not admissible due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions. The court also disbelieved the recovery of material objects due to witness hostility and tainted investigation. The prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Admissibility of confession statement and recovery of material objects, credibility of prosecution's case, compliance with mandatory provisions
Ratio Decidendi: Confession statement under section 164 must adhere to mandatory provisions for admissibility. Witness hostility and tainted investigation can affect the credibility of prosecution's case. Charges must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court was set aside, and the accused was acquitted of both charges.
M. Jeyapaul, J.
The sole accused who was convicted for the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also convicted for the charge under section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment, moves the present criminal appeal.
2. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 30 were examined and Exs.P1 to P24 and M.Os.1 to 9 were marked. There is neither oral nor documentary evidence on the side of the accused.
3. Thebrief summary of the case of the prosecution as spoken to by the witnesses reads as follows:-
i) The deceased Alamelu is the wife of PW1 Selvaraj. PW2 Chandrasekaran and PW3 Rajendran are the brothers of PW1 Selvaraj. PW10 Vemban is the son of PW1. PW14 Suresh is the son of the other brother of PW1.
ii) PW1 Selvaraj had been to foreign country for about ten long years to eke out his livelihood. Just about eight months prior to the occurrence, he came down to his village Eramanoor.
iii) On 12. 2006, PW17 Poomalai, brother-in-law of PW1 Selvaraj and brother of the deceased Alamelu, one Muthusamy and PW1 Selvaraj went by TVS XL vehicle to the fieled of PW3 Rajendran for the purpose of collecting plantain stem. Before ever proceeding to the house of PW17 Poomalai, he contacted his wife from the petrol bunk located at Salem Road. After making a call to his wife, PW1 proceeded to Vepur after leaving PW11 Muthukrishnan at Adari. From Vepur, PW1 proceeded to Virudhachalam and having taken a cycle from the shop of Sekar, went to Virudhachalam Union Office. He arrived at No.18 Deluxe Lodge in Virudhachalam to meet the Surveyor but, he was not found over there. Therefore, he came down to the shop of Sekar and left the cycle over there. Accompanied by Kalaiselvan, he went to the office of the Village Administrative Officer, who had received some deposit amount from him for the purpose of measuring the property belonging to PW1 Selvaraj and his brothers. The Village Administrative Officer, who received separately some deposit amount from PW1, did not return the said amount and therefore, the said amount was demanded back by PW1. At 4.30 pm, PW8 Arumugam came down to Virudhachalam and informed PW1 that Alamelu, the wife of PW1 was missing and cattles which strayed were tethered by him. PW1 alongwith his friends, having taken tiff in at Arcot Hotel returned to his village at about 6.00 pm on the said day.
iv) He contacted PW9 Seetha, wife of PW2 Chandrasekaran and enquired about Alamelu. She informed PW1 that cattles alone returned to the house, but not Alamelu. PW1 and his close relatives went in search of Alamelu. The places where Alamelu used to graze the cattle were searched. One Muthusamy located a towel of the deceased in the field of PW8 Arumugam. At a distance of about two metres from there, PW1 found the dead body of his wife with the injury on her neck. There was a ligature mark around her neck. The blouse was torn off. Nail marks were found. There was also an injury on her cheek. The petticoat was found on the upper portion of the body. The gold ornaments worn by Alamelu were missing. Blood had oozed out from ear and nose. The dead body of Alamelu was shifted to the house of PW1.
v) PW1 Selvaraj, thereafter, proceeded to Virudhachalam Police Station and lodged the complaint, Ex.P1 to PW28 Nagarajan at about 0030 hours at 12. 2006. PW28 registered a case in Crime No.470/06 and prepared printed FIR, Ex.P18. He despatched the original to the learned Judicial Magistrate and the copies thereof to the higher officials concerned.
vi) PW29 Prasannakumar, Inspector of police attached to Virudhachalam Police Station received a copy of the FIR at about 1.00 am on 12. 2006 and rushed to the scene of occurrence at about 2.30 am. He went to the field of PW8 Arumugam and inspected the same and prepared observation mahazar. He also drew rough sketch, Ex.P23 reflecting the scene of occurrence. At about 6.30 am on the sai
