Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 492
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, B. PUGALENDHI, JJ.
Sivaranjith & Others - Appellant
Versus
State Rep by the Inspector of Police & Others - Respondent
Crl. A (MD) Nos. 264, 352 of 2016 & 101 of 2019
Decided on : 30-04-2019
V. Kathirvelu, K.K. Ramakrishnan, S. Hameed Ismail, K. Prabhu, S. Ramasamy, Advocates.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 201 , 364-A and 302 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 374, 372 , 207 , 313, 160, 161 , 162 , 292, 293 and 294 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B – Offence of murder – Kidnapping for ransom – Charged - Appeal against conviction - (PW-1) is an affluent mill owner and has several businesses, including real estate - Deceased, in this case, is his son - Apart from, (PW-1) has a daughter - On (PW-1) left his son to manage mill and went with his wife and his daughter - Around 06.00 a.m., on (PW-1) received a phone call from his aunt - (PW-3), who informed that left the house around 07.00 to 08.00 p.m., on previous night, i.e., on and had not returned home - She also told him that handed over day’s collection - Complaint (EX-P1), (PW-26), Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No. hours for “boy missing” and prepared printed First Information Report, (EX-P32), which reached jurisdictional Magistrate at 12.00 hours on as could be seen from endorsement made thereon - Investigation of case was taken over by Gandhi, Inspector of Police, (PW- 33), who gave a requisition to Cyber Cell Unit, attached to office of Superintendent of Police asking for Call Detail Records (CDRs) of two mobile numbers mentioned above – Held, an extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence even against the maker, stretching of it to fasten criminal liability on co-accused who allegedly remained silent when his compatriot was confessing, is indeed a grey area - But, in (supra), extra-judicial confession was made to his friend (PW-6) in presence of Akhlaq. Mahesh Chandra (PW- 6) testified about it in Trial Court - Here, extra-judicial confession by (A-1) is before (PW-22), Village Administrative Officer, who has recorded it - Observe that investigation in this case is beset with artificiality, rendering prosecution’s case open to serious doubt - On an overall assessment of evidence, Court are convinced that prosecution obtained alleged extra- judicial confession (EX-P11) and had then gone about obtaining evidence to support it - This, Court notice, is a recurring practice - Investigative technique of securing confessions and then working backwards to engineer sufficient materials to corroborate it results in artificial and exaggerated prosecution versions that ultimately end in acquittals - Crl.A. (MD) Nos. preferred by (A-1) and (A-2) respectively are allowed and Crl.A. (MD) No.352 of 2016 filed by (PW-1) seeking capital punishment to accused stands dismissed
P.N. Prakash, J.
Prayer in Crl.A.(MD).Nos.264 of 2016 and 101 of 2019: Appeals are filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment dated 18.04.2016 made in S.C.No.53 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur.
Crl.A.(MD).No.352 of 2016: Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and enhance the punishment for the offences under Sections 364-A and 302 IPC from life sentence to death sentence in S.C.No.53 of 2015, dated 18.04.2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar District.)
1. The appellants are accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.53 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur. The Trial Court framed three charges against the accused, as detailed below.
| Charge | Accused | Penal Provisions |
| 1 | 1 and 2 | 364-A IPC |
| 2 | 1 and 2 | 302 IPC |
| 3 | 1 and 2 | 201 IPC |
2. By a judgment and order dated 18.04.2016, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them, as under:-
Accused
Section of Law
Sentence of imprisonment
Fine amount
1 and 2
364-A IPC
To undergo imprisonment for life.
Rs.3,000/- each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
1 and 2
302 IPC
To undergo imprisonment for life.
Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
1 and 2
201 IPC
To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
3.1. Gajendra Raja (PW-1) is an affluent mill owner and has several businesses, including real estate. The deceased, in this case, is his son - Premkumar, who was around 18 at the time of his death. Apart from Premkumar, Gajendra Raja (PW-1) has a daughter - Deepa. On 03.05.2013, Gajendra Raja (PW-1) left his son to manage the mill and went with his wife - Vigneshwari and his daughter - Deepa to Ernakulam in Kerala. Around 06.00 a.m., on 05.05.2013, Gajendra Raja (PW-1) received a phone call from his aunt - Pankajammal (PW-3), who informed that Premkumar left the house around 07.00 to 08.00 p.m., on the previous night, i.e., on 04.05.2013 and had not returned home. She also told him that Premkumar handed over the day’s collection of Rs.80,000/- to her. On 06.05.2013, Gajendra Raja (PW-1) returned home and searched for his son, but, in vain. So, he gave a written complaint (EX-P1) to the police, wherein, he has given the two mobile numbers, viz., 94864 88386 and 86084 84852 used by Premkumar and has further stated that his son went missing from 08.00 p.m., on 04.05.2013.
3.2. Based on the complaint (EX-P1), Murugesan (PW-26), Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.306 of 2013, on 06.05.2013, at 11.45 hours for “boy missing” and prepared the printed First Information Report, (EX-P32), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 12.00 hours, on 07.05.2013, as could be seen from the endorsement made thereon. The investigation of the case was taken over by Gandhi, Inspector of Police, (PW- 33), who gave a requisition to the Cyber Cell Unit, attached to the office of the Superintendent of Police asking for the Call Detail Records (CDRs) of the two mobile numbers mentioned above. On 17.05.2013, he received the necessary details including the IMEI numbers of the mobile phone used by Premkumar.
3.3. On 17.05.2013, at 2.00 p.m., Sivaranjith (A-1) and Sakthikumar (A- 2) appeared before Arivazhagan (PW-22), Village Administrative Officer. Sivaranjith (A-1) gave an extra-judicial confession (EX-P11). After recording the extra-judicial confession (EX-P11), Arivazhagan (PW-22) handed over Sivaranjith (A-1) and Sakthikumar (A-2) to Gandhi, Inspector of Police, (PW- 33), who placed
