2019 Supreme(Mad) 2313

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, N. ANAND VENKATESH, JJ.
Murugan & Others - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli District - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD) No. 467 of 2017
Decided On : 12-11-2019

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code Section 452 - Criminal Procedure Code1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Evidence Act - Section 134 – FIR - case after witnessing incident immediately arranged for an Ambulance and had taken dead body of deceased to Government Hospital Tenkasi and deceased was declared to have been brought dead and dead body was kept in mortuary- He reafter went to Sub-Inspector of Police (P-W-28) and had given a complaint (Ex-P1) at about 2:15pm on 06-05-2009- complaint was received and an FIR (Ex-P43) came to be registered in Crime No-271 of 2009 for an offence under Section 302 of IPC- Express FIR was sent through a Head Constable (P-W-27) to Judicial Magistrate Court and it reached Court at about 3-30pm on same investigation was taken over by Inspector of Police (P-W-31) and he went to Government Hospital Tenkasi and conducted inquest over dead body of deceased from 3:00pm to 4-45pm and prepared inquest report (Ex-P34)- He reafter went to scene of crime at about 5-15pm and and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex-P3) and also Rough Sketch (Ex-P55) in presence of witness (P-W-17)- He also collected Material Objects from scene of crime under Seizure Mahazar (Ex-P4 and Ex-P5)- He reafter recorded statements of witnesses –Held statement which distinctly leads to discovery of a fact alone is admissible- This exception provided in Section 27 of Evidence Act is very limited- But in instant case unfortunately trial court has relied on entire confession to come to conclusion that accused had illicit intimacy with deceased- Subsequently deceased developed intimacy with ors which was opposed to by accused and on fateful day when accused advanced sexual overtures deceased did not respond positively and refore accused had attacked deceased with wooden log and caused her death- In order to prove above facts absolutely re is no evidencecourt has relied on recovery of M-O-3 Wooden Log on disclosure statement made by accused- Section 27 of Evidence Act states that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in custody of a police officer so much of such information wher it amounts to a confession or not as relates distinctly to fact reby discovered may be proved- Here it needs to be noticed that it is not every fact that is discovered out of such statement which makes such statement as admissible- It is only discovery of a relevant fact which makes statement admissible in evidence- As has been held by Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya vs Stae of Emperors case [cited supra] relevancy between crime and fact discovered should be proved through or evidence and not by confession itselfclear from above judgment that relevancy between crime and fact discovered should be proved through or evidence and not by confession itself- From above confession statement said to have been given by A1 to A3 admissible portion of confession does not even state at which place y have kept weapon and what has been made admissible is also inculpatory statement that was made by accused persons which is inadmissiblecase it is found from Serological Report that M-Os-1 and 2 did not have any bloodstains and insofar as M-O-3 is concerned blood group did not tally- refore discovery of fact based on confession also does not in any way help prosecution – Appeal allowed