Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Mad) 3110

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. SUNDAR, K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ.
Yuvaraj - Appellant
Versus
State, Inspector of Police, Elachipalayam Police Station, Namakkal - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 5 of 2019
Decided On : 30-06-2023

Advocates appeared: For the Appellant :A. Padmanaban, Advocate. For the Respondent: E. Raj Thilak, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an extra-judicial confession to be voluntary, truthful, and supported by corroboration. The court emphasized the need for the confession to inspire confidence and be free from material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

Headnote:
Extra Judicial Confession - Criminal Appeal - Section 302 IPC - [Section 302 IPC] - The court discussed the admissibility and reliability of the extra-judicial confession and the recovery of incriminating articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It highlighted the principles for admissibility of extra-judicial confession and the need for corroboration and credibility. The court found the confession surrounded by suspicious circumstances and lacking corroboration, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with the murder of his father based on the prosecution's case of an extra-judicial confession and recovery of incriminating articles. The trial court convicted the accused based on the alleged confession and recovery.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the extra-judicial confession lacked credibility and corroboration, and the recovery of incriminating articles was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court were set aside, and the accused was acquitted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility and reliability of the extra-judicial confession and the recovery of incriminating articles under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles for admissibility of extra-judicial confession, including the need for corroboration, voluntariness, and credibility. It also highlighted the requirement for the recovery of incriminating articles under Section 27 to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, setting aside the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court. The accused was acquitted and ordered to be released unless required in connection with any other case.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed in S.C. No.27 of 2016 dated 06.12.2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.)

K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J.

1. The Appellant/Accused has preferred the instant criminal Appeal ( as an aggrieved person) as against the judgment dated 06.12.2018 in S.C.No.27 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal Session Judge, Namakkal.

Facts:

2. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant/Accused is an habitual drunkard and frequently developed quarrel with his father. He was in the habit of demanding money from his father for doing Rig business. When the same was refused by the deceased father, the Appellant/Accused uttered,

to do away with him. On 01.05.2013/02.05.2013 in between 11.00 p.m and 01.00 a.m the Appellant/Accused took his father and inflicted a cut injury with koduval on the head of his father, who succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Hence, the Appellant/Accused was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution has examined 11 witnesses and marked Exs.P.1 to P.35. On the side of the Accused neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in.

3. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, after perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record and the arguments advanced on both sides passed the impugned Judgment in S.C.No.27 of 2016 on 06.12.2018 in which he had observed as follows:

''Taking into consideration of all the materials on record, this court is of the view the intention of the accused to do away with the deceased and putting into action proves that he has decided to cause death of the deceased and hence, prosecution proved that, accused committed murder of Kandasamy, with intention of causing death beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be punished u/s 302 IPC.

Taking into consideration of all the evidences, documents and other materials on record, it is held as, the prosecution proved that the accused committed murder of Kandasamy on 01.05.2013 within the Elachipalayam PS jurisdiction beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused Yuvaraj is liable to be punished u/s 302 IPC.

In the result, the accused Yuvaraj committed murder, and taking into consideration of the same, accused is convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and imposed fine sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 years.

Since he is found guilty, he is not entitled to any compensation for his arrest and detention, no compensation is passed u/s 358 of Cr.P.C. Since the victim PW 1 has come forward with truth, he is entitled for compensation u/s 357(a) IPC and he can claim the Victim Compensation before the District Legal Services Authority, Namakkal by filing application u/s 357(a) and 357(A) IPC.

If any remission is given to him by the State Government, in that case, the accused is entitled to set off the period of imprisonment already undergone Section u/s 428 Cr.P.C.'

4. Aggrieved by this, the present criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant/Accused.

5. The learned counsel for Appellant/Accused urges before this Court the following contentions,

(i) The prime witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.5 turned hostile. They did not support the case of the prosecution.

(ii) The conviction of the Appellant/Accused was based on the 'Extra Judicial Confession' (Ex.P.9) alleged to have been given by the Appellant/Accused to the Village Administrative Officer examined as P.W.6. There was no acquaintance between the accused and the Village Administrative Officer for the Appellant/Accused to repose confidence in him and give the alleged confession statement. The alleged 'Extra Judicial Confession' is surrounded with suspicious circumstances and inherent improbabilities.

(iii) The trial Court failed to take into