Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2479

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S.RAMESH, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
Ganesan - Appellant
Versus
State through The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.A.No.118 of 2019
Decided on : 02-08-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.S.Mohamed Ansar
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan, Mr.N.R.Elango, Sr. Counsel, Mr.Sharath Chandran

The court distinguished between the use of confessions during investigation and confessed FIRs, permitting confessions to benefit the accused, particularly in assessing mitigating circumstances in sentencing.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 174, 302, and 201 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304 and 201 - Conviction and sentencing of appellants for the murder of wife and illegal disposal of body - Prosecution established circumstances through confessions and circumstantial evidence - Court highlighted that both appellants involved in a scuffle and that the murder occurred without premeditation during a sudden quarrel, deserving leniency in sentencing. (Paras 2, 15, 16, and 17)

(B) Confessional Statements - Distinction in admissibility between confessions made to police during investigation and confessional FIRs - The court reaffirmed that confession can be used in favor of the accused to mitigate punishment, supporting the view that confessions do not always invoke Section 162 of Cr.P.C. which bars their usage against the accused. (Paras 14, 15, and 16)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, husband and his partner, were convicted of the murder of the husband’s wife based on circumstantial evidence, involving suspicions of infidelity and a quarrel leading to violence, culminating in the deceased's burial in the house. (Para 1)

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the act resulted from a sudden fight provoked by the deceased's aggression, and both appellants sustained injuries, interpreting their actions as not premeditated. (Paras 15-17)

Issues: The main issues included the admissibility and weight of confessions made to a stranger and the evaluation of circumstantial evidence proving guilt. (Paras 6, 9, and 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that circumstances established through witnesses, behavior before and after the crime, and the nature of the confession justified the conviction while considering the provocation situation as a mitigating factor for sentence. (Paras 14-16)

Result: Criminal appeal partly allowed; first appellant's sentence commuted to time already served; second appellant's release recorded. (Para 18)

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2)
2. prosecution establishes the appeal through circumstantial evidence. (Para 3)
3. arguments by both parties regarding circumstantial evidence (Para 4 , 5)
4. court's analysis of evidence and confessions (Para 6 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12)
5. court reviews evidence and highlights contradictions in witness statements. (Para 7 , 10)
6. circumstantial evidence sufficiently indicates guilt despite lack of eyewitnesses. (Para 13)
7. final judgment and sentencing of the appellants (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by Accused No.1 and 2, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon them vide judgment dated 06.04.2017 in S.C.No.204 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Mahila Court (Fast Track Mahila Court), Tiruppur District.

2 (i). It is the case of the prosecution that the first appellant is the husband of the deceased whose marriage took place five years before the occurrence; that they had a daughter who was aged four years; that one year before the occurrence, the first appellant suspecting that the deceased had illegal relationship with a neighbour by name Arun Kumar, quarrelled with the deceased; that thereafter, the first appellant and the deceased shifted their residence to Coimbatore; that at that time, the first appellant developed intimacy with the second appellant; that on 17.02.2015, the first appellant took the deceased, their daughter and the second appellant and started living together; that the deceased quarrelled with the first appellant and objected to his having the second appellant in the house; that on 18.02.2015 at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased quarrelled with the first appellant as she found both the appellants sharing the bed; that she attacked the second appellant; that the second appellant in turn attacked the deceased with hands; that the deceased attacked the first appellant also; and that the first appellant thereafter took a wooden log and attacked the deceased on the head and other parts of the body, strangulated her neck and thereby caused her death.

(ii) It is further the case of the prosecution that after causing the death of the deceased, in order to screen the offence, the appellants buried the body of the deceased in one of the rooms in the house and thereafter placed hollow blocks and closed it with cement. P.W.1/the Village Administrative Officer, on information from P.W.2/brother-in-law of the first appellant that a foul smell emanated from the house of the appellants went to the house and found that a rkhjp construction was made in the house that looked like a tomb

Suspecting foul play, he lodged a complaint [Ex.P1] to the respondent on 23.02.2015 at about 6.30 p.m. The FIR [Ex.P19] was registered by P.W.13/Special Sub Inspector of Police for suspicious death under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, in Crime No. 99 of 2015.

(iii) P.W.14/Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up the investigation. On 24.02.2015, he went to the scene of the occurrence and prepared Rough Sketch [M.O.20] and Observation Mahazar [M.O.7] in the presence of the witnesses. He made a requisition for the conduct of post-mortem, informed the finger-print expert, dog squad and photographer and requested their presence. The doctor came to the scene of the occurrence and conducted a post-mortem at the scene of the occurrence. Since it was a case of suspicious death, initially the learned Executive Magistrate-cum-Tahsildar conducted an inquest. P.W.14 seized the sand from the place where the deceased was buried [M.O.8], the sand next to the place where she was buried [M.O.9] and the hollow block [M.O.12] in the presence of witnesses. He seized the dress materials of the deceased [M.Os.1 to 3]. On 25.02.2015, he examined the parents of the deceased and other witnesses. On 27.02.2015, P.W.1/the Village Administrative Officer, came to the police station along with t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2479

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS M.S.RAMESH, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ. Ganesan - Appellant Versus State through The Inspector of Police - Respondent Crl.A.No.118 of 2019 Decided on : 02-08-2024

The court distinguished between the use of confessions during investigation and confessed FIRs, permitting confessions to benefit the accused, particularly in assessing mitigating circumstances in sentencing.

Cases Referred (14)

Related Judgments

Ganesan vs State through The Inspector of Police - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 2479

Sudama Ram VS State of Bihar - 2025 Supreme(Pat) 122

Prakash Balmuchu s/o Late Aluris Balmuchu VS State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 763

Prakash Balmuchu, S/o. Late Aluris Balmuchu VS State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - 2023 Supreme(Jhk) 1514

Basavaraj, S/o Shantappa Shetteppanavar vs State Of Karnataka, Reptd. By State Public Prosecutor - 2025 Supreme(Kar) 2944

Rabi Murmu vs State of West Bengal - 2025 Supreme(Cal) 550

Gardi Mundari @ Diku, S/o. late Morai Mundari VS State of Jharkhand - 2022 Supreme(Jhk) 1041

Suman Biswas @ Sumanta Biswas, S/o. Shri Santosh Biswas VS State of Arunachal Pradesh, Rep. by P. P. - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 811

State of Himachal Pradesh vs Man Singh - 2025 Supreme(HP) 1062

Laxmanbhai Khodabhai Senva VS State of Gujarat - 2024 Supreme(Guj) 2054

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S.RAMESH, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
Ganesan - Appellant
Versus
State through The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.A.No.118 of 2019
Decided on : 02-08-2024