Extrajudicial confessions require corroboration through credible evidence; absence of supporting witnesses weakens prosecution's case, leading to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

M. Jothiraman, J.

Challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2019 passed in S.C.No.2 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal, the appellant has preferred the above appeal.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:

2.1 PW1 – Sridharan, Village Administrative Officer, deposed that while he was in his office along with his Assistants Angamuthu, Varadappan and Ramakrishnan on 18.02.2010 around 6.00 a.m., the accused appeared before him and gave a statement stating that he has murdered his father Sundaram on 27.01.2010 between 9.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. in his house; the accused further confessed that his father Sundaram had sold his land for a sum of Rs.80,000/- and his father had given the entire amount to the elder son and when the accused demanded his part of the share, the deceased Sundaram rejected the same, on hearing which, the accused got angry and murdered Sundaram by holding his head and slamming it on the wall and after that, the accused, using an axe, chopped Sundaram's body into two pieces, tied them in a sack, and buried them under the jackfruit tree near the bathroom; the next day, when the accused's mother and neighbours inquired about the whereabouts of Sundaram, the accused informed them that Sundaram had gone to Thirupathi and then to Perambalur; he (PW1) recorded the statement and read over the same to the accused and obtained his signature; the signature of the accused in the confession statement was marked as Ex.P1; he (PW1) also affixed the signature and the same was marked as Ex.P2 and the confession statement given by the accused was marked as Ex.P3; thereafter, he (PW1) took the accused along with the special report (Ex.P4) to the police station, where, the Inspector of Police registered the FIR (Ex.P6), in which, he (PW1) affixed the signature as complainant and his signature found in the complaint was marked as Ex.P5; the Inspector of Police (PW17) arrested the accused and on enquiry, the accused voluntarily gave confession statement in the presence of PW1 and his Assistants, which was signed by PW1 (signature marked as Ex.P8) and his Assistant one Angamuthu; the confession statement before the Inspector of Police was also signed by accused and his signature was marked as Ex.P7; in pursuance of the confession statement, the accused took them to the scene of occurrence at Puduchatram, from where, the accused identified the place of murder and the place, where, the accused had chopped Sundaram’s body; then, on 18.02.2010 around 7.00 a.m., PW17/Inspector of Police prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P10) and drawn rough sketch (Ex.P29) in the presence of PW1; then, the accused produced the axe (M.O.1) and spade (M.O.2) from the bathroom of his house and the same were seized under the seizure mahazar (Ex.P12) and the same was signed by PW1 and the signature of PW1 in the seizure mahazar is Ex.P11; the accused also shown the place, where, he buried the body of Sundaram; the admissible portion of the confession statement of the accused before the Investigating Officer is Ex.P13; thereafter, all of them went to the police station; around 3.00 p.m., again they went to the scene of occurrence on the request of the Tahsildar; in the presence of Tahsildar, himself (PW1) and his Assistants, the accused identified the place, where, Sundaram’s body was buried and then his (PW1’s) assistants Varadhapan and Ramakrisnan dug the place and within one feet depth, they found a white color gunny bag and also a human body in decomposed state; PW17 prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P15) and rough sketch (Ex.P30) in his (PW1’s) presence.

2.2 PW2 – Ramayee, who is the mother of the accused, deposed that she has two sons; her husband