Back
2012 Supreme(UK) 32
2012 (1) N.C.C. 353
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar
Criminal Appeal No. 522 of 2006
MADHU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Decided on : 13.01.2012
For the Respondent:Ms. Liz Mathew, Ms. Sana A.R. Khan, Advocates
Headnote:(A) Circumstantial Evidence — Evaluation of — Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution — Held a case resting on circumstantial evidence, prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination that the inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion. (Para 5)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872, Secs. 25, 26 — Confessional statement of accused — In custody of the police — Veracity and admissibility of — Sec 25 of Act, 1872 postulates that a confession made by an accused to a police officer cannot be proved against him — Also, Sec. 26 of the Act 1872 stipulates that a confession made by an accused while in custody of police cannot be proved against him. (Para 17)
© Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 27 — Confessional statement made by an accused in police custody — Applicability and use thereof against the accused — Scope and ambit — As an exception Sec. 27 of the Evidence Act provides that a confessional statement made to a police officer or while an accused is in police custody, can be proved against him if the same leads to the discovery of an unknown new fact — While relevance under the exception postulated u/s 27 of the Evidence Act is limited "as it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered" — And the rationale behind Sec. 27 of Act, 1872 is, that the facts in question would have remained unknown but for the disclosure of the same by the accused. (Paras 17 and 18)
(D) Motive — Theft committing the murder of the deceased for — Held while several ornaments were found missing on deceased's body but her earrings were found intact on her ears —Thus, motive found doubtful. (Paras 23 and 24)
(E) Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 136, 142 — Acquittal of one of accused persons in appeal — Benefit of such acquittal to other to co-accused/convict who has not filed appeal against his conviction — Held as per judicious principle laid down by the Supreme Court to the effect that even in a case where one of the accused had not preferred appeal — Or even if his special leave petition was dismissed — And in case relief is granted to appellant-accused and the case of the accused who has either not appealed or whose special leave petition was dismissed stands on the same footing — Therefore, benefit which was extended to other accused not to be denied to him. (Paras 27 to 28)
¼v½ ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; & dk ewY;kadu & dsoy ,d cgqr gh mPp vkns'k ds ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{;] ,d vkijkf/kd eqdnesa esa lcwr ds ijh{k.k dks larq"V dj ldrs gSa & ,d ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; ds ekeys esa vfHk;kstu dks vk;ksftr djuk fd vuqeku ds fy, vxz.kh ?kVukvksa dh ,d iwjh rjg ls vVwV J`a[kyk Lfkkfir vkSj ladYi fd ;g lcwr ls rS;kj dsoy vifjgk;Z fu"d"kZ gSA ¼izLrj 5½
¼c½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872] /kkjk 25] 26 & vfHk;qDr ds bdckfy;k c;ku iqfyl dh fgjklr esa & vkSj lPpkbZ dh Lohdk;Zrk & vf/kfu;e] 1872 dh /kkjk 25] ds rRo & fd ,d iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds le{k vfHk;qDr }kjk fn;s x;s bdckfy;k c;ku] mlds f[kykQ lkfcr ugha fd;s tk ldrs blds vykok /kkjk 26] vf/kfu;e] 1872 dk vuqcaèk fd iqfyl fgjklr esa ,d vfHk;qDr }kjk fn;s x;s bdckfy;k c;ku dks mlds f[kykQ lkfcr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼izLrj 17½
¼l½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872] /kkjk 27 & bdckfy;k c;ku tks iqfyl fgjklr esa vfHk;qDr }kjk fn;s x, iz;ksT;rk vkSj vkjksfi;ksa ds f[kykQ mlds mi;ksx ds :I esa viokn & ?ksjk vkSj ifjf/k & lk{; vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 27 iznku djrk gS fd ,d bdckfy;k c;ku ,d iqfyl vf/kdkjh ds le{k tcfd vkjksih iqfyl fgjklr esa gS] mlds f[kykQ lkfcr gks ldrk gS vxj ,d vKkr u, rF; dh [kkst gks & gkykafd viokn ds rgr izklafxdrk vUrxZr /kkjk 27 lhfer gS & D;ksafd og rF; bl izdkj dh [kkst djus ds fy;s lacaf/kr /kkjk 27 vf/kfu;e 1872 ds ihNs rdZ gS fd iz'u esa vKkr rF; gksrs gSa tks vfHk;qDr }kjk izdVhdj.k gksrk gSA ¼izLrj 17 ,oa 18½
¼n½ edln & e`rd dh pksjh ds fy, gR;k & tcfd e`rd ds 'kjhj ij dbZ xgus xk;c ik;s x;s ysfdu mlds >qeds mlds dku ij cjdjkj ik;s x;s & blfy, edln lafnX/k ik;k x;kA ¼izLrj 23 vkSj 24½
¼;½ Hkkjrh; lafo/kku] 1950] vuqPNsn 136] 142 & cjh fd, tkus ds fy, vihy & ,slh cjh fd;s tkus dk vU; lgvfHk;qDrksa dks ykHk tc mUgksaus vihy nk;j ugha dh & lqizhe dksVZ }kjk fu/kkZfjr fl)kUr fd tc fdlh vfHk;qDr us vihy nk;j ugha dh & vkSj mldh fo'ks"k vuqefr ;kfpdk dks [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k Fkk & vkSj ml ekeys esa tgk¡ izkFkhZ & vfHk;qDr dks vuqefr feyh ij vU; vfHk;qDr ftlus vihy nk;j ugha dh Fkh dks cjh ds ykHk ls bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk D;ksafd og nksuksa ,d gh Lrj ij [kMs+ gSaA ¼izLrj 7½
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. — The appellant herein, Madhu Kalikutty Panicker (hereinafter referred to as “Madhu”) was charged along with Sibi Bhaskaran (hereinafter referred to as “Sibi”) for offences punishable under Section 302 and 392 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for having robbed Padmini Devi alias Omana of her gold ornaments and thereafter having murdered her on 8.5.1998 at her residence, i.e., Kalathil House situated in Ward No.IV of Veliyanad Village. Both Madhu (accused no. 1) and Sibi (accused no.2) were also residing in the neighbourhood of the deceased in the same ward and village.
2. The Sessions Judge, Alappuzha convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, The accused were sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Judge directed that the aforesaid sentences would be suffered successively, i.e., one after the other. In case of default of payment of fine, the accused were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The Sessions Judge also directed that the accused would be entitled to set off equivalent to the period of their detention during the course of trial, under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. On appeal, the High Court of Kerala maintained the conviction of the two accused. On the question of sentence, the High Court modified the order passed by the Sessions Judge to the extent that the sentences would run concurrently. Subject to the aforesaid modification, even the sentences awarded by the Sessions Court were maintained.
4. The conviction of the accused at the hands of the Sessions Judge as also the High Court was based on circumstantial evidence. Principally, the conviction was ordered as a consequence of recovery of ornaments worn by the deceased, pursuant to the information furnished by the accused. Based on the aforesaid recovery, the High Court, relying on Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act inferred that the accused had committed the murder of Padmini Devi, and thereupon, robbed her off the ornaments worn by her. The only other material evidence taken into consideration by the courts below, to return the conviction of the appellant herein (as also his co-accused Sibi) was the factum of their having been sighted close to the place of occurrence at or around the time of occurrence.
5. The care and caution with which circumstantial evidence has to be evaluated stands recognized by judicial precedent. Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination that the inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion. In the absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt. During the course of deliberations of the present controversy, we shall endeavour to evaluate the worthiness of circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. But more importantly, our endeavour would be to evaluate the admissibility of the statements made by the accused to the police, during the course of their detention by the police, resulting in the discovery of the gold ornaments, belonging to Padmini Devi, after having committed her murder. This piece of evidence has been relied upon to connect the accused with the crime.
6. The prosecution case as is revealed from the charge-sheet, notices that the accused with the deliberate intention of committing the murder of Padmini Devi with the motive of robbing her of the ornaments worn by her, proceeded to Kalathil House where the deceased was residing. Padmini Devi was found alone, sitting on the ghat (place leading into water) steps leading
