Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Patnaik and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Sahadevan and another
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu
Criminal Appeal No. 1405 of 2008
Decided On : 08.05.2012
(B) Extra-judicial confession — Principles which would make an extrajudicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused — The Principles are — (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself — It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution — (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful — (iii) It should inspire confidence — (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greter credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence — (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities — (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. (Para 22)
(C) ‘Last seen’ theory — Evidence of — Scope and ambit of — Basing conviction on — Propriety of — A settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record a finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of accused — No conviction can be founded, on that basis alone. (Paras 31 to 34)
(D) Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 136, 141, 21 — Powers of Supreme Court — Nature and exercise of — Scope and ambit of — Acquittal of some of co-accused who appealed before the Supreme Court — Also, the case and evidence of the non-appealing accused and his role being the same as those of the appealing accused — Therefore, benefit of acquittal of the appealing ones should be extended to those as well who could not appeal against their conviction and are languishing on jail for various reasons. (Paras 40 to 42)
Key Points: - Prosecution must prove complete chain of events in a circumstantial case; last seen alone is insufficient (!) (!) (!) (!) - Extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and must be voluntary, true, corroborated, and credible; may form basis of conviction only with cogent corroboration (!) (!) (!) (!) - Extent of reliance on Ext. P-4 extrajudicial confession is scrutinized; if it has material discrepancies or lacks corroboration, conviction may be set aside (!) (!) - If prosecution evidence is unreliable or inconsistent, higher courts may acquit and extend benefits to non-appealing accused under constitutional powers (Article 142/136) to ensure justice; set precedent for extending acquittal to co-accused (!) (!) (!) - Time of death and medical/ocular evidence must coherently support the chain of events; contradictions can undermine conviction (!) (!) (!) - Recoveries made under Section 27 of Evidence Act require lawful, corroborated linkage to the crime; lack of corroboration can weaken evidence (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Swatanter Kumar, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 27th September, 2006 vide which the High Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31st December, 2003 passed by the Trial Court. The prosecution case is that Smt. Kamalal, PW-2 was married to one Yoganandan @ Loganathan, the deceased. The accused No. 1, Chandran is the brother of Kamalal (PW2), accused No. 2, Sahadevan, and accused No. 3, Arul Murugan, were the friends of accused No. 1. PW2 was being ill-treated by Loganathan, her husband. Being her brother, accused No. 1 thought that if he murdered Loganathan, life of his sister would be peaceful. Thus, accused No. 1 and his friends (the other two accused) entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit murder of Loganathan. According to PW-5, Karuppuswamy, when he was talking to one Chinnaswamy at a three star hotel near the Neruparichal bus stand at about 10 p.m. on 9th July, 2002, he saw Sahadevan driving a TVS moped in Povmmanayakkampallayam road, while two other persons were sitting as pillion riders. The vehicle was proceeding towards west. After a while, one of them came back and again went in the same direction on the same vehicle. PW-4, then saw the deceased, Yoganandan and accused No. 1 going in the same direction on the TVS moped at about 2 p.m. Again after some time, accused No. 2 alone came back on the moped. On 10th July, 2002, at around 8.30 a.m., PW-3, Rajendran, saw a dead body in the Pommanayakkanpallam Road, whereupon he went to PW-1, the Administrative Officer and informed him of that fact. PW-1, upon receiving this information, went to the spot and saw the dead body. He then went to the Perumanallur Police Station and made a complaint, Ext. P-1, to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ganesan, PW-8.
2. Upon receipt of the complaint, the police registered a case being Crime No. 150 of 2002 for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the Indian Penal Code") against unknown accused. The Investigating Officer, PW-9, proceeded to the scene of occurrence. There he prepared observation Mahazar, Ext. P-2 and took photographs of the dead body.
3. Between 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared the inquest report, Ext. P-13. The Senior Civil Assistant Surgeon, PW7, attached to the Thirupur Government Hospital, after receiving the requisite information and the body, performed autopsy on the body of the deceased. She noted the injuries on the body of the deceased and issued the post-mortem certificate, Ext. P-10, expressing the opinion that the deceased would have died 27 to 28 hours prior to autopsy.
4. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 14th July, 2002, when PW-6, Muthurathinam, President of Kanakampalayam Panchayat was in his office along with one Shanmugasundaram, all the above - named three accused came to his office and told him that deceased Loganathan was the brother-in-law of accused No. 1 and on account of family problem between accused No. 1 and the deceased, they murdered Loganathan by strangulating him and after putting kerosene on him, set the body of the deceased afire. The statements made by the accused were reduced to writing by PW-6 and after obtaining their signatures and putting his own signature thereon he handed over the report, Ext. P-4, to the Police Station along with the custody of the accused whereupon PW-9, the Investigating Officer arrested all the accused persons.
5. PW9, on the basis of the confessional statements, Ext. P-5 to P-7, recovered MO-6 (TVS moped TN 38 7344), MO-7 (bottle smelling of kerosene) and MO-8 (matchbox). PW-9 then sent the MOs for forensic examination along with Ext. P-15, the requisition therefor. Subsequently, PW-9 was relieved of his duties and PW-10 completed the investigation of the case and filed the chargesheet against all the three accused under Section 120B and Secti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
