2019 Supreme(SC) 371

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Pattu Rajan – Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 680-681 of 2009 with Criminal Appeal Nos. 799-800 of 2009; Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2009; Criminal Appeal Nos. 801-802 of 2009; Criminal Appeal Nos. 822-823 of 2009
Decided on : 29-03-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Factors such as proximity of time or place, unity of purpose and design and continuity of action, in respect of a series of acts, have to be considered in order to determine whether such acts form part of same transaction or not.
(2) Superimposition test cannot be taken as a conclusive one for identification of a dead body.
(3) Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual incident, but circumstances cannot fail or be ignored.
(4) Probative value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from case to case.
(5) Traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 364, 302 and 201 – Kidnapping, murder and screening of evidence – High Court while confirming finding of guilt of accused, modified conviction for offence punishable under Section 304 Part I to Section 302 of IPC – Factors such as proximity of time or place, unity of purpose and design and continuity of action, in respect of a series of acts, have to be considered in order to determine whether such acts form part of same transaction or not – Crime of abduction commenced when victims (PW1 and deceased) were forced into captivity on said date and was completed on same day immediately after victims were released – Present crime came to be committed thereafter – Time and place of occurrence of two incidents are different – Even number of accused involved in incidents is different – No continuity of action can be gathered from sequence of events either – Motive for commission of both offences may be same, inasmuch as they were committed to enable Accused No. 1 to marry PW1, but merely because of their common motive, second offence cannot be said to be in continuation of first incident, in light of there being distinct intentions behind two offences – First offence was committed with intention to abduct deceased and PW1, purpose for which was merely to threaten and pressurize them – In contrast, intention behind second offence was to murder deceased with a view to permanently get rid of him – Unity of purpose and design between he two offences is also absent – Incident of murder is entirely separate and distinct from earlier incident of abduction. (Para 15)

       (B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 364, 302 and 201 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Kidnapping, murder and screening of evidence – Conviction and sentence – Last-seen circumstance – Recovery of dead body at instance of accused – High Court was justified in observing that a superimposition test cannot be taken as a conclusive one for identification of a dead body, because by itself it may not conclusively establish identification – However, High Court rightly accepted expert testimony on this aspect since in instant case, superimposition test was merely one piece of evidence relied upon by prosecution to corroborate evidence of PWs in order to strengthen its case – No material is forthcoming to the effect that parents of deceased were alive during relevant period, so as to conduct comparative DNA tests – Merely because actual recovery of body happened before accused led Police to the scene, it does not, in facts and circumstances of this case, negate validity of recovery based on a confession, in terms of Section 27 of Evidence Act – Burden had shifted onto accused to explain the circumstance as to when they left company of deceased – Non-explanation by accused provides an additional link in chain of circumstances – Prosecution has proved complicity of all appellants in murdering deceased by strangulating him and thereafter throwing dead body at Tiger Chola – Evidence on record fully proves case of prosecution – Judgment of Trial Court as modified by High Court need not be interfered with – Appeals dismissed. (Paras 36, 38, 40, 41, 43 and 44)

       (C) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Circumstances relied upon by prosecution should be of a conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every other hypothesis except one to be proved by prosecution regarding guilt of accused – There must be a chain of evidence proving circumstances so complete so as to not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion of innocence of the accused – Judge while deciding matters resting on circumstantial evidence should always tread cautiously so as to not allow conjectures or suspicion, however strong, to take place of proof – If alleged circumstances are conclusively proved before Court by leading cogent and reliable evidence, Court need not look any further before affirming guilt of accused – Human agency may be faulty in expressing picturisation of actual incident, but circumstances cannot fail or be ignored – Men may lie but circumstances do not. (Para 22)

       (D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 154 and 173(8) – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Two FIRs – Legal tenability – Second FIR in respect of an offence or different offences committed in course of same transaction is not only impermissible but also violates Article 21 of Constitution – Registration of a second FIR (which is not a counter case) is violative of Article 21 of Constitution – However, such principles of law may not be applicable to facts of incident on hand as crimes underlying two FIRs are distinct and different – Allegations and offences under this present FIR relating to murder of deceased are substantially distinct from information lodged in crime case relating to abduction – Offence of abduction committed by appellants and offence of murder were two different and distinct offences – There is no question of further investigation to be made in crime of abduction by investigating agency relating to offence of murder which was committed during subsistence of investigation relating to abduction – In case a fresh offence is committed during course of earlier investigation which is distinct from offence being investigated, such fresh offence cannot be investigated as part of pending case and should instead be investigated afresh. (Paras 17, 18 and 20)

       (E) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 45 – Expert opinion – DNA evidence is also in nature of opinion evidence as envisaged in Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act – Probative value accorded to DNA evidence also varies from case to case, depending on facts and circumstances and the weight accorded to other evidence on record, whether contrary or corroborative – It is duty of an expert witness to assist Court effectively by furnishing it with relevant report based on his expertise along with his reasons, so that Court may form its independent judgment by assessing such materials and reasons furnished by expert for coming to an appropriate conclusion – However, opinion evidence is advisory in nature and Court is not bound by evidence of experts – It cannot be said that absence of DNA evidence would lead to an adverse inference against a party, especially in presence of other cogent and reliable evidence on record in favour of such party. (Paras 31, 32 and 33)

       (F) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that such proof should be perfect and someone who is guilty cannot get away with impunity only because he truth may develop some infirmity when projected through human processes – Traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial – Justice cannot be made sterile by exaggerated adherence to rule of proof, inasmuch as benefit of doubt must always be reasonable and not fanciful. (Para 43)

       Facts of Case:

       High Court convicted accused appellants for the abduction and murder of husband of complainant. Motive put forth by prosecution for commission of offence is that Accused No.1 wanted to take PW1 as his third wife despite knowing that she was already married to deceased. Accused No.1 made several failed attempts with help of other accused to sever relationship between PW1 and her husband. Ultimately, Accused No.1 committed offence in question in order to eliminate deceased so as to be able to marry PW1 without any obstruction.

       Findings of Court:

       Prosecution has proved complicity of all appellants in murdering Santhakumar by strangulating him and thereafter throwing the dead body at Tiger Chola. It is worth recalling that while it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that such proof should be perfect, and someone who is guilty cannot get away with impunity only because truth may develop some infirmity when projected through human processes. Traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by a rational, realistic and genuine approach for administering justice in a criminal trial.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.