1. Murder and disappearance of evidence — Recovery of decomposed body parts based on disclosure statement — Property dispute motive — Conviction under Sections 302 and 201, IPC. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 36 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 6
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, S. V. N. Bhatti, JJ.
Perumal Raja @ Perumal - Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. By Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 863 of 2019)
Decided On : 03-01-2024
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Col R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv, Mr. D.kumanan, AOR Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Y. William Vinoth Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ram Sankar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Abbas, Adv. Ms. Kavya Geetha, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Col R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv, Mr. D.kumanan, AOR Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Y. William Vinoth Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ram Sankar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Mr. Abbas, Adv. Ms. Kavya Geetha, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Disclosure statement – Once information is given by accused, same information cannot be used even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody – Section 27 of Evidence Act does apply to joint disclosures.
(2) Confession includes not only admission of offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to offence.
(3) Circumstantial evidence – Distinction has to be drawn between incomplete chain of circumstances and a circumstance after a chain is complete and defence or explanation given by accused is found to be false.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 201 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 27 and 106 – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Conviction and sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Motive for crime was inter se family property disputes – Superimposition Test confirmed that mortal remains were that of deceased – Homicidal death of deceased, disclosure statement and consequent recovery have been proved beyond doubt and debate – Acquittal of co-accused is for want of evidence against them – Section 27 of Evidence Act could not have been applied to other co-accused – Once information is given by accused, same information cannot be used even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody – Section 27 of Evidence Act does apply to joint disclosures, but this is not one such case – Trial court rightly held other co-accused not guilty – Conviction of appellant upheld. (Paras 31, 36, 40, 43 and 45)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – Section 27 of Evidence Act is based on doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events – Fact which is discovered as a consequence of information given is admissible in evidence – Fact discovered must lead to recovery of a physical object and only that information which distinctly relates to that discovery can be proved – Facts discovered and recovery is an assurance that information given by a person accused of offence can be relied – However, Section 27 of Evidence Act does not lay down principle that discovery of a fact is to be equated to object produced or found – Discovery of fact resulting in recovery of a physical object exhibits knowledge or mental awareness of person accused of offence as to existence of physical object at the particular place – Discovery of a fact includes object found, place from which it was produced and knowledge of accused as to its existence – To this extent, factum of discovery combines both physical object as well as mental consciousness of informant accused in relation thereto – Only that part of information which is clear, immediate and a proximate cause of discovery is admissible – Pre-requisite of police custody, within meaning of Section 27 of Evidence Act, ought to be read pragmatically and not formalistically or euphemistically. (Paras 19, 22 and 25)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – Expression “custody” under Section 27 of Evidence Act does not mean formal custody – It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by police – As soon as accused or suspected person comes into hands of a police officer, he is no longer at liberty and is under a check and is in “custody” within meaning of Sections 25 to 27 of Evidence Act – Even if accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in custody of police – A person giving word of mouth information to police, which may be used as evidence against him, may be deemed to have submitted himself to “custody” of police officer – Evidentiary value to be attached on evidence produced before court in terms of Section 27 of Evidence Act cannot be codified or put in a strait-jacket formula – It depends upon facts and circumstances of case – Holistic and inferential appreciation of evidence is required to be adopted in a case of circumstantial evidence. (Paras 25, 28, 29 and 30)
(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 24, 25 and 26 – Confessional statement – Admissibility in evidence – Bar under Section 25 of Evidence Act applies equally whether or not person against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal trial was in custody at the time of making confession – For ban to be effective the person need not have been accused of an offence when he made confession – Expression “accused person” in Section 24 and expression “a person accused of any offence” in Sections 26 and 27 have same connotation, and describe the person against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal proceeding – Adjectival clause “accused of any offence” is descriptive of person against whom a confessional statement made by him is declared not provable and does not predicate a condition of that person at the time of making statement – Confession includes not only admission of offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to offence, except to the extent that ban is lifted by Section 27 of Evidence Act. (Paras 26 and 27)
(E) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – Five Golden Principles (Panchsheel) – Circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – Distinction has to be drawn between incomplete chain of circumstances and a circumstance after a chain is complete and defence or explanation given by accused is found to be false in which event said falsehood is added to reinforce conclusion of court – If defence case is false it would constitute an additional link as to case of prosecution. (Paras 37 and 38)
Facts of the case:
Impugned judgment by High Court of Judicature at Madras affirms conviction of appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 201 of IPC, by Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry.
Findings of Court:
Even if Section 8 of Evidence Act is to apply, it would not have been possible to convict co-accused. Trial court rightly held other co-accused not guilty. For the same reason, acquittal of co-accused who was earlier absconding, is also of no avail.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to cause of death due to decomposition — Contradictions in forensic evidence regarding body parts — Relevance of acquittal in a separate murder trial. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 , 42 )
3. Superimposition test confirmed identity — Recovery of body parts based on disclosure statement is incriminating — Lack of explanation by accused creates adverse inference under Section 106, Evidence Act. (Para 13 , 16 , 18 , 31 , 32 , 40 , 41 )
4. Section 27, Evidence Act — Custody includes surveillance or restraint — Recovery of concealed body pointed out by accused implies concealment by accused unless explained. (Para 19 , 22 , 25 , 28 , 32 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Conviction for murder and causing disappearance of evidence upheld. (Para 45 )
6. What constitutes police custody under Section 27 of the Evidence Act?
Custody does not require formal arrest; it includes any kind of restriction, restraint, or surveillance by the police. Once a suspected person is no longer at liberty and is under police check, they are deemed to be in custody for the purposes of Sections 25 to 27. (Para 25 , 28 , 29 )
7. What is the scope of admissibility for information leading to discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act?
Only the portion of information that distinctly relates to the discovery of a physical object is admissible. This discovery encompasses the physical object found, the place from which it was produced, and the accused's knowledge of its existence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
8. What is the evidentiary value of the recovery of a dead body pointed out by the accused?
Recovery of a dead body from a place pointed out by the accused is a formidable incriminating circumstance. It suggests the accused concealed the body unless the accused provides an explanation showing someone else concealed it and the accused merely had knowledge of it. (Para 32 , 33 )
9. How does Section 106 of the Evidence Act apply in cases based on circumstantial evidence?
When the prosecution establishes a chain of circumstantial evidence and the facts are within the special knowledge of the accused, the failure of the accused to offer a cogent explanation leads to a reasonable adverse inference, forming an additional link in the chain of guilt. (Para 34 , 40 )
10. Does an acquittal in a separate trial for a related crime negate evidence in a current trial?
No. An acquittal in a separate trial based on a different set of evidence does not negate the prosecution's evidence in a current trial, even if the accused is the same and the crimes are related, as the occurrences are separate. (Para 42 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. The impugned judgment1[Dated 31.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.280/2016.] by the High Court of Judicature at Madras affirms the conviction of the appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal for murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602[For short, “IPC”.] and Section 201 of the IPC, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in SC No. 22 of 20143[Dated 07.04.2016.], in the charge sheet arising from the First Information Report4[For short, “FIR”.] No. 80 of 2008 registered on 24.04.2008 in Police Station5[For short, “PS”.] Odiansalai, District – Puducherry.
3. The appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal stands sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC.
4. The other co-accused, namely, Saravanan @ Krishnan, Mohan @ Mohankumar, and Ravi @ Ravichandran were acquitted by the trial court, which acquittal has become final. One ‘N’ was tried as a juvenile and acquitted. On 15.02.2013, the case of another co-accused – Chella @ Mugundhan was split up since he was absconding. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 04.06.2019, which has been placed on record as additional evidence, Chella @ Mukundhan has been acquitted.
5. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:
(i) On 20.04.2008, Rajaram, who was settled in France, returned to Puducherry as his son Rajini @ Rajinikanth, who was living in India, had gone missing.
(ii) On 20.04.2008, Rajaram had approached PS Odiansalai, Puducherry, and made an oral complaint stating that when he had opened his house No. 13, Chinna Vaikkal Street, Puducherry, he had found articles to be scattered all over the place. His motorcycle was missing. He had suspected that his son – Rajini @ Rajinikanth and his sister’s husband Krishnamurthy could have taken the bike. He requested the Police to make inquiries. However, in spite of being asked, he did not make any written complaint. He stated that he was exhausted and would come back to lodge written complaint afterwards.
(iii) Next day on 21.04.2008, Rajaram was murdered. FIR No. 204 of 2008 was registered at PS Grand Bazaar, District – Puducherry under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC.
(iv) On 24.04.2008, Arumugam, father of Rajaram, had made a written complaint at Odiansalai PS, Puducherry that his grandson Rajini @ Rajinikanth was missing. The complaint was registered as Diary No. 80 of 2008 for a ‘missing man’ and was taken up for investigation.
(v) The appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal, son of Krishnamurthy (husband of the sister of Rajaram), was detained and taken into custody during the course of investigation in FIR No. 204 of 2008 for murder of Rajaram.
(vi) On 25.04.2008, the appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal made a disclosure statement (Exhibit P-37).6[We shall be subsequently referring to the admissible portions of the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and also to a limited extent in terms of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.]
(vii) The appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal, along with other co-accused, had committed murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth on 23.11.2007 at Rajaram’s house at Chinna Vaikkal Street, Puducherry. His dead body was thrown in the sump tank located in the same house.
(viii) The appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal had also removed various belongings from the same house, including iron box, home theatre, CD player, documents of the house, motorcycle, RC book, key, Rajini @ Rajinikanth’s passport, Rajini @ Rajinikanth’s passport size photograph, birth registration of the grandmother, ration card, etc.
(ix) Later on, the appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal, and other co-accused, decided to remove the dead body of Rajini @ Rajinikanth from the sump tank as they had learnt that Rajaram was returning to India as his son Rajini
