advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Section 27 of Evidence Act - confessions leads to discovery of incriminating articles - when abduction proved , burden lies on the accused to discloses what happen next when victim found dead - Apex court held that What happened thereafter to deceased is especially within the knowledge of the appellants-accused nos.1 to 3. It was for the appellants-accused nos. 1 to 3 to explain what happened to Mani alias Parai Mani after they took him away but they failed to explain the same. Mani alias Parai Mani was found dead immediately thereafter.= PARAMSIVAM & ORS. … APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE … RESPONDENT = 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41714

 Section 27 of Evidence Act - confessions leads to discovery of incriminating articles - when abduction proved , burden lies on the accused to discloses what happen next when victim found dead - Apex court held that  What  happened  thereafter  to  deceased  is especially within the knowledge of the appellants-accused  nos.1  to  3.  It was for the appellants-accused nos. 1 to 3 to explain what happened to  Mani alias Parai Mani after they took him away but they  failed  to  explain  the same.  Mani  alias  Parai  Mani  was  found  dead  immediately   thereafter.=

Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads as under:

“27. How much of information received from accused may  be  proved.—Provided
that,  when  any  fact  is  deposed  to  as  discovered  in  consequence  of
information received from a person accused of any offence,  in  the  custody
of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it  amounts  to  a
confession or not, as relates distinctly to  the  fact  thereby  discovered,
may be proved.”


21.   In Anil alias Raju Namdev Patil v.  Administration  of  Daman  &  Diu,
Daman and another, (2006) 13 SCC 36, this Court held:

       “23.The  information  disclosed  by  the  evidences  leading  to  the
discovery of a fact which is based on mental state of affair of the  accused
is, thus, admissible in evidence.”



22.   This Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh,  (1999)  4  SCC
370 opined that when an object is discovered from an isolated place  pointed
out by the accused, the same would be admissible in evidence.

23.   We have noticed the confessional statement of the appellants,  on  the
basis of which the discovery of material evidence took place.

24.   From the  evidence  on  record,  we  find  that  the  Prosecution  was
successful  in  bringing  on  record  the  circumstantial   evidences   i.e.
existence of motive; the circumstances in which the deceased was  last  seen
alive in the company of appellants-accused nos.1 to 3; death  was  homicidal
and body was found on the railway track mutilated; the body of the  deceased
was  identified  through  DNA  test;  on  arrest  of  accused  incriminating
articles were recovered.

25.   Upon analysis of evidence, we are of the  view  that  prosecution  has
succeeded in proving the facts  that  the  accused  nos.1  to  3  took  away
deceased Mani alias Parai Mani. What  happened  thereafter  to  deceased  is
especially within the knowledge of the appellants-accused  nos.1  to  3.  It
was for the appellants-accused nos. 1 to 3 to explain what happened to  Mani
alias Parai Mani after they took him away but they  failed  to  explain  the
same.  Mani  alias  Parai  Mani  was  found  dead  immediately   thereafter.

2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41714


                                                                  REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 593  OF 2010

PARAMSIVAM & ORS.                                   … APPELLANTS

                                   VERSUS

STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE              … RESPONDENT



                               J U D G M E N T


Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.


      This appeal is directed against  judgment  dated  27th   April,  2009,
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal  Appeal  No.441
of 2007. By the  impugned  judgment  appeal  preferred  by  the  appellants-
accused nos.1 to 3 has been dismissed and conviction of accused nos.1  to  3
u/s 364 IPC and accused no.1 u/s 302 IPC and accused nos.2  and  3  u/s  302
r/w 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine imposed upon  them
have been confirmed.
2.    The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows:
Deceased Mani alias Parai Mani took lease of the land in S.F. No.  427/1  of
Vadapudur village belonging to  PW3-Krishnasamy  and  PW6-Ramasamy.  Accused
No.6-Nagarathinam was the  neighbouring  land  owner.  Since  Accused  No.1-
Paramasivam and Accused No.6-Nagarathinam threatened  the  deceased  not  to
break the stone, deceased Mani alias Parai  Mani  filed  suit  in  O.S.  No.
5/2004 before DMC, Pollachi for  Permanent  Injunction  restraining  Accused
no.6 and PWs.3 and 6 from interfering with quarrying.  There  was  animosity
between the deceased and the family of Accused no.6-Nagarathinam.

About 10 days prior to the date  of  occurrence,  Accused  no.1-Paramasivam,
Accused no.6-Nagarathinam and Accused no.7-Revathi threatened the  deceased.
About 4 days prior to the date of occurrence,  Accused  no.2-Selvaraj  alias
Selvan and another person approached the deceased for purchase of stone  and
since it was late hours, deceased refused to accompany them and  asked  them
to come on some other day.
 Again Accused no.2 and another person approached the deceased on  18.1.2004
and asked for stones and deceased accompanied the  accused  to  the  quarry.
PW1-Kannaiyan and PW2-Kala witnessed that deceased went along  with  Accused
no.2-Selvaraj alias  Selvan  and  Accused  no.3-Nirmal.  On  the  said  date
i.e.18.1.2004, PW8-Sivakumar and PW9-Doraisamy who were returning  from  the
Petrol Pump, saw white colour Maruthi Van bearing registration No.  TN-23  E
5951 (MO1) was parked on the road side. PW9 saw  the  deceased  and  Accused
no.1 were sitting inside the Maruthi Van.

Next day on 19.1.2004, PW23-Pugazhenthi (Railway Key Man), Thirupur saw  the
dead body on the  railway  track  and  informed  PW20-Ramachandran  (Station
Master) who in turn informed the Out-post Police  Station,  Thirupur.  PW24-
Sankaralingam (Head Constable) received the report and registered  the  case
for  'suspicious  death'  in  Cr.  No.  12/2004  u/s  174 Cr.P.C.  PW24-Head
Constable went to the scene of occurrence and found the dead body of a  male
on the railway track, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P15) and  Rough  Plan
(Ex.P16). PW24 also held Inquest on the body of the  deceased  (Ex.P18)  and
sent the dead body for autopsy to  Government  Hospital,  Thirupur.  On  his
request PW27-Nizar Ahemad had taken photographs (MO18 series)  of  the  body
lying on the railway track.

PW33-Dr.Parimala Devi conducted autopsy over the dead  body  and  noted  the
injuries, Dr. Devi opined that death was due to  multiple  injuries  on  the
neck and head injuries about 70 to 80 hours prior to  autopsy.  Since  there
was no clue about the  identity  of  the  dead  body,  body  was  buried  at
Chellandiamman grave yard Tirupur by PW24-Head Constable  with  the  aid  of
PW22-Murugasamy (Grave yard watch man).

Since, deceased not returned home, PWs.1 and  2  searched  for  him  and  on
20.1.2004 PW1 lodged written complaint [Ext.P1]. On  the  basis  of  written
complaint, PW39-Rajendran (Inspector of Police) registered the case  in  Cr.
No. 27/2004 u/s 363 IPC. PW39 went to the scene of occurrence  and  prepared
Observation Mahazar and Rough Plan. He also enquired PWs.1 to 6 and  15  and
recorded their statements.
PW41-Shahul Ahmeed  (Inspector  of  Police)  took  charge  of  the  case  on
26.1.2004 and made further investigation. On 28.1.2004 at about  1.45  P.M.,
PW41 arrested accused  no.2-Selvaraj  near  Vanjipalayam  railway  gate.  On
being interrogated, accused no.2 voluntarily  gave  a  confession  statement
which led to the  recovery  of  Ropes  (MO10  series),  Banian  (MO11),  Bag
(MO12), Diary (MO2) and Money purse containing the  photo  of  the  deceased
(MO3) Seizure Mahazar (Ext.P5) was prepared. Thereafter, along with  accused
 no.2, PW41 went to the scene of occurrence i.e. railway track and  prepared
Observation Mahazar (Ext.P34) and Rough Plan (Ext.P35).

      PW41 on the same day i.e. 28.1.2004  at  6.15  P.M.  arrested  accused
no.5-Gudalingam alias Lingasamy and recorded his confession statement  which
led to recovery of MO1-Maruthi omni van  under  Ex.P37-Seizure  Mahazar.  On
the  same  day,  at  about  8.50   P.M.,   PW41   arrested   accused   no.1-
Paramasivam and recorded his confession statement which led to  recovery  of
Lungi (MO4), Shirt (MO5) and Voters ID Card (MO9) of deceased under  Seizure
Mahazar  (Ext.P39).  Thereafter,  PW41  went  to  Thirupur  Out-post  Police
Station and enquired PW24-Head Constable and received copy  of  FIR  in  Cr.
No. 12/2004. Thereafter,  PW41-Investigating  Officer  altered  the  FIR  in
Criminal    No.    27/2004    from    Section 363 IPC    to    Sections 120-
B, 364 and 302 IPC.
On 17.2.2004, PW41 sent requisition for  exhumation  of  dead  body  of  the
deceased which was exhumed in the presence of PW31-Tahsildar, PW21-R.I.  and
other witnesses. PW41 seized Waist Cord with  Silver  Amulet  under  Seizure
Mahazar (Ext.P12). Observation Mahazar (Ext.P13) was prepared  by  PW-41  in
respect of the place where body was buried. Rough Plan  (Ext.P44)  was  also
prepared. Blood samples of the dead body was taken. Blood  samples  of  PW14
(Manickammal) and PW15 (Subramani) -mother and brother of the deceased  were
taken  and  forwarded  for  DNA  examination.  PW40-Vanaja  (Asst.  Chemical
Examiner and Asst. Director) conducted DNA examination and opined that  "the
bone pieces etc. described belong to a human male  individual".  He  further
opined that "the person Mani alias Parai Mani to whom the bone  pieces  etc.
belong is the biological offspring of Ms.A.Manickammal."-PW14.

Accused  no.3-Nirmal  and  Accused  no.4-Sureshkumar  alias   Suresh   alias
Pambatti surrendered before  Judicial  Magistrate,  Pollachi  on  05.2.2004.
PW41 was permitted to take them  to  police  custody.  Confession  statement
recorded from accused no.3 led to recovery of  Torch  (MO6),  Battery  (MO17
series), Knife (MO16), Hundred rupee Note [MO13], Bag (MO15)  under  Seizure
Mahazar (Ext.P7). Confession statement recorded from  accused  no.4  led  to
recovery of Watch (MO8), Fifty rupee Note (MO14), Plastic bag  (MO19)  under
Seizure Mahazar (Ext.P9).

PW38-Judicial Magistrate No.  II,  Pollachi  conducted  Test  Identification
Parade in respect of Accused nos.2 and  3  on  13.2.2004.  PWs.1,  2  and  5
participated in the Test Identification Parade and identified  the  accused.
On receipt of chemical analysis report and DNA report and  after  completion
of due investigation, PW41 filed final  report  u/s 147, 148, 120-B, 364 and
302 IPC.
3.    To substantiate the charges against the accused, prosecution  examined
42 witnesses and brought on record Exts.P1 to P44 and Mos.1 to  18.  Accused
were questioned u/s 313 Crl.P.C. Accused denied all the charges and  pleaded
not guilty and stated that a false case is foisted against them.
4.    Upon consideration of oral  and  documentary  evidence,  the  Sessions
Court held that the prosecution has adduced cogent and  convincing  evidence
establishing that due to previous enmity in respect  of  quarrying,  accused
nos.1 to 3 abducted the deceased and committed murder of the  deceased.  The
Sessions Court also held that accused nos.1 to  3  were  identified  in  the
Test Identification Parade  and  incriminating  material  objects  recovered
from them would substantiate the charges. With regard to accused nos.4 to  7
the Sessions Court held that the prosecution failed to establish  the  guilt
against them and acquitted them.

5.    Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants  challenged  the
impugned judgment mainly on the following grounds:

There is inconsistency in the prosecution story. For example,  the  evidence
of PW 15-Subramani brother of the deceased is contrary to  the  evidence  of
PW1 and 2.

The Sessions Court failed to consider the question whether  the  prosecution
has proved the fact that the deceased was abducted.

There  is  no  eye  witness  for  the  alleged  murder  in  absence  of  any
contemporaneous evidence to establish that the body  found  on  the  railway
track on Vanjipalayam is that of the deceased-mani.

There are contradictions with regard to exhumed body. For example, while  PW
21 stated that when the body was exhumed it was found in pieces in  a  gunny
bag whereas PW 23 stated that dead body was found in  pieces  and  no  dress
was found on it.

6.     On  the  other  hand,  the  Prosecution  relied  upon  the  following
circumstances to bring home the charges.

(i)   Existence of motive.

(ii)        Circumstance that deceased was last seen alive  in  the  company
of the appellants/accused nos. 1 to 3.

(iii) Death was homicidal and the  body  was  found  on  the  railway  track
mutilated.

(iv)  Body was identified as that of deceased through DNA test.

(v)   Arrest of the accused and recovery of incriminating articles at  their
instance.

7.    PWs.3 and 6 are brothers and accused no.6-Nagarathinam   is  brother's
wife of PWs.3 and 6. Deceased Mani alias Parai Mani took lease of PWs.3  and
6's land in S.F. No. 427/1 (Part) of Vadapudur village for quarrying.  While
the deceased was carrying on quarrying work, accused  no.6-Nagarathinam  and
her son and daughter i.e. accused no.1-Paramasivam and accused  no.7-Revathi
objected for quarrying. Alleging that  without  any  lawful  right,  accused
no.6 was objecting to quarrying, deceased filed suit in O.S. No.  5/2004  on
02.1.2004 on the file of DMC, Pollachi against accused no.6  and  PWs.3  and
6. This is evident from Ext.P-22
pleadings in O.S. No. 5/2004, PWs.1 and 2 have spoken  in  one  voice  about
deceased taking quarry of lease from PWs.3 and  6  and  that  accused  no.6,
accused no.1 and accused no.7 were raising objection to carry out  quarrying
work. Evidence of PWs.3 and 6 also  strengthens  prosecution  version  about
the grant of lease.
8.    Filing of suit on 02.1.2004 about two weeks prior  to  the  occurrence
heightens the probability of prosecution case. In  cases  of  circumstantial
evidence  proof  of  motive  is  material   consideration   and   a   strong
circumstance.
9.    The case of the prosecution is that deceased was last  seen  alive  in
the company of the accused. Evidence of PWs.1 and 2 that accused  nos.2  and
3 had taken the deceased from his house  in  Chikkalampalayam.  Evidence  of
PW9-Doraisamy  is  that  he  saw  the  deceased  along  with  accused  no.1-
Paramasivam in Maruthi Omni Van Registration No. TN-23  E  5951  (MO1)  near
Kinathukadavu Checkpost. PW5-Balan stated that the deceased  had  left  with
accused no.1 from the quarry in Ealoorkarar thottam.
About four days from the date of occurrence, accused nos. 2 and  3  went  to
the house of the deceased asking for size of the stones.  When  being  asked
about them, accused no.2 disclosed his name as Selvaraj. As they  appear  to
be strangers and as it was very late in the evening, deceased asked them  to
come on some other day. After four days thereafter accused nos.2 and 3  went
to the house of the deceased and asked him  to  come  along  with  them  for
seeing the stones. Inspite of disinclination of  deceased,  accused  nos.  2
and 3 insisted the deceased to come  along  with  them  stating  that  their
owner has come and therefore, stones are to be seen. As it was late  in  the
evening, deceased asked his wife for  torch  and  PW2-Kala  gave  him  torch
(MO6) and deceased went along with accused nos.2 and 3.
10.   The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is cogent  and  consistent  which  clearly
brings home the circumstance that deceased went along with  accused  nos.  2
and  3.  In  the  Test  Identification  Parade  conducted  by  PW38-Judicial
Magistrate, PWs.1 and 2 have also identified accused  nos.  2  and  3  which
would strengthen the stand of the prosecution.
11.   Learned counsel for the appellant raised objection with regard to non-
mention of name of accused no.2-Selvaraj in Ext.P1-Complaint  and  submitted
that accused  no.3-Nirmal  accompanied  accused  no.2  would  throw  serious
doubts about the credibility of PWs.1 and 2. But from the  evidence  Ext.P1-
complaint we find that PW1 has clearly stated that two persons had  come  to
their house and took the deceased in Maruthi Omni Van. In  Ext.P1-Complaint,
though PW1 had expressed suspicion about accused nos. 1, 6 and  7,  PW1  has
clearly expressed his doubts that  accused  nos.  1,  6  and  7  might  have
engaged men for abducting the deceased. Such  doubts  expressed  in  Ext.P1-
Complaint is sufficient incriminating circumstance against the accused  nos.
2 and 3. Credibility of PWs.1 and 2 cannot be doubted on the ground of  non-
mention of name of accused no.2 in Ext.P1-Complaint.  The  evidence  of  PW9
also established that the deceased was last seen alive  with  accused  no.1-
Paramasivam in  Maruthi  Omni  Van  (TN-23  E   5951)   near   Kinathukadavu
Checkpost. In his evidence, PW9 has stated that after taking petrol for TVS-
50 in a Petrol Pump near the Checkpost while he was  proceeding  along  with
PW8-Sivakumar, he saw the deceased along  with  accused  no.1-Paramasivam in
Maruthi Omni Van (MO1) and saw the others inside the  Van.  Since,  deceased
and accused no.1-Paramasivam were in inimical terms, PW9 wondered as to  why
accused no.1 and deceased are  seen  together  and  he  asked  PW8-Sivakumar
about the same. Though, PW8-Sivakumar turned hostile,  evidence  of  PW9  is
trustworthy and we do not find any reason to take a different view.
12.   Another circumstances relied upon by the prosecution  is  evidence  of
PW15-Subramani (brother of the deceased) that  accused  no.  1  and  another
person came to the quarry  to  see  stones.  When  they  were  crushing  the
stones, deceased went with them to see the  stones.  No  doubt  evidence  of
PW15 as to how deceased went with the accused might appear  to  be  slightly
different but due to variation of time narrating the events cannot  be  said
in manner the PW15 narrated his statement. We are of the view that  evidence
of PW15 does not make any dent upon the consistent version of  PWs.1  and  2
and the case of prosecution.
13.   Dr.  Perimaladevi-PW33  conducted  autopsy  and  noted  the  following
injuries:

?     Crush injury over the front of  head  and  part  of  brain  comes  out
[liquified].

?     Fracture of left arm bone [upper] and left shoulder joint bones.

?     Fracture of right upper arm bone and cut off from the shoulder joint.

?     Fracture of left leg bones [middle].

?     Fracture of right thigh bone and leg bones.

14.   Dr. Perimaladevi opined that deceased died of 'shock and  haemorrhage'
due to multiple injuries and head injuries about 70-80 hours  prior  to  the
autopsy. Since identity of the body  was  not  known,  body  was  buried  in
Thirupur  Chellandiamman  burial   ground.   Later   at   the   request   of
Investigating Officer, body was exhumed in the presence  of  PW21-Tahsildar.
After the body was exhumed, PW34-Dr.Vallinayagam  collected  the  blood  for
DNA test. Blood samples of PW14-Manickammal and PW15-Subramani  (mother  and
brother of the deceased) were also collected. After conducting DNA test  and
upon analysis of results of DNA typing for the samples, PW40-Asst.  Director
gave Ext.P32-Report and opined that "bone pieces etc. described belong to  a
human male individual". PW40 further opined  that  "the  person  Mani  alias
Paraimani to whom the bone pieces etc. belong is  the  biological  offspring
of Ms. A. Manickammal.". Evidence of PW40 would amply establish identity  of
body recovered from the railway track as that of  the  deceased  Mani  alias
Parai Mani who is the son of PW14-Manickammal.

15.   When deceased is shown to be abducted, it  is  for  the  abductors  to
explain how  they  dealt  with  the  abducted  victim.  In  the  absence  of
explanation, Court is to draw inference that abductors are the murderers.

16.   In State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar and  others (2000)  8  SCC  382,
this Court held:

“34. When it is proved to the satisfaction of  the  Court  that  Mahesh  was
abducted by the accused and they took him out  of  that  area,  the  accused
alone knew what happened to him until he was with  them.  If  he  was  found
murdered within a short time after the  abduction  the  permitted  reasoning
process would enable the Court to draw  the  presumption  that  the  accused
have murdered him. Such inference can be  disrupted  if  the  accused  would
tell the Court what else happened to Mahesh at least until he was  in  their
custody.”

17.   In Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2001) 4 SCC 375, this Court held:

“15. The abductors alone could tell the court as to  what  happened  to  the
deceased  after  they  were  abducted.  When  the  abductors  withheld  that
information from the court there is  every  justification  for  drawing  the
inference, in the light of all the preceding  and  succeeding  circumstances
adverted to above, that the abductors are the murderers of the deceased.”

“19. We pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended  to
relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove  the  guilt  of  the  accused
beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would  apply  to  cases  where  the
prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable  inference
can be drawn regarding the existence of  certain  other  facts,  unless  the
accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to  offer
any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different  inference.”


“21. We are mindful of what  is  frequently  happening  during  these  days.
Persons are kidnapped in the sight of others and are forcibly taken  out  of
the sight of all others and later the  kidnapped  are  killed.  If  a  legal
principle is to be laid down that for the murder  of  such  kidnapped  there
should necessarily be independent  evidence  apart  from  the  circumstances
enumerated above, we would be providing a safe jurisprudence for  protecting
such criminal activities. India cannot now  afford  to  lay  down  any  such
legal principle insulating the marauders  of  their  activities  of  killing
kidnapped innocents outside the ken of others.”


18.   In the present case, the prosecution brought on record  the  evidences
that accused no.1 to 3 had abducted the deceased. Therefore, it  is  accused
nos.1 to 3 alone knew what  happened  to  him  as  the  deceased  was  found
murdered within a short time after abduction.  The accused nos.1 to  3  have
failed to give any explanation and the Court rightly draw  presumption  that
the accused have murdered the deceased Mani alias Parai Mani.

19.   The prosecution relied upon the statement of accused  persons  leading
to discovery of facts as envisaged u/s 27 of Indian Evidence  Act.   Accused
Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were arrested on 28.1.2004 at  different  times.  Confession
statement of accused no.1 led to recovery of Voter ID  Card  of  Mani  (MO9)
and other articles i.e. MOs.4 and  5.  Confession  statement  recorded  from
accused no.2-Selvaraj alias Selvan] led to recovery of Pocket  Diary  (MO2),
Money purse (MO3) with photo of deceased and other  articles-MOs.10  to  12.
Confession statement of accused no.5 Driver  Lingasamy  led  to  seizure  of
Taxi MO1-Maruthi Omni Van (TN-23 E 5951). Accused  no.3-Nirmal  and  accused
no.4-Sureshkumar alias Suresh alias Pambatti  were  surrendered  before  the
Court and on application, PW41-Investigating Officer took  them  for  police
custody. Confession statement recorded from accused no.3 led to recovery  of
Torch light(MO6) which was handed over to the deceased by PW2  at  the  time
when he left the house. PW2 also identified MO6 as the  torch  light  handed
over by her at the time when  the  deceased  left  the  house.  Recovery  of
various articles of the deceased  from  accused  nos.1  to  3  is  a  strong
incriminating circumstance connecting the appellants with the crime.
20.   Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads as under:

“27. How much of information received from accused may  be  proved.—Provided
that,  when  any  fact  is  deposed  to  as  discovered  in  consequence  of
information received from a person accused of any offence,  in  the  custody
of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it  amounts  to  a
confession or not, as relates distinctly to  the  fact  thereby  discovered,
may be proved.”


21.   In Anil alias Raju Namdev Patil v.  Administration  of  Daman  &  Diu,
Daman and another, (2006) 13 SCC 36, this Court held:

       “23.The  information  disclosed  by  the  evidences  leading  to  the
discovery of a fact which is based on mental state of affair of the  accused
is, thus, admissible in evidence.”



22.   This Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh,  (1999)  4  SCC
370 opined that when an object is discovered from an isolated place  pointed
out by the accused, the same would be admissible in evidence.

23.   We have noticed the confessional statement of the appellants,  on  the
basis of which the discovery of material evidence took place.

24.   From the  evidence  on  record,  we  find  that  the  Prosecution  was
successful  in  bringing  on  record  the  circumstantial   evidences   i.e.
existence of motive; the circumstances in which the deceased was  last  seen
alive in the company of appellants-accused nos.1 to 3; death  was  homicidal
and body was found on the railway track mutilated; the body of the  deceased
was  identified  through  DNA  test;  on  arrest  of  accused  incriminating
articles were recovered.

25.   Upon analysis of evidence, we are of the  view  that  prosecution  has
succeeded in proving the facts  that  the  accused  nos.1  to  3  took  away
deceased Mani alias Parai Mani. What  happened  thereafter  to  deceased  is
especially within the knowledge of the appellants-accused  nos.1  to  3.  It
was for the appellants-accused nos. 1 to 3 to explain what happened to  Mani
alias Parai Mani after they took him away but they  failed  to  explain  the
same.  Mani  alias  Parai  Mani  was  found  dead  immediately   thereafter.
Therefore, it is clear that the accused nos.1 to  3  who  abducted  deceased
Mani alias Parai Mani intentionally withhold the information from the  Court
and, therefore, there is every  justification  for  drawing  inference  that
appellants-accused nos.1 to 3 murdered Mani alias Parai Mani. Stand  of  the
appellants is a bare denial of prosecution  case.  In  the  absence  of  any
explanation, the inevitable inference is  that  appellants  are  responsible
for the death of deceased Mani alias Parai Mani.  Thus,  the  guilt  of  the
appellants-accused nos. 1 to 3 has been proved beyond all reasonable  doubt.
We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.


                                                        ………………………………………………J.
                                     (SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)



                                                        ………………………………………………J.
                                             (DIPAK MISRA)

NEW DELHI,
JULY 01, 2014





ITEM NO.1C               COURT NO.6                 SECTION IIA

(For Judgment)



               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A

                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS



Criminal Appeal No(s). 593/2010



PARAMSIVAM & ORS.                                  Appellant(s)



                                VERSUS



STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE                            Respondent(s)



Date : 01/07/2014      This  appeal  was  called  on  for  pronouncement  of
            Judgment today.



For Appellant(s)       Mr. Vijay Kumar ,Adv.



For Respondent(s)            Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna ,Adv.





      Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Sudhansu  Jyoti  Mukhopadhaya  pronounced   the
reportable judgment of the Bench comprising His  Lordship  and  Hon'ble  Mr.
Justice Dipak Misra.



      The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.











(MEENAKSHI KOHLI)                               (USHA SHARMA)

  COURT MASTER                                   COURT MASTER



             [Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file]


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.