1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.900 OF 2010
SHANMUGAM Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
TAMIL NADU Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment
dated 26.02.2008 in Crl. Appeal No.508 of 2007 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Madras, wherein the conviction of
the present appellant was upheld and his appeal was
dismissed.
2. Brief reference to the facts as per the prosecution are
necessary for the disposal of this case. The appellant was
arrested by PW-1 Sub-Inspector of Police on 09.09.2005 at
about 7:30 p.m. for offences punishable under Sections 51 r/w
2
63, 52 A r/w 68-A and 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957. He was
then brought to the Office of the Video Piracy Cell at 11:30
p.m. and was kept in custody in the same room as that of the
Head Constable Kaliappan (deceased). On 10.09.2005, the
appellant made an attempt to escape from the custody by
attacking the deceased on his head with an iron stool causing
his death. However, he was caught by PW-1 (the Sub-Inspector
of Police) and PW-2 (the Head Constable) while attempting to
escape.
3. Upon investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the
appellant and the case was committed to the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Coimbatore
in S.C. No.19 of 2006. The appellant pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. After considering the arguments and analysing
the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under
Section 302 of I.P.C. and under Sections 224 r/w 511 of I.P.C.
and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also
to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. Further, in default thereof to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence
under Section 302 of I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous
3
imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 224
r/w 511 of I.P.C.
4. Aggrieved by the order of conviction, the appellant
appealed before the High Court being Crl. Appeal No.508 of
2007. On 26.02.2008, the Division Bench of the High Court
after thorough analysis of facts and circumstances confirmed
the conviction of the appellant and dismissed the appeal.
Being aggrieved the appellant has approached this Court by
way of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4700/2009.
5. The learned Counsel Mr. V. Ramasubramanian, appearing
on behalf of the appellant, has contended that the case of the
prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence alleging
that there is no circumstance pointed out by the prosecution to
prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable
doubt. Thus, he argues that the conviction on the basis of the
assumptions is not sustainable in law.
6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel Mr. M. Yogesh
Kanna appearing on behalf of the State while supporting the
judgment of the High Court, has contended that this Court
should take a wholesome view instead of viewing
circumstances in isolation in order to conclude whether a
4
complete chain of events has been proved by the prosecution
or not.
7. We have carefully considered the submission of the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
judgment and other materials placed on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant/accused was
arrested by the then Sub-Inspector of Police (PW-1), Video
Piracy Cell, at 7.30 p.m. on 09.09.2005 and at that time the
deceased was with him. The evidence of PW-1 discloses that
at the relevant point of time, the deceased did not have any
residence. Therefore, he requested PW-1 to permit him to stay
in the office (Video Piracy Cell) along with the accused where
the accused was brought. PW-6 has stated that till 2.00 a.m. on
10.09.2005, PW-1 was in the office and later on left the office
leaving the deceased constable and the accused inside the
office by locking the door from outside as per the request of
the deceased. This version of PW-1 has not been challenged in
the cross-examination.
9. Since the office premises was not shown in the rough
sketch (Ex.P.22), the evidence of PW-6 was also questioned.
However, this is nothing but an irregularity on the part of the
5
I.O. PW-6 has categorically stated that he did not have
residence in the nearby place. Therefore, he remained at the
office to finish his pending work. Keeping in mind the above
situation, we are of the view that the evidence of PW-6 cannot
be doubted and if the same is accepted, the story concocted
by the accused that the deceased was murdered by PW-1 is
only to falsely implicate PW-1.
10. The evidence adduced by PW-1 was also corroborated by
the evidence of the Head Constable (PW-2) who was
accompanying PW-1 at around 7.30 a.m. on 10.09.2005. It is
clear from the evidence of PW-2 that when PW-1 opened the
locked door, the accused tried to escape but was caught at the
spot. This deposition has also remained unchallenged in the
cross-examination.
11. It is in the evidence of PW-9 that on 10.09.2005 around
2.30 a.m. she was on duty of receiving PCR calls. She deposed
that on that day she received a call from the accused who
informed about some commotion said to have taken place in
6
th Street on 100 feet road, near Kalyan Silks. The accused did
not call to attribute the commission of the offence to PW-1.
This call was made deliberately to escape from the room where
6
he was locked. This evidence was corroborated by PW-10 who
was working as an operator at that time in the police control
room. After getting the information of commotion from PW-9,
PW-10 passed on the message to the Sub-Inspector (PW-7)
who was on patrolling duty. Accordingly, PW-7 proceeded to
the place of alleged occurrence. Since nobody was there in the
said place, PW-7 contacted the mobile number of the informer
disclosing his identity but the same was instantly
disconnected. This is evident from Ex.P.12. The said mobile
number belongs to the deceased constable. The evidence of
PW-7, PW-9 and PW-10 corroborated with each other in this
regard. It appears that the accused had made a call to the
control room by using the mobile phone of the deceased just to
divert the attention of the police so that he could escape in
case the locked door was opened. Perusal of Ex.P.10 shows
that on receipt of the phone call, an ambulance was sent to the
Street, near Kalyan Silks, which came back after waiting from
3.30 a.m. to 4.30 a.m. as nobody was found injured at the
place of commotion.
12. Perusal of the evidence in its entirety clearly shows that
the offence had taken place at 2.00 a.m. by which time PW-1
7
had already left the place of occurrence and at the relevant
point of time the accused and the deceased were alone inside
the premises of the office of the Video Piracy Cell. Under the
above circumstance, it was for the accused to explain under
what circumstances the deceased was dead. In our view, the
accused has failed to offer any cogent explanation in this
regard. We are of the view that the chain of circumstances has
been completely proved and established beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the
concurrent findings of the courts below.
13. Accordingly, this Appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court in
Crl. Appeal No. 508 of 2007 dated 26.02.2008 is upheld.
…..……………………..…J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
…..……………………..…J.
(S. ABDUL NAZEER)
….…………………………J.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
New Delhi;
April 6, 2021
