A Conviction Cannot Be Based Entirely On Such A Weak Piece Of Evidence If Extrajudicial Confession Is Not Adequately Proven, Is Not Supported By Any Other Trustworthy Evidence, Or Does Not Inspire Confidence. Sc

CAUSE TITLE:

John Anthonisamy @ John 

Versus State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police 

DATE OF ORDER:

January 9, 2023

JUDGE(S):

M.R.SHAH, C.T.RAVIKUMAR 

PARTIES:

Petitioner: John Anthonisamy @ John

Respondent:  State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police

BRIEF FACTS

• PW-1 hired the dead to drive a taxi that belonged to him. On June 26, 2006, at about 6:00 a.m., the deceased informed his wife and left his home. He left after that and didn't come back. That A-1 knew the dead because he had been a cab driver for a while.
• Allegations were made that on May 23, 2006, all the defendants plotted to hijack the deceased's car, take him to a remote location, kill him, and then take off with the car and other personal property he had. According to the prosecution's case, on May 26, 2006, at the Pollachi Thermutti Bus Stop, A-2 to A-5 met A-1 by the aforementioned plot. A-1 then spoke to the deceased and ordered him to take the deceased's cab to Udumalpet.
• As a result, the dead arrived at Thermutti Bus Stop in a taxi. The five defendants then all entered the taxi. The cab continued on its way to Udumalpet. The accused asked the deceased to stop the automobile for a time as it approached the village of Ammapatti in a remote area.
• The deceased stopped the automobile, and as soon as it came to a stop, A-2 rushed over and strangled the deceased by the neck. A-3 and A-4 tied the deceased's hands together, and A-5 bound the deceased's legs together with ropes. The deceased was then placed into the vehicle, halfway between the front and back seats. On the rear seat of the car, A-3 to A-5 watched to make sure the deceased wasn't sobbing. A-1 was the driver of the automobile. Deceased passed away. The deceased's dead body was buried in a pit by all five of the accused. Following that, all five suspects fled the site of the crime in the automobile.

QUESTIONS RAISED

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the learned Trial Court's judgment and order of conviction and sentence convicting the appellant-accused No. 1 of the offenses punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• Learned counsel for the accused has strongly argued that the prosecution case, in this case, is exclusively founded on circumstantial evidence. It is said that it is accepted law that before convicting an accused, each link in the chain must be demonstrated in such a way that it leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the accused is guilty.
• It is argued that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate that the deceased's death was homicidal in this case. As a result, the doctor who did the post-mortem is said to have been unable to provide a definitive verdict on the cause of death.
• It is argued that in this case, both the learned Trial Court and the High Court condemned the accused based on a confessional statement/extrajudicial confession. It is argued that extrajudicial confession is weak evidence under established law. It is argued that recovery based on the accused's confession establishes nothing more than possession of stolen goods and does not incriminate the accused in the murder.
• The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused contends that in the present case, the recovery of the dead body from the location shown by A-1, as well as the recovery of a car without an engine and gearbox from the location shown by A-1, and then the recovery of a car gearbox from PW-16, cannot be believed because it was based on the confessional statement/disclosure statement. As a result, it is argued that the High Court's findings do not support the prosecution's case.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• While opposing the current appeal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has fiercely argued that in the present case, the deceased corpse was exhumed from the location shown and specified by A-1. The prosecution claims that the location of burial shown by A-1 and his identification of the remains have been sufficiently shown.
• Expert testimony of anthropology is accepted. It is claimed that the stolen car was also recovered as a result of A-1's disclosure declaration. It is claimed that the engine and gearbox were discovered in the custody of PW-17 based on a disclosure statement provided by A-1.
• It is claimed that PW-17 testified that A-1 sold some parts. It is argued that the aforementioned critical facts were not adequately addressed by the accused in his subsequent statement under Section 313 CrPC. The Court, it is said, has dismissed DW-1's deposition (s). It is argued that the Courts below made no error in convicting the accused for the offense punishable under Section 302 and another offense under the IPC.

ANALYSIS BY THE COURT

• However, based on the judgment(s) and order(s) of the learned Trial Court and the High Court, it cannot be stated that the appellant was convicted based on a confessional statement. In this case, there is no confession by the accused that he did the crime, as the Court has relied on. It should be underlined that the so-called communication by accused No. 1 addressed to PW-22 is considered secondary evidence by the High Court and has not been proven.
• As a result, in terms of the letter/communication, the High Court has not given it much weight. As a result, the appellant-accused No. 1 cannot be deemed to have been convicted based on the confessional declaration made in the letter/communication.
• At the same time, it is clear that the communication/letter received by Police on December 30, 2007, was the catalyst for revisiting the investigation, as it had previously been closed as untraceable on February 4, 2007. PW-30 then launched the actual inquiry.
• Following that, during investigation A-1, he revealed the location where he had buried the deceased's body. The body was exhumed from the location designated by A-1. Thus, it was a case of recovering the corpse at the accused's request from the location revealed by the accused, who can be claimed to have exclusive knowledge of the location where the dead body was buried. Following that, the superimposition test and DNA study on Yukon's bones and skull were performed, and it was proven that the dead body was that of the deceased. This is the first strong circumstance that led to the appellant's conviction - A-1.
• At the same time, it is clear that the communication/letter received by Police on December 30, 2007, was the catalyst for revisiting the investigation, as it had previously been closed as untraceable on February 4, 2007. PW-30 then launched the actual inquiry. Following that, during investigation A-1, he revealed the location where he had buried the deceased's body. The body was exhumed from the location designated by A-1. Thus, it was a case of recovering the corpse at the accused's request from the location revealed by the accused, who can be claimed to have exclusive knowledge of the location where the dead body was buried.
• Following that, the superimposition test and DNA study on the bones and skull were performed, and it was proven that the dead body was that of the deceased. This is the first strong circumstance that led to the appellant's conviction - A-1.
• Following that, the car driven by the dead at the relevant time was collected from PW-16, at the request of the accused himself. That an automobile operated by the dead was recovered from the location and person specified by the accused No. 1 -appellant. The prosecution successfully demonstrated this by questioning PW-16, a person to whom the appellant-accused No. 1 - sold the stolen car. This is the appellant's second significant circumstance - accused No.1.
• Following that, the prosecution was successful in showing that the engine and gearbox sold by the appellant-accused No. 1 were retrieved from PW-17. According to A-1's disclosure declaration, the stolen car's engine and gearbox were discovered in the custody of PW-17. Though PW-17 has been hostile, the recovery of the engine and gearbox from PW-17, which were retrieved based on A-1's disclosure statement, has been established and proven by the prosecution by interrogating Police witness - PW-30, and we have no cause to disbelieve PW-30 on the aforementioned. This is another accusation leveled against the appellant-accused No. 1.
• This is based on the aforementioned strong circumstances in which the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court convicted the accused-appellant for the offenses under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, and we see no reason to interfere with the same in the exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.
• In terms of the appellant's contention that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased's death was homicidal because the cause of death was undetermined in the post-mortem report, it should be noted that because the dead body was buried and discovered after several months, it may not be possible for the prosecution to prove that the death was homicidal. However, as the High Court correctly remarked, the prosecution has demonstrated and proven that the deceased was killed after his car was stolen/taken away by appellant-accused No. 1.
• Given the aforementioned details, we are confident that the High Court did not err in dismissing the appeal and upholding the verdict, order of conviction, and sentence rendered by the learned Trial Court, which found the appellant, accused No. 1, guilty of the offenses listed under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
• No action by this Court is required in light of the aforementioned and for the reasons mentioned above. The appeal is accordingly dismissed since it should be rejected