CAUSE TITLE:
John Anthonisamy @ John V. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police
DATE OF ORDER:
19th January 2023
JUDGE(S):
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
PARTIES:
Appellant: John Anthonisamy @ John
Respondent: State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police.
SUBJECT:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘the Court’), stated that the individual was suspected of murdering a taxi driver was found guilty of murder. The Madras High Court found the defendant guilty of violating Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
Indian Penal Code 1860
- Section 120B - states the punishment for the person involved into criminal conspiracy. If there is no explicit provision in this Code for the sanction of such a conspiracy, anyone who participates in a criminal conspiracy to constitute an offence punishable by death or stringent imprisonment for a period of two years or more should be punished in a similar manner as if he had assisted the commission of the offence.
- Section 147 - states that Rioting is punishable by either a fine, a period of imprisonment of any sort that may last up to two years, or by both of these measures.
- Section 201 - outlines the penalties for causing evidence of a crime to vanish or providing false information to a criminal background check.
- Section 302 - states that murderers face a range of penalties, including the death penalty or life in jail as well as a financial fine.
- Section 396 states what is dacoity along with murder; If one of five or even more people who are concurrently committing dacoity also kills a person in the course of doing so, each of those people will be subject to one of the following punishments: death, life in prison, or stringent imprisonment for a period that may stretch to ten years, as well as a fine.
BRIEF FACTS:
- Witnesses for the prosecution employed the dead to operate a cab that belonged to him as a driver. The deceased departed his home on June 26, 2006, at 6:00 a.m., after telling his wife. He left after that and didn't come back
- The accused, along with others, participated in a plan to murder the same cab driver by bringing him to a remote location, killing him, robbing him of his car and other possessions, and then burying his corpse.
- An FIR was lodged and the investigation began. The case was closed upon the reasoning of undetected case. Later one of the accused confessed the crime. Based on the confession statement the investigation began. The case was registered under section 302 and 396 of IPC 1860. Learned Trial Court convicted the accused based on the evidence and this was confirmed by the High Court too.
- The original accused No. 1 feels betrayed and aggrieved by the impugned final judgement and order dated 22.07.2016 issued by the Madras High Court of Judicature in Criminal Appeal No. 171/2015, through which the High Court rejected the appeal made by the appellant herein and affirmed the sentence and conviction levied by the learned Trial Court for such offences charged under Section 302 read along with 201 of the IPC.
ISSUE ROSE:
Whether the conviction for murder under section 302 of IPC 1860 can be made only on the bases of the confessional statement?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- It was argued that the prosecution's case in the current instance is entirely supported by circumstantial evidence. The established law which each connection in the network must be proven so that it leads inescapably to the judgment that the accused is guilty before condemning them.
- The state has not proven that the deceased's murder was the result of homicide. According to the argument, because of this, the medical professional who conducted the post-mortem was unable to provide a conclusive assessment of the cause of death.
- Relying on the confession statement/extrajudicial confession, the accused was found guilty by both the learned Trial Court and the High Court. Legal extra has shown that judicial confession is insufficient proof. Recovery as a result of the accused's confession establishes nothing more than the possession of stolen property and excludes the accused from being held accountable for murder.
- The restoration of the body from the location indicated by A-1, the recovery of the car from the location indicated by A-1 without an engine or gearbox, and the subsequent recovery of the gearbox from PW-16 could not be believed because these events were based on the confessional declaration or disclaimer statement. As a result, the High Court's analysis of the situation does not support the prosecution's position.
- Consequently, the prosecution is needed to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or to justify each link to support the judgement, which the prosecution has been unable to do when the prosecution relies solely on the circumstantial evidence listed above, each of which is clearly unreliable and insufficient to support the serious allegations against the accused.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT
- It is argued that the corpse was dug out from the location indicated and recognised by A-1. It is claimed that the prosecution has adequately shown the location of the grave indicated by A-1 and his identification of the body. Expert anthropological evidence is recognized. On the grounds of A-1's disclosure declaration, the stolen automobile was also found.
- The accused did not at all explain the aforementioned key circumstances in his subsequent statement made pursuant to Section 313 CrPC. The Court has dismissed that DW-1's deposition. The lower courts' conviction of the offender for the violation of Section 302 and another IPC violation was made without mistake.
- Therefore the respondent prayed that the appeal should be dismissed. The Court has based its decision on the absence of the accused's alleged confession that he constituted the crime. It is important to remember that the High Court does not accept the so-called communication from Accused No. 1 to PW-22 since it is supplementary evidence and has not been proven. Consequently, it cannot be stated that the confessional declaration provided in the document or communication led to the conviction of the appellant, accused No. 1.
- The Court has based its decision on the absence of the accused's alleged confession that he constituted the crime. It is important to remember that the High Court does not accept the so-called communication from Accused No. 1 to PW-22 since it is supplementary evidence and has not been proven. Consequently, it cannot be stated that the confessional declaration provided in the document or communication led to the conviction of the appellant, accused No. 1.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT:
- It is necessary to note that because the dead body was buried and discovered after several months, it might not be feasible for the prosecution to demonstrate that the death was a homicidal death, contrary to the appellant's claims that the prosecution failed to establish that the deceased's death was intentional because the cause of death in the post-mortem report could not be determined. However, at the same time, and as the High Court correctly noted, the prosecution has demonstrated and proven via other circumstances that the deceased was slain after the appellant, accused No. 1, and took his automobile.
- Given the aforementioned details, the court is confident that the High Court did not constitute any error in discharging 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 offences covered by Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The appeal is thus dismissed since it should be rejected.
CONCLUSION
In this case the appeal was dismissed the Supreme Court as Supreme Court will not interfere with the concurrent finding of the court below, unless the findings are per verse or vitiated by error of law or there is gross miscarriage of justice. Accused has right of appeal but it is a discretionary power to the supreme court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice under exceptional circumstances only, it is to be exercised sparingly. Circumspection and circumscription must induce the court to interfere with the decision under challenge only if the extraordinary flaws or grave injustice or other recognised grounds are made out.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
