Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Doss @ Vattaakkan @ Perumal @ Pethaperum vs State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police on 28 October, 2021
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Bela M. Trivedi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 567/2014
DOSS @VATTAKKAN@ PERUMAL @PETHAPERUMAL …Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE …Respondent(s)
O R D E R
This appeal by Special Leave challenges the judgment and order dated 21.11.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.301 of 2011. According to the prosecution, one S. Balamurugan aged about 22 years went missing from Signature Not Verified 27.04.2008. On or about 25.05.2008, an anonymous Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2021.10.29 16:13:07 IST Reason: letter was received by the complainant which mentioned names of three persons including the 2 present appellant to be responsible for the murder of said S. Balamurugan. The letter disclosed that after murder, the body of said Balamurugan was kept in a gunny bag and thrown into a well.
On 21.06.2008, the dead body of said S. Balamurugan in highly decomposed condition was found in a well whereafter the investigation into the crime swung into action. According to the prosecution, on 27.06.2008, the appellant appeared before PW-15, the then Tahsildar and confessed to the crime which was recorded in the form of a writing, which was later produced on record as Exh.P-11. This document was signed on each page by the appellant. Thereafter, the custody of the appellant was obtained by the police. The dead body of the deceased was found to be having following injuries:
“Injuries noted over mandible, cervical vertebra 2,3,4 & lumbar vertebra 3,4,5.
Mandible: An oblique heavy cutting injury over its right side cuts it into two.3
Cervical Vertebra:
C2: An oblique heavy cutting injury of length 3 cms over right side of the bone. C3: An oblique heavy cutting injury of length 2 cms over front of body of vertebra, it is in line with injury to C2.
C4: A transverse cut injury separates it into two, lower fragment not found. Lumber Vertebra:
L3: An oblique cut injury of length 1.5 cm seen over right side of body of vertebra in its lower part.
L4: An oblique cut injury of length 4 cms over front of body, extending from right side to left side.
L5: An oblique cut injury of length 2.5 cm seen over right side of body, another oblique cut injury of length 1.5 cm over left side of body of vertebra. The fragment of bone in between the cut injury found missing.
All cut injuries are ante mortem in nature. Benzidine Test is positive in all of them.” According to the Medical opinion, the deceased had died because of heavy cut injuries to his neck.
After due investigation, four persons 4 including the present appellant were arrayed as accused in S.C.No.296 of 2010 on the file of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu.
The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 29.07.2011 found the case of the prosecution to have been proved against the appellant (Accused NO.1) in respect of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short). The Trial Court, however, found the appellant to be not guilty in respect of the offence punishable under Section 120(B) IPC while the other three accused were acquitted of all the charges.
By a separate order of sentence passed on the same date, the Trial Court sentenced the appellant to suffer life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default whereof, he was to undergo further period of three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC.5
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed aforementioned Criminal Appeal (MD) No.301/2011.
After considering the material on record, the High Court by its judgment and order which is presently under challenge, affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court. Confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant, the High Court dismissed aforesaid appeal.
In this appeal, we have heard Dr. P. George Giri, learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Dr. Joseph Aristotle S, learned Advocate for the State.
The principal submission advanced on behalf of the appellant pertains to the reliability touching upon Exh.P-11 [Extra Judicial Confession] recorded by PW-15. It was submitted by the learned counsel that by very nature, an Extra Judicial Confession would be a week piece of evidence and considering the fact situation on record, the matter would be covered by decision 6 of this Court in Ithangavelu Vs. State of Tamil Nadu1 which was subsequently relied upon in Chakarai @ Chakaravarthi vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police2.
On the other hand Dr. Aristotle S. learned Advocate appearing for the State relied upon Velayuda Palavar vs. State by Sub-Inspector of Police3; Chandra Bonia vs. State of Assam4; Arumugam vs. The State Rep. By its Inspector of 5 Police ; Kadamanian @ Manikandan vs. State Rep. By its Inspector of Police6; Jagroop Singh vs. State of Punjab7 and Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan8 In the present case, apart from the Extra Judicial Confession, the subsidiary evidence in the form of a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of Sickles as well as cycle is also relied upon by the prosecution. 1(2002)6 SCC 498 2(2019)14 SCC 254 3(2009)14 SCC 436 4(2011)14 SCC 760 5 (2010)12 SCC 155 6 (2016)9 SCC 325 7 (2012)11 SCC 768 8 (2001)2 SCC 205 7 Though the prosecution sought to rely upon certain material to establish the last scene theory, the witnesses examined in that behalf having turned hostile, we cannot rely upon the testimony of such witnesses.
As regards Extra Judicial Confession, what is important to notice is that each page was signed by the appellant and when PW-15 deposed to the fact of having recorded the version given by the appellant, neither his version was sought to be contradicted nor any effective cross examination was made. It was not the case that the signatures were obtained by practicing fraud or deception. The statement given by the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also silent on this issue.
Resultantly, it has to be accepted that the Extra Judicial Confession was made by the appellant to PW-15 and was recorded in the form of Exh. P-11. The recovery of sickles as well as cycle are also factors which go against the 8 appellant. The injuries found in the post-mortem report are quite consistent and possible to be inflicted by weapons in question. In the circumstances, we are not persuaded to take any different view in the matter. Affirming the view taken by the Trial Court as well as by the High Court, we dismiss the instant appeal.
.......................J. (UDAY UMESH LALIT) .......................J. (S. RAVINDRA BHAT) .......................J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI) New Delhi, October 28, 2021.
9
ITEM NO.101 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C
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). 567/2014
DOSS @ VATTAKKAN @ PERUMAL @ PETHAPERUMAL Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent(s)
Date : 28-10-2021 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI For Appellant(s) Dr. P. George Giri, AOR Mr. Ravi Sagar, Adv.
Ms. Jasmin Kurian Giri, Adv. .
For Respondent(s) Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR Ms. Preeti Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ripual Swati Kumari, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (VIRENDER SINGH) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)