Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Heard Ms.R.Shase, learned counsel for the accused and Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State.

4. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the extra-judicial confession of Arul (A1) viz., Ex.P8, which was given to Sridhar (P.W.9) and the last seen together theory of the testimonies of Venkateswaran (P.W.5), Saravanan (P.W.7) and Sukumar (P.W.10). As regards Bharathi (P.W.1), Ramesh (P.W.2) and Arun (P.W.3), they had gone to the place of occurrence, only after the incident and they merely suspected the involvement of four https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  CRL.A.Nos.691 of 2018 and 471 of 2019 friends of the deceased. At this juncture, it may be relevant to state certain events that took place during trial that would have a strong bearing in this case.

8. Coming to the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P8) of Arul (A1), Ms.Shase, learned counsel for the appellants took us through the evidence of Bharathi (P.W.1), who, in the cross-examination, has clearly stated that on 24.08.2011, when she went to the police station, she found that the police had detained Arul (A1), Mani (A2), Karthik (P.W.11) and Vignesh (P.W.12). Thus, from her testimony, it is clear that Arul (A1) and Mani (A2) were taken into custody, even on 24.08.2011 itself and therefore, the extra- judicial confession (Ex.P8) dated 25.08.2011, that was allegedly given by Arul (A1) to Sridhar (P.W.9), stood vitiated. Hence, this Court cannot place any reliance on the said extra-judicial confession (Ex.P8) of Arul (A1), for mulcting criminal liability on the accused.