9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... District - Puducherry. 3. The appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal stands sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. 4. The other co-accused, namely, Saravanan @ Krishnan, Mohan @ Mohankumar, and Ravi @ Ravichandran were acquitted by the trial court, which acquittal has become final. One 'N' was tried as a juvenile and acquitted. On 15.02.2013, the case of another co-accused - Chella @ Mugundhan was split up since he was absconding. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 04.06.2019, which has been placed on record as additional evidence, Chella @ Mukundhan has been acquitted. 5. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: (i) On 20.04.2008, Rajaram, who was settled in France, returned to Puducherry as his son Rajini @ Rajinikanth, who was living in India, had gone missing. (ii) On 20.04.2008, Rajaram had approached PS Odiansalai, Puducherry, and made an oral complaint stating that when he had opened his house No. 13, Chinna Vaikkal Street, Puducherry, he had found articles to be scattered all over the place. His ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kal Street, and after passing through Gandhi Street they threw the sack bags in the canal/river from the Uppanaru Bridge near the railway crossing. (xi) On the basis of the disclosure statement (Exhibit P-37), the sack bags with the decomposed dead body of Rajini @ Rajinikanth were recovered on 26.04.2008 from the Uppanaru canal/river. Knife was also recovered. (xii) The body parts which were in a decomposed state were sent for post mortem, which was conducted by Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry on 26.04.2008. (xiii) On 30.04.2008, eight articles were recovered from the water sump tank at the house of the deceased, namely, gloves, lower jaw, rib, cervical vertebrae, tarsal and metatarsal, small and big size bone pieces, and knee cap. (xiv) The skull recovered from the canal/river and the lower part of the jaw recovered from the sump tank were sent for superimposition test to ascertain whether they belong to the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth. C. Pushparani, Scientific Assistant Grade II, Anthropology Division, Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai, who had deposed as PW-29, proves the sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he investigating officer in FIR No. 204 of 2008 relating to the murder of Rajaram by unknown persons, has testified on the disclosure statement made by the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal (Exhibit P-37). The relevant portion of the disclosure statement reads: "...myself and xxx pull Rajni's xxx, put him in the sump tank near the bathroom and closed it... ...took xxx, Iron box, Home theatre, xxx, xxx, rental documents of my uncle's house at Chittankudi, Hero Honda CD Dawn motorcycle, RC book and key, Rajini's passport book, Rajini's passport size photo, birth registration of grandmother, family ration card of uncle and the copy of documents written in English, bunch of keys of the house and my uncle Ranjith's notebook, xxx xxx xxx, took Hero Honda CD Dawn motorbike of my uncle Rajaram.....one bag was put by Mohan xxx xxx xxx the house of Mohan nearby to the Tollgate of Ariyankuppam, kept 2 bags in Mohan's house... ...I, immediately, went to N (name withheld) house and gave him document, ration card, bunch of keys, Rajini's passport, by keeping them in Ranjith notebook and stated to keep them safe... ...I took the already kept 3 sack bags, rope, curry knife, showed the sum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bit P-48). The recovery was photographed by Subburayan (PW-25), police photographer vide photographs marked Exhibit P-18 and duly witnessed by public witness Devadass (PW-21). 13. To determine the identity of the deceased person, some of the body parts were sent for a superimposition test to C. Pushparani (PW29), who was working as a Scientific Assistant Grade II, Anthropology Division, Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai. She has deposed about having received the case properties, consisting of a skull with mandible on 10.09.2008. The mandible was attached with the skull by means of a spring. For the purpose of identification, she had two identical colour photographs of a male individual sent to her in a sealed envelope as Item Nos. 2 and 3. The photographs were enlarged to the size of a self-portrait. Using the computer aided video superimposition technique, she had examined the skull and mandible viz. the photographs. For the purposes of the examination, the flesh thickness and the anthroposcopic landmarks in the face were also taken into consideration. C. Pushparani (PW-29), Scientific Assistant Grade II, Anthropology Division, Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai opined tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he skull, sternum and right femur which were preserved by him from the autopsy material. Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry has also stated that the lower jaw and the left lower first premolar tooth were preserved by him from the skeleton remains for onward transmission to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for necessary photo superimposition and DNA test through the Judicial Magistrate-II, Puducherry. The mahazar dated 21.5.2008 (Exhibit P-15) was prepared after collecting the aforesaid body parts. 16. We do not find that any confusion or doubt arises from the deposition of Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry. He had conducted the post mortem examination (Exhibit P-16) on 26.04.2008, wherein he had examined the remains/body parts of the deceased which were found in the two nylon sack bags on the same day. Other body parts including, the lower part of the skull i.e. the mandible and the tooth were found subsequently in the sump tank on 30.04.2008. Therefore, Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Evidence Act'], a confession made to a police officer is prohibited and cannot be admitted in evidence. Section 26 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer shall be proved against such person, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27[3] of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It makes that part of the statement which distinctly leads to discovery of a fact in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence, to the extent it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered, admissible in evidence against the accused. The fact which is discovered as a consequence of the information given is admissible in evidence. Further, the fact discovered must lead to recovery of a physical object and only that information which distinctly relates to that discovery can be proved. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events - a fact is actually discovered in consequence of the information given, which results in recovery of a physical object. The facts discovered and the recov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e scope of the information and means 'directly', 'indubitably', 'strictly' or 'unmistakably'. Only that part of the information which is clear, immediate and a proximate cause of discovery is admissible. 23. The facts proved by the prosecution, particularly the admissible portion of the statement of the accused, would give rise to two alternative hypotheses, namely, (i) that the accused had himself deposited the physical items which were recovered; or (ii) only the accused knew that the physical items were lying at that place. The second hypothesis is wholly compatible with the innocence of the accused, whereas the first would be a factor to show involvement of the accused in the offence. The court has to analyse which of the hypotheses should be accepted in a particular case. 24. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is frequently used by the police, and the courts must be vigilant about its application to ensure credibility of evidence, as the provision is vulnerable to abuse. However, this does not mean that in every case invocation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be seen with suspicion and is to be discarded as perfunctory and unworthy of credence. 25. The pre-requisite of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 24 and the expression "a person accused of any offence" in Sections 26 and 27 have the same connotation, and describe the person against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal proceeding. The adjectival clause "accused of any offence" is, therefore, descriptive of the person against whom a confessional statement made by him is declared not provable, and does not predicate a condition of that person at the time of making the statement. 27. Elaborating on this aspect, a three judge Bench of this Court in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar [AIR 1966 SC 119] has held that if the FIR is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence, except to the extent that the ban is lifted by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. While dealing with the admission of part of confession report dealing with motive, subsequent conduct and opportunity, this Court rejected the severability test adopted by some High Courts. The statement can, however, be relied upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused is, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police and the bar vide Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and accordingly exception under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, apply. Reliance was placed on the decisions in State of A.P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy [(1997) 1 SCC 272] and A.N.Vekatesh and Anr. v. State of Karnataka [(2005) 7 SCC 714]. 30. However, evidentiary value to be attached on evidence produced before the court in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be codified or put in a straightjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. A holistic and inferential appreciation of evidence is required to be adopted in a case of circumstantial evidence. 31. When we turn to the facts of the present case, the body parts of the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth were recovered on the pointing out of appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal in his disclosure statement. Rajini @ Rajinikanth had been missing for months and was untraceable. In the present case, as discussed above, the homicidal death of Rajini @ Rajinikanth, the disclosure statement marked Exhibit P-37, and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, ¶¶ 190, 204-206, 219-223, 225.] Reference in this regard may also be made to the judgment of this Court in Sandeep v. State of U.P. [(2012) 6 SCC 107] which held that: "52. (...) It is quite common that based on admissible portion of the statement of the accused whenever and wherever recoveries are made, the same are admissible in evidence and it is for the accused in those situations to explain to the satisfaction of the court as to the nature of recoveries and as to how they came into possession or for planting the same at the places from where they were recovered." 36. On the basis of the prosecution evidence, the following factual position has been established: (i) Rajini @ Rajinikanth was missing for months before his father Rajaram came from France to India, on 20.04.2008. (ii) On return, Rajaram had noticed that the articles in the property No.13, Chinna Vaikkal street, Puducherry, where deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth used to reside and was owned by Rajaram, were scattered. The motorcycle owned by Rajaram, which the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth used to use, was missing. (iii) Rajaram was murdered on 21.04.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be fully established: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 38. This Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) rejected the contention that if the defence case is false it would constitute an additional link as to fortify the case of the prosecution. However, a word of caution was laid down to observe that a false explanation given can be used as a link when: (i) various links in the chain of evidence laid by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved; (ii) circumstance points to the guilt of the accused w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he conclusion of guilt as indicated by the prosecution evidence. 41. The whereabouts of Rajini @ Rajinikanth were unknown. The perpetrator(s) were also unknown. It is only consequent to the disclosure statement by the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal, that the police came to know that Rajini @ Rajinikanth had been murdered and his body was first dumped in the sump tank and after some months, it was retrieved, cut into two parts, put in sack bags, and thrown in the river/canal. The police, accordingly, proceeded on the leads and recovered the parts of the dead body from the sump tank and sack bags from the river/canal. It has been also established that Rajini @ Rajinikanth was murdered. In addition, there have been recoveries of the motorcycle and other belongings at the behest of the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal. These facts, in the absence of any other material to doubt them, establish indubitable conclusion that the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal is guilty of having committed murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth. The presence of motive reinforces the above conclusion. 42. It has been contended before us that the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal had been acquitted in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, ¶ 145]. This was precisely the reason given by the trial court to acquit the co-accused. Even if Section 8 of the Evidence Act is to apply, it would not have been possible to convict the co-accused. The trial court rightly held other co-accused not guilty. For the same reason, acquittal of co-accused Chella @ Mukundhan, who was earlier absconding, is also of no avail. 44. As far as acquittal of the juvenile is concerned, reference can be made to the provisions of Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act. 45. In view of the above discussion, we have no difficulty in upholding the conviction of the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal. The appeal is dismissed. [1] We shall be subsequently referring to the admissible portions of the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and also to a limited extent in terms of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. [2] The recovery of lower jaw from the sump took place on 30.04.2008. Thus, it could not have been mentioned in the post mortem report dated 26.04.2008. [3] 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved. - Provided that, when any fact is deposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
