NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1016 OF 2010

CHAKARAI @ CHAKARAVARTHI Appellant

       Versus

STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent

J U D G M E N T

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

We have heard Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj, learned counsel

for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Raja Rajeshwaran,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent –

State.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the

common judgment and order dated 16.06.2009 passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Madras in a batch of Criminal

Appeals  filed  by  the  accused,  confirming  the  judgment

dated 07.02.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge,

FTC 2, Salem, Tamil Nadu in S.C. No. 5 of 2006 to the

extent that it convicted the appellant/Accused No.1 for

the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

1

(in  short,  “the  IPC”)  and  sentenced  him  to  life

imprisonment.

3. The  brief  facts  relating  to  this  appeal  are  as

under:-

The deceased Ramamurthy was working as a Collection

Agent in New Centurion Bank at Salem.  Accused Nos. 1 and

2  had  availed  vehicle  loans  from  the  said  Bank  to

purchase two motor cycles. However, such loans were not

repaid  on  time.  The  deceased  Ramamurthy  used  to

pressurise both the accused to repay the loans. Despite

the same, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 failed to repay the same

and started avoiding him.  About six months prior to the

incident in question, the deceased Ramamurthy had taken

away both the vehicles of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 without

informing  them,  in  order  to  pressurise  them  to  repay

their loans. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 approached the deceased

for  the  return  of  these  vehicles,  but  he  refused  to

oblige,  saying  that  he  would  return  the  vehicles  only

once they repaid the loans. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were

inimically  disposed  towards  the  deceased  Ramamurthy  in

that regard.  They sought the help of the other accused

and conspired with them to do away with the life of the

deceased Ramamurthy.

On  14.5.2005,  Accused  No.1,  along  with  the  other

2

accused, called the deceased Ramamurthy over phone to the

place  of  the  incident  on  the  pretext  of  repaying  the

loans.  The  deceased  reached  the  place  and  immediately

thereafter, all the accused pushed the deceased inside

the Maruti van owned by one of the accused, took him away

and killed him. Thereafter, the dead body was thrown near

the house of an advocate at Salem.

4. On the next day, P.W.18, the Village Administrative

Officer, upon receiving information about an unidentified

dead body, went to the location, saw the dead body and

lodged the first information report.   

The Trial Court convicted all the accused, whereas

the High Court retained the conviction of the appellant

herein under Section 302 of the IPC and acquitted all the

other accused persons, as well as the appellant of all

other charges.

5. The case of the prosecution is mainly based on the

extra-judicial confession of the accused. Both P.W.8, who

had  allegedly  seen  the  accused  abducting  the  deceased

Ramamurthy,  and  P.W.  11,  who  spoke  about  the  alleged

conspiracy, turned hostile. The circumstances relied upon

by the prosecution are as under:-

a) Motive for commission of the offence, as deposed to

by P.W.2.

3

b) Accused were seen abducting the deceased by P.W.8.

c) Conspiracy amongst the accused, deposed to by P.W.11.

d) Recovery  of  the  Maruti  van,  weapon  and  the  blood

stained clothes of Accused No.1, based on the confession

made by Accused No.1 before the police. The circumstance

of recovery is deposed to by P.W.18.

e) The extra-judicial confession spoken to and recorded

by P.W.12.

It is noteworthy to mention that the High Court has

disbelieved  all  the  circumstances  except  the  extra-

judicial confession.   

6. To satisfy our conscience, we have gone through the

entire material. We do not find any reason to disagree

with the High Court, inasmuch as it has rightly concluded

that the circumstances of motive, abduction by accused,

conspiracy and recovery are not proved beyond reasonable

doubt.

As mentioned supra, P.W.8, who had allegedly seen the

abduction, and P.W.11, who initially deposed with respect

to  the  conspiracy,  turned  hostile.  The  High  Court  has

also rightly disbelieved the aspect on motive inasmuch as

the  grievance  of  Accused  Nos.  1  and  2  against  the

deceased was six months prior to the incident, to the

degree  that  the  deceased  had  allegedly  taken  away  the

4

vehicles of the accused without informing them.  Though

P.W.2,  the  mother  of  the  deceased,  deposed  about  the

motive, it is clear that the same had not been disclosed

by  her  to  the  police  during  the  investigation.

Additionally, although P.W.18 deposed about the recovery

of  certain  articles  which  were  blood  stained,  the

prosecution failed to place the chemical analysis report

on record even though the material objects recovered from

Accused No.1 had been sent for such analysis.  Moreover,

though the serological report found that the blood groups

found on the clothes of the deceased and the recovered

material objects tallied, the same cannot be relied upon

since the serial number of the requisition sent does not

tally with that of the report. Therefore, in the absence

of  reliable  matching  of  blood  groups,  the  evidence  of

P.W.18 loses its importance.

7. Thus,  the  only  remaining  circumstance,  as  rightly

concluded  by  the  High  Court,  is  the  extra-judicial

confession.   

We have perused the extra-judicial confession (Ext.

P-1)  recorded  by  P.W.12  (the  Tahsildar,  Salem),  the

translation in English of which was provided to us by the

learned  counsel  for  the  appellant.  The  extra-judicial

confession gives us an impression that the same has been

5

generated to make the courts believe the case against the

appellant. The extra-judicial confession is suspiciously

full of facts, and graphically discloses the antecedents

of  Accused  No.1,  the  situation  of  his  house  and  what

happened  prior  to  the  incident  in  question  and

thereafter. It is recorded in nearly five full pages, and

not only speaks about the motive to kill, but also gives

graphic details of how each of the accused attacked the

deceased.   

In this context, it would be relevant to refer to

certain observations made by this Court in Thangavelu v.

State of Tamil Nadu, (2002) 6 SCC 498.  Paragraph 7 of

the judgment is extracted below:-

“At  this  juncture  we  may  take  note  of  the prosecution case that the appellant had made an extra-judicial confession to PW 12, another VAO on the day following the incident. Though the courts below have not placed any reliance on this confession, we take note of this document for the purpose of appreciating the genuineness of the prosecution case. A perusal of this confession Ext. P-14 gives us an indication of the attempt of the prosecution to build a case against this appellant. This extra-judicial confession is so full of facts starting from about 25 years prior to  the  date  of  the  incident  and  graphically details what happened over these years to his sister  and  his  family  which  actually  is  the motive  suggested  by  the  prosecution  for  the crime.  Ext. P-14 is recorded in nearly 4 full pages, it not only speaks of his motive to kill

6

D-1 and D-2 but also gives graphic details of the nature of the attack on the deceased and also mentions in detail the persons whom he saw during and after the incident. In a manner of speaking, if this confession is true the appellant had the foresight  to  guess  as  to  who  the  prosecution witnesses  are  going  to  be  and  gives  an impression,  therefore,  he  was  seeking  to corroborate  their  future  evidence. In  our opinion, this would hardly be the natural conduct of  an  accused  if  he  was  voluntarily  making  a confession.  We  further  notice  the  unimaginable similarity in Exts. P-14 and P-1 as also in the evidence of PW 1 which supports the theory of the defence  that  there  was  an  attempt  by  the prosecution to create evidence in this case.”

(emphasis supplied)

The facts of the present case are similar to the

facts of the aforesaid case, in so far as the extra-

judicial  confession  is  concerned.  All  the  observations

made by this Court in the case of Thangavelu (supra) are

aptly applicable to the case on hand. In the said matter,

this  Court  disbelieved  the  detailed  extra-judicial

confession and acquitted the accused.

8. Hence, we are of the opinion that the extra-judicial

confession  placed  on  record  cannot  be  relied  upon.

However, even if the extra-judicial confession is to be

believed, it would be unsafe to convict the accused and

award  life  imprisonment  to  him  based  on  the  sole

circumstance  of  an  extra-judicial  confession,  more

7

particularly  since  all  the  other  circumstances  remain

unproved, and since the Investigation Officer and P.W. 12

have  not  acted  impartially,  which  is  evident  from  the

manner of recording the alleged extra-judicial confession

as discussed supra.

9. In our considered opinion, the High Court was not

justified  in  convicting  the  accused  based  on  the  sole

circumstance of the extra-judicial confession under the

facts and circumstances of this case.   

10. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the High Court

convicting the Accused No.1/Appellant stands set aside.

The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled

against him. He shall be released forthwith, if he is not

required in any other case.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.  

                  ........................J.

(MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

                            ........................J.                            (DINESH MAHESHWARI)

New Delhi, January 24, 2019

8