REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  384 OF 2002

Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu              …. Appellant

Versus

John David               ...Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated  

05.10.2001 passed by the High Court of Madras whereby the  

High  Court  has  allowed  the  appeal  filed  by  the  respondent  

herein.  The  High  Court  acquitted  the  respondent  under  

Sections 302, 364, 201 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860  

(for  short  “IPC”)  by reversing the Judgment and order  dated  

11.03.1988 rendered by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge,  

Cuddalore in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1997.

1

2.The facts of this case are very shocking and very distressing.  

Murder  is  committed  of  a  young  boy,  the  only  son  of  his  

parents, who at the relevant time was studying for a medical  

degree. The manner in which he was killed and his dead body  

was disposed of after cutting it into different pieces was very  

gruesome and ghastly. The person in the dock and who was  

accused of the crime was another senior student in the same  

campus.  

3.Brief  relevant  facts  leading  to  the  registration  of  the  first  

information  report  and giving  rise  to  the  present  appeal  are  

being set out hereunder.

4.In the academic year of 1995-96 the respondent-accused was  

studying  in  the  senior  first  year  course  of  MBBS  and  the  

deceased-Navarasu,  son  of  Dr.  P.K.  Ponnusamy  [PW-1],  a  

retired Vice-Chancellor of Madras University, was studying in  

the junior first year course of MBBS in Raja Muthiah Medical  

College,  Annamalai  University,  Annamalai  Nagar.  The  

respondent was staying in room no. 319 of KRM hostel and the  

deceased was staying in  room no.  95 in E.1 Malligai  Hostel  

belonging to the same medical college campus. PW-1 returned  

from his foreign trip on 07.11.1996 and was waiting for  the  

2

arrival  of  his  son-Navarasu  from  college  to  celebrate  Diwali  

which in that relevant year fell  on 10.11.96. When Navarasu  

did not return home till  09.11.1996,  PW-1 started enquiring  

from  the  friends  of  his  son,  available  at  Madras  but  no  

information of his whereabouts could be gathered by the father.  

PW-1 then on 09.11.1996 rang up the university authorities to  

find out and ascertain the whereabouts of his son. When he  

was informed that the college authority found his hostel room  

locked and when it  was broken upon, it  was found that his  

belongings along with a small box were lying in the room but he  

was not available in the room. The college authorities and the  

father were of the opinion that Navarasu had not left for Diwali  

to  Madras.  PW-1  thereafter  rushed  to  the  University  on  

10.11.96 and made a complaint of missing of his son at about  

11.30 p.m. on 10.11.96 which was registered as Crime No. 509  

of 1996 [Exhibit-P1].  

5.While  this process was going on and without the knowledge  

of Annamalai Nagar Police, a torso was recovered at about 8.30  

a.m. on 07.11.1996 by G. Boopahty, Inspector of Police,  E.5  

Pattinapakkam  [PW-55],  from  the  PTC  Bus  Depot  at  

Mandaiveli, Madras based on the information given by Prakash  

3

[PW-53],  conductor  of  the  bus  route  NO.  21G.  The  said  

recovered torso  was sent  for  post-mortem after  inquest.  The  

Annamalai  Nagar  Police  after  registering  the  missing  report  

started  investigation  and  during  the  course  of  such  

investigation gathered materials and also received information  

from various persons including students of the college pointing  

the guilt towards the accused, who was also found absconding  

from the college premises from 12-14.11.1996. On 14.11.1996  

the accused surrendered himself before the Judicial Magistrate,  

Mannargudi. The message of his surrender was conveyed to the  

Annamalai Nagar PS, which got the police custody for five days  

of the accused from 18.11.1996. On 19.11.1996 at about 1.30  

a.m. the accused gave a confessional statement stating that he  

has put the  severed head of  the deceased in the  boat-canal  

within the University campus. Pursuant to the said confession,  

the  head  was  also  recovered.  Annamalai  Nagar  PS  on  

20.11.1996  asked  E5.  Pattinapakkam  PS  for  sending  the  

records connected with the torso recovered at Madras on the  

suspicion  that  it  may  belong  to  the  severed  head  of  the  

deceased-Navarasu, which was recovered at the instance of the  

accused.  Dr.  K.  Ravindran [PW-66]  conducted autopsy/post-

mortem  of  the  head  at  10.00  am  on  21.11.1996.  On  

4

22.11.1996 a message was received from Villupuram Control  

Room  which  was  forwarded  to  Annamalai  Nagar  PS  which  

mentioned  that  three  human  bones  femur,  tibia  and  fibula  

have been recovered at 1.30 a.m. on 21.11.1996 from the sea-

shore  of  Konimedu  of  Merkanam  based  on  the  information  

given by the concerned Village Administrative Officer-Nagarajan  

[PW-43].  Post  mortem  of  the  limbs  were  conducted  by  Dr.  

Srinivasan [PW-45] and later limbs were sent to PW-66. PW-66  

after examining the severed head, the torso and three human  

bones  above  mentioned,  found  that  there  are  scientific  

materials to hold that they belong to a single individual and  

also the fact that they belong to deceased-Navasaru. The father  

of the deceased PW-1 and Thandeeswaran [PW-60], nephew of  

PW-1, also identified and confirmed that the head and torso are  

of the deceased. For confirming the said fact, the sample blood  

of PW-1 and his wife Baby Ponnusamy [mother of Navasaru]  

was examined by Dr. G.V. Rao [PW-77] at Hyderabad by DNA  

test. PW-77 compared the tissues taken from the severed head,  

torso and limbs and on scientific analysis he found that the  

same gene found in the blood of PW-1 and Baby Ponnusamy  

were  found  in  the  recovered  parts  of  the  body  and  that  

therefore they should belong to the only missing son of PW-1.

5

6.The prosecution’s version of facts leading to the present case  

are that on 06.11.1996 at about 2.00 p.m. the accused-John  

David  [first  year  senior  medical  student  of  Muthiah  Medical  

College, Annamalai Nagar] took away Navarasu-deceased [first  

year  junior  medical  student  of  Muthiah  Medical  College,  

Annamalai Nagar] and subjected him to severe ragging in Room  

No. 319 of KRM Hostel of the college and when the latter did  

not  subjugate  himself  to  the  accused,  accused  caused  head  

injury to the deceased and when Navarasu-deceased was lying  

on the ground unconscious, the accused severed his head and  

limbs with the help of stainless steel knives and removed his  

gold ring, watch and gold chain and caused his death. After  

doing such gruesome act and with the intention of hiding the  

evidence and also to show his alibi he put the head and the  

gold articles of Navarasu-deceased in a zip bag and threw it  

into canal water  near the hostel  and burnt the bloodstained  

clothes  of  the  deceased  in  the  open  terrace  of  the  hostel  

building and took the torso in a suitcase along with the limbs  

in a train to Madras and threw the limbs in a river when the  

train  crossed  Cuddalore  and  put  the  torso  in  a  bus  at  

Tambaram.  

6

7.On completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge  

sheet  against  the  respondent.  On the  basis  of  the  aforesaid  

charge  sheet,  charges  were  framed  against  the  accused-

respondent. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of  

the  accused  examined  several  witnesses  and  exhibited  a  

number of documents including scientific reports. Thereafter,  

the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the  

purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances existing  

against him. After hearing arguments advanced by the parties,  

the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore by its judgment dated  

11.03.1998 convicted the accused.  Principal  Sessions Judge,  

Cuddalore found that there are enough circumstantial evidence  

and motive on the part of the accused for committing such a  

crime and held the accused/respondent guilty under Sections  

302, 201, 364 and 342 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to  

undergo imprisonment for life under sections 302 and 364 IPC,  

rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 342 IPC, and  

rigorous  imprisonment  for  seven years  and to  pay  a  fine  of  

rupees  one  lakh  and  in  default  to  undergo  rigorous  

imprisonment for twenty one months under Section 201 IPC. It  

was also ordered that the sentences would run consecutively.

7

8.Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction  

passed by the trial Court, the respondent herein preferred an  

appeal before the High Court.  The High Court entertained the  

said appeal and heard the counsel appearing for the parties.  

On conclusion of the arguments, the High Court held that the  

prosecution has failed to prove the guilt  of  the accused and  

accordingly the High Court acquitted the respondent of all the  

charges  vide  its  judgment  and  order  dated  05.10.2001  by  

reversing  and  setting  aside  the  order  of  conviction  passed  

against the respondent under Sections 302, 201, 364 and 342  

IPC.

9.We  may  now  at  this  stage  refer  to  the  arguments  of  the  

counsel  of  the parties in order to understand the scope and  

ambit of the appeal and also to appreciate the contentions so  

as  to  enable  us  to  arrive  at  a  well-considered  findings  and  

conclusions.  

10.Mr. S. Thananjayan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of  

the State emphatically argued before us that the decision of the  

High  Court  of  acquitting  the  accused  person  is  totally  

erroneous  and  suffers  from  serious  infirmities.  He  also  

submitted that the prosecution has proved the case to the hilt  

8

and that a compete and well-connected chain of circumstantial  

evidences  have  been  established  to  prove  the  guilt  of  the  

accused.  He  also  submitted  that  the  prosecution  has  

established  the  case  against  the  accused  beyond reasonable  

doubt.  It was also submitted that the motive of the accused to  

cause bodily injury to the deceased has also been proved and  

that  the  evidence  on  record  clearly  establish  that  on  

06.11.1996 the deceased was in the company of the accused  

and that thereafter, deceased could not be found and that the  

confessional statement of the accused leading to the discovery  

of head of the deceased in the canal is a clinching circumstance  

to connect the accused with the offence. He also contended and  

relied  upon  the  fact  that  the  accused  absconded  from  the  

hostel for several days and thereafter surrendered before the  

Court which would serve as an additional link in the chain of  

circumstances  to prove the  charges levelled against  him.  He  

also submitted that the High Court was not justified in setting  

aside  the  order  of  conviction,  for  what  the  High  Court  had  

found proved was only a plausible or possible view and version,  

which  did  not  find  favour  with  the  trial  Court.   He  also  

submitted that the High Court was not justified in disbelieving  

the recording of confession merely because of the omission to  

9

mention the same in the case diary.  It was also submitted that  

the High Court  was not justified in disbelieving the recovery  

merely because there was contradiction with regard to timing of  

recovery.   He  further  submitted  that  the  High  Court  

erroneously  disbelieved the  case  of  the  prosecution  that  the  

torso could be carried in MO-13 – Suit Case which is 21 inches  

as according to Exhibit  P52 mahazar – the length of MO-13 is  

21 inches and diameter is 24 inches and therefore, the torso  

could not have been parceled in the suit case MO-13.  He also  

took  us  through  the  evidence  on  record  in  support  of  his  

contention  that  the  High  Court  committed  an  error  in  

acquitting  the  respondent  solely  on  the  ground  that  it  is  

hazardous to convict the accused on the basis of the evidence  

placed by the prosecution.  He submitted that in the present  

case all the witnesses produced are of respectable status and  

are independent witnesses and they do not have any axe to  

grind  against  the  accused  and,  therefore,  the  High  Court  

committed an error in disbelieving the evidence on record.

11.On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Sushil  Kumar,  learned  senior  

counsel  appearing  on behalf  of  the  respondent-accused  very  

painstakingly drew our attention to various aspects of the case,  

10

which according to him demolish the very substratum of the  

prosecution  case.  He  also  heavily  relied  upon  the  fact,  by  

making  submission,  that  there  are  no  eye-witnesses  and no  

direct  evidence  regarding  commission  of  the  crime  by  the  

respondent.  He submitted that there are no materials to show  

that the respondent took the deceased to room No. 319 [room  

of the accused] and killed him there. He further submitted that  

as no blood was recovered from the room No. 319 and that the  

two  roommates  of  the  respondent,  viz.,  Raja  Chidambaram  

[PW-37]  & Shagir Thabris [PW-38]  have not stated that they  

smelled  any  blood  or  saw  any  blood  stains  in  the  room,  it  

definitely belies prosecution case that murder was committed  

in the said room of the hostel.  Further submission was that  

PWs 37 & 38 admitted that the three knives [i.e., MOSs 9 to 11]  

were used for cutting fruits and that PW 37 further admitted  

that during the time of interrogation police neither showed the  

articles  seized  from  the  room of  accused  nor  asked  him  to  

identify  the  said  articles.  The  counsel  for  the  respondent  

further submitted that there is no evidence to prove that the  

accused proceeded to Madras on 06.11.1996 at 9.00 p.m. from  

Chidambaram railway station, albeit he submitted that accused  

took train at Chidambaram on 06.11.1996 at 9.00 p.m. bound  

11

for Tiruchirapalli to go to his native place, Karur and returned  

from Karur on 8th morning. Counsel stated that accused  took  

his briefcase [MO-13] along with him and that MO-14 belongs  

to Raja Chidambaram [PW-37] and after meeting his parents on  

7.11.96, the accused returned to Chidambaram hostel on the  

morning of 8.11.96 and he was in the hostel from 9-11.11.96.  

On the night of 10.11.96 his mother and his cousin brother  

had arrived at Chidambaram and stayed in Saradha Ram Hotel  

and they left  on 11.11.96 Noon.  Counsel  for  the respondent  

further  submitted  that  the  non-examination  of  the  Vice-

Chancellor  and the Dean of the university though they have  

been  cited  in  the  charge  sheet  as  witnesses  is  fatal  to  the  

prosecution case. Next submission was that the chain of events  

to  prove  the  guilt  of  the  accused  has  many loopholes  in  it.  

Learned senior counsel for the respondent also submitted that  

the  High  Court  has  rightly  acquitted  the  accused  as  

circumstances  alleged  by  the  prosecution  have  not  been  

proved.  It was also his submission that this being an appeal  

against acquittal, it is to be ascertained very carefully whether  

the view taken by the High Court is a plausible or possible view  

and that if the order of acquittal is one of the possible view, the  

same  deserves  deference  rather  than  interference  by  the  

12

appellate  court.   He also  submitted that  the  trial  court  was  

wrong in holding the respondent guilty for evidence adduced by  

the prosecution to prove that the deceased was last seen with  

the  accused  replete  with  inherent  improbabilities  and  

inconsistencies.  

LEGAL POSITION:-

APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL

12.Before we enter into the merit of the case, we are required to  

deal with the contention of the counsel appearing on behalf of  

the respondent regarding the scope and ambit of an APPEAL  

AGAINST ACQUITTAL.   Various decisions of  this  Court  have  

dealt  with  the  issue  very  extensively.  Therefore,  it  would  be  

suffice, if we extract few decisions of this Court laying down the  

law in this regard.

13.In the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Sajivan & Ors. reported  

at (2010) 1 SCC 529, one of us (Bhandari, J.) detailed the law  

in this regard as follows: -

“46. ................. This Court would ordinarily be slow  in interfering in order of acquittal.  The scope of the   powers  of  the  appellate  court  in an  appeal  is  well   settled.  The  powers  of  the  appellate  court  in  an   appeal  against  acquittal  are  no  less  than  in  an   appeal against conviction.

13

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka this Court held:   (SCC p. 432, para 42)

“(1) An appellate court has full power to review,   reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon  which the order of acquittal is founded.

(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts  no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise  of  such power  and  an  appellate  court  on the   evidence  before  it  may  reach  its  own  conclusion,  both  on  questions  of  fact  and  of   law.

(3)  Various  expressions,  such as,  ‘substantial   and  compelling  reasons’,  ‘good  and  sufficient  grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted  conclusions’,  ‘glaring  mistakes’,  etc.  are  not  intended  to  curtail  extensive  powers  of  an   appellate  court in an appeal against acquittal.   Such phraseologies are  more in  the  nature  of   ‘flourishes  of  language’  to  emphasise  the   reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with   acquittal  than to curtail  the power of the court  to review the evidence and to come to its own  conclusion.

(4)  An appellate  court,  however,  must bear  in  mind that in case of acquittal,  there is double  presumption  in  favour  of  the  accused.  Firstly,   the presumption of innocence is available to him  under  the  fundamental  principle  of  criminal   jurisprudence  that  every  person  shall  be  presumed to  be  innocent  unless  he is  proved  guilty  by a competent court of  law.  Secondly,  the  accused having  secured his acquittal,  the  presumption  of  his  innocence  is  further  reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the   trial court.

14

(5)  If  two  reasonable  conclusions are  possible   on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  on  record,  the   appellate court should not disturb the finding of  acquittal recorded by the trial court.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., one of us (Bhandari,   J.) summarised the legal position as follows in paras   69 and 70: (SCC p. 477)

“69.  The following  principles  emerge from the  cases above:

1.  The  appellate  court  may  review  the  evidence  in  appeals  against  acquittal   under  Sections  378  and  386  of  the  Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power  of  reviewing  evidence  is  wide  and  the  appellate court can reappreciate the entire   evidence on record. It can review the trial   court’s  conclusion  with  respect  to  both  facts and law.

2. The accused is presumed innocent until   proven guilty. The accused possessed this   presumption when he was before the trial   court.  The  trial  court’s  acquittal  bolsters  the presumption that he is innocent.

3. Due or proper weight and consideration  must be given to the trial court’s decision.   This  is  especially  true  when  a  witness’   credibility is at issue. It is not enough for  the High Court to take a different view of   the  evidence.  There  must  also  be  substantial  and  compelling  reasons  for  holding that the trial court was wrong.

In a recently delivered judgment of this Court in State   of  U.P.  v.  Banne,  one  of  us  (Bhandari,  J.)   summarised  the  entire  legal  position  and observed  that this Court would be justified in interfering in the   judgment  of  the  High  Court  in  the  following   

15

circumstances  which  are  illustrative  and  not   exhaustive: (SCC p. 286, para 28)

“(i) The High Court’s decision is based on totally  erroneous view of  law by ignoring the  settled   legal position;

(ii) The High Court’s conclusions are contrary to  evidence and documents on record;

(iii)  The  entire  approach  of  the  High  Court  in  dealing with  the evidence was patently illegal  leading to grave miscarriage of justice;

(iv)  The  High  Court’s  judgment  is  manifestly  unjust  and  unreasonable  based  on  erroneous  law and facts on the record of the case;

(v) This Court must always give proper weight   and  consideration  to  the  findings of  the  High  Court;

(vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in   interfering with a case when both the Sessions  Court  and  the  High  Court  have  recorded  an  order of acquittal.”

This Court would be justified in interfering with the   judgment of  acquittal  of  the  High Court only when  there are very substantial and compelling reasons to  discard the High Court decision. When we apply the   test  laid down by this  Court  repeatedly  in a large  number  of  cases,  the  irresistible  conclusion is  that   the  High Court  in  the  impugned judgment  has  not  correctly followed the legal position.”

14.In another  decision of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Sannaia  

Subba Rao & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. reported at 2008 (17) SCC  

225, one of us, has referred to and quoted with approval the  

general  principles  while  dealing  with  an  appeal  against  

16

acquittal, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that; the appellate  

court  has  full  power  to  review,  relook  and re-appreciate  the  

entire  evidence  based  on  which  the  order  of  acquittal  is  

founded; further it was also accepted that the Code of Criminal  

Procedure  puts  no  limitation  or  restriction  on  the  appellate  

court to reach its own conclusion based on the evidence before  

it.

15.In the case of Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v.  

State (NCT of Delhi) reported at (2010) 6 SCC 1 this court  

held as follows: -

“27. The following principles have to be kept in mind  by the  appellate  court  while  dealing  with  appeals,   particularly against an order of acquittal:

(i) There is no limitation on the part of the appellate   court to review the evidence upon which the order of   acquittal is founded.

(ii) The appellate court in an appeal against acquittal   can review the entire evidence and come to its own  conclusions.

(iii)  The  appellate  court  can  also  review  the  trial   court’s conclusion with respect to both facts and law.

(iv) While dealing with  the appeal  preferred by the  State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal   the entire  evidence on record and by giving cogent   and  adequate  reasons  set  aside  the  judgment  of   acquittal.

(v) An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only  when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”  for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it   is a compelling reason for interference.

17

(vi)  While  sitting  in judgment  over  an acquittal  the   appellate court is first required to seek an answer to  the question whether findings of  the trial  court are   palpably  wrong,  manifestly  erroneous  or  demonstrably  unsustainable.  If  the  appellate  court   answers the above question in the negative the order  of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if the  appellate  court  holds,  for  reasons  to  be  recorded,  that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained  in  view  of  any  of  the  above  infirmities,  it  can  reappraise  the  evidence  to  arrive  at  its  own  conclusion.

(vii) When the trial court has ignored the evidence or   misread  the  material  evidence  or  has  ignored  material  documents like dying declaration/report of   ballistic experts, etc. the appellate court is competent  to reverse the decision of the trial court depending on  the materials placed.”

16.Therefore, one of the settled position of law as to how the  

Court  should  deal  with  an  appeal  against  acquittal  is  that,  

while dealing with such an appeal, the appellate Court has no  

restriction to review and relook the entire evidence on which  

the order of acquittal is founded.  On such review, the appellate  

Court would consider the manner in which the evidence was  

dealt with by the lower Court.    At the same time, if the lower  

Court’s decision is based on erroneous views and against the  

settled position of law, then such an order of acquittal should  

be set aside.

17.Another  settled  position  is  that,  if  the  trial  Court  has  

ignored material and relevant facts or misread such evidence or  

18

has ignored scientific documents, then in such a scenario the  

appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial  

court.

18.Therefore keeping in mind the aforesaid broad principles of  

the settled position of  law, we would proceed to analyse the  

evidence that is adduced and come to the conclusion whether  

the decision of the High Court should be upheld or reversed.

CASE ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

19.The  principle for  basing  a  conviction  on  the  edifice  of  

circumstantial evidence has also been indicated in a number of  

decisions of this Court and the law is well-settled that each and  

every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established  

by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so  

proved  must  form  a  chain  of  events  from  which  the  only  

irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is the guilt of the  

accused  and  that  no  other  hypothesis  against  the  guilt  is  

possible. This Court has clearly sounded a note of caution that  

in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there  

is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the  

place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself that various  

19

circumstances  in  the  chain  of  events  have  been established  

clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to  

rule  out  a  reasonable  likelihood  of  the  innocence  of  the  

accused. It  has also been indicated that when the important  

link goes,  the  chain of  circumstances  gets  snapped and the  

other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt  

of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been held  

that  the  Court  has  to  be  watchful  and  avoid  the  danger  of  

allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. It has  

been  indicated  by  this  Court  that  there  is  a  long  mental  

distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same  

divides conjectures from sure conclusions.  

20.This Court in the case of  State of U.P. v.  Ram Balak &  

Anr., reported at (2008) 15 SCC 551 had dealt with the whole  

law relating to circumstantial evidence in the following terms: -

“11.    It  has been  consistently  laid  down  by  this   Court  that  where  a  case  rests  squarely  on  circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be  justified  only  when  all  the  incriminating  facts  and  circumstances are found to be incompatible with the   innocence  of  the  accused or  the  guilt  of  any  other   person.  (See  Hukam  Singh  v.  State  of  Rajasthan,   Eradu  v.  State  of  Hyderabad,  Earabhadrappa  v.  State  of  Karnataka,  State  of  U.P.  v.  Sukhbasi,   Balwinder  Singh  v.  State  of  Punjab  and  Ashok  Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.) The circumstances  from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused  is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt  and have to be shown to be closely connected with   the  principal  fact  sought  to  be  inferred from those  

20

circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab it   was  laid down that  where the case depends upon  the  conclusion  drawn  from  circumstances  the  cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such  as  to  negative  the  innocence  of  the  accused  and  bring  home  the  offences  beyond  any  reasonable   doubt. We may also make a reference to a decision of this   Court in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. wherein it   has been observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07, para 21)

‘21. In  a case based on circumstantial  evidence,  the settled law is that the circumstances from which  the  conclusion  of  guilt  is  drawn  should  be  fully  proved and such circumstances must be conclusive  in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be  complete and there should be no gap left in the chain   of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must  be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of   the  accused  and  totally  inconsistent  with  his  innocence.’ 11. In  Padala Veera Reddy v.  State  of  A.P. it  was   laid  down  that  when  a  case  rests  upon  circumstantial  evidence, such evidence must satisfy   the following tests: (SCC pp. 710-11, para 10) ‘(1)  the  circumstances  from  which  an  inference  of   guilt  is  sought to  be drawn,  must be cogently  and  firmly established; (2)  those  circumstances  should  be  of  a  definite   tendency  unerringly  pointing  towards  guilt  of  the   accused; (3)  the  circumstances,  taken  cumulatively,  should  form a chain so complete that there is no escape from  the conclusion that within all human probability the   crime was committed by the accused and none else;   and

(4) the  circumstantial  evidence in order to sustain   conviction  must  be  complete  and  incapable  of  explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the  guilt  of  the  accused and such evidence should not   only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but  should be inconsistent with his innocence.’

‘10. … It is well to remember that in cases where the   evidence  is  of  a  circumstantial  nature,  the   circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to   be  drawn  should  in  the  first  instance  be  fully  

21

established, and all the facts so established should  be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of   the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a  conclusive nature and tendency and they should be  such  as  to  exclude  every  hypothesis  but  the  one  proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be  a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave  any  reasonable  ground for a  conclusion  consistent  with  the  innocence  of  the  accused  and  it  must  be  such as to  show that  within  all  human probability   the act must have been done by the accused.’

16. A reference may be made to a later decision in   Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.   Therein, while dealing with circumstantial  evidence,   it  has  been  held  that  the  onus  was  on  the   prosecution to prove that the chain is complete and  the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured  by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in  the  words of  this  Court,  before conviction could be  based  on  circumstantial  evidence,  must  be  fully  established. They are: (SCC p. 185, para 153)

(1)  the  circumstances  from which  the  conclusion of   guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The  circumstances concerned ‘must’  or ‘should’ and not  ‘may be’ established;

(2) 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;

(3)  the  circumstances  should  be  of  a  conclusive  nature and tendency;

(4)  they  should  exclude  every  possible  hypothesis  except the one to be proved; and

(5) 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.”

These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan   v. Raja Ram, at SCC pp. 187-90,  paras  9-16  and  State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh.”

21.In the light of the above principle we proceed to ascertain  

whether the prosecution has been able to establish a chain of  

circumstances so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the  

22

conclusion that the allegations brought against the respondent  

are sufficiently proved and established.

MOTIVE

22.In the present case, in the chain of events, the first point  

which arises for our consideration is the MOTIVE behind the  

alleged  crime  done  by  the  accused-John  David.  The  

prosecution  has  alleged  that  accused  was  in  the  habit  of  

ragging  the  junior  students  and  accustomed  in  getting  his  

home work done by the junior students and that is why when  

the  deceased  did  not  subjugate  himself  to  the  accused,  the  

accused gathered ill-will  against  the  deceased and therefore,  

that was the motive for which the accused killed him.  

23.For  the  purpose  of  proving  the  aforesaid  motive  of  the  

accused the prosecution has placed reliance upon the evidence  

of Dr. R. Sampath [PW-3], Karthikeyan [PW-4], Praveen Kumar  

[PW-5] and Subhash [PW-6], V. Balaji [PW-19] and Ramaswamy  

[PW-20].   Dr.  R.  Sampath  [PW-3],  who  is  the  Head  of  the  

Department of Radiology,  Annamalai  University as also part-

time Warden of Malligai  Hostel  of  the University,  who in his  

deposition has stated that on 19.11.1996 at about 8.30 p.m. he  

had  witnessed  the  junior  students  standing  in  front  of  the  

23

Hostel in a row in front of the seniors, including the accused-

John David. Thereafter PW-3 made enquiries on the incident  

and submitted a report  about the incident  of  ragging to the  

higher officials  which is  marked as Exhibit  P-3.  Karthikeyan  

[PW-4],  1st year junior  student  of  the college,  stated that on  

06.11.1996 accused-John David along with one Kumaran came  

to Hostel and forced him to purchase the tickets of Engineering  

Cultural Programme, which they purchased with hesitation and  

this  fact  was  also  witnessed  by  the  Warden  and  Deputy  

Warden. Along with PW-4, Praveen Kumar [PW-5] and Subhash  

[PW-6],  both 1st year  students  of  the  college,  stated  in  their  

evidence that they have written record work for the accused-

John  David  under  compulsion  and  with  the  fear  of  being  

ragged. V. Balaji [PW-19], 1st year student of college, stated in  

his evidence that the accused-John David along with Kumaran  

forced them to purchase the tickets for the Cultural Programme  

and  also  made  them to  stand  and  that  Warden,  Dean  and  

Deputy Warden got the students released from such ragging.  

Ramaswamy [PW-20], 1st year student of the college, stated in  

his evidence that accused-John David used to come to hostel  

for ragging and to get the record work completed after ragging.  

PW-19 further  stated that on 06.11.1996,  after  finishing his  

24

viva-voce  test  at  about  11.30  a.m.  when  he  returned,  the  

accused came to his room between 11.30 a.m. to 12 Noon and  

asked  him about  the  deceased-Navarasu.  PW-20  also  stated  

that when he was returning after finishing his viva-voce test,  

the accused on 06.11.1996 at about 12 Noon asked him about  

the completion of the test of Navarasu. From the evidence of  

the  above  witnesses  and  other  documents  on  records  it  

becomes quite  evident  that  the  record  books of  the  accused  

were written by other juniors and that accused was in the habit  

of ragging junior students. The evidence of PWs 19 & 20 also go  

to prove that the accused was looking for Navarasu frantically  

in the morning, which was definitely not for the benefit of the  

deceased looking at the background behaviour of the accused  

towards deceased, for there is enough evidence on record to  

support  the  case  of  the  prosecution  that  the  accused  was  

having malice and ill-will against with the deceased as he had  

refused to succumb to the ragging demands of the accused.

LAST SEEN ALIVE

24.In the chain of events, the second point which arises for our  

consideration is the LAST SEEN evidence of deceased with the  

accused. For proving the said fact that the deceased was last  

25

seen alive in the company of the deceased, the prosecution has  

placed  reliance  upon  the  evidence  of  V.  Balaji  [PW-19]  and  

Ramaswamy  [PW-20],  G.M.  Nandhakumar  [PW-21],  R.  

Mohamed Shakir [PW-22], R. Saravanan [PW-23] and T. Arun  

Kumar  [PW-25].  PWs  21  and  22,  1st year  students  of  the  

college, stated in their evidence that when they were returning  

from the college at about 12.45 p.m. on 06.11.1996 they saw  

the  deceased  and  accused  together  and  accused  stopped  

Navarasu and asked them to leave from there and thereafter  

they had not seen Navarasu alive. PW-23, Laboratory Attendant  

of the college, stated in his evidence that he saw both accused  

and deceased in conversation with each other on 06.11.1996 at  

about 12.45 or 1.00 p.m. in front of Dean’s office. PW-25, 2nd  

year college student, stated that he also saw both accused and  

deceased together at about 2.00 p.m. on 06.11.1996. From the  

evidence of Dr. Sethupathy [PW-7], Mrs. Alphonsa [PW-8], Prof.  

Gunasekaran [PW-10] and V. Balaji [PW-19] it also comes out  

that  till  the  afternoon  of  06.11.1996  deceased  attended  the  

lectures but after meeting with the accused he did not appear  

in  the  lecture/test  on  the  same  day  and  was  also  absent  

thereafter  from  lectures/tests.  Ramaswamy  [PW-20]  also  

categorically  stated  that  after  the  viva-voce  test  held  on  

26

06.11.1996,  he  did  not  see  the  deceased  alive.  From  the  

evidence of all the abovesaid witnesses it is also clear that the  

deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused on  

06.11.1996 between 12.45 to 2.00 p.m. and thereafter no one  

had seen the deceased alive  and this  fact  also supports the  

case  of  the  prosecution.  Moreover  accused  admitted  in  his  

statement filed during question U/s 313, Cr.P.C. that he was  

sitting  in  the  corridor  of  Dean’s  office  in  the  afternoon  of  

06.11.1996,  which  further  corroborates  the  case  of  

prosecution.  

SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED

25.The  conduct  of  the  accused  is  the  next  chain  of  

circumstance which is heavily relied upon by the prosecution  

for  proving  the  guilt  of  the  accused  and  for  this  it  placed  

reliance  on  the  evidence  of  Subba  @  Vankatesan  [PW-28],  

Vijayarangam [PW-29], Murali [PW-35], Senthilkumar [PW-40],  

Joe  Bulgani  [PW-41]  and  Rajmohan  [PW-42].  PW-28,  auto  

driver, stated in his evidence that on 06.11.1996 at about 8.00  

p.m.  accused  took  his  auto  to  the  hostel  from  where  the  

accused went to Chidambaram railway station along with two  

suitcases.  PW-29,  Watchman  of  KRM  Hostel,  stated  in  his  

27

evidence  that  on  06.11.1996  at  8.15  p.m.  accused  came  to  

hostel in an auto and brought two bags inside the hostel and  

left  in  auto  immediately  thereafter  and  that  the  accused  

returned with the two suitcases at 4.00 a.m. on 8.11.1996. PW-

40, student of the college stated that on 08.11.1996 at 4.30  

a.m. he saw the accused sleeping in the varanda of Room No.  

319 with two suitcases nearby because the  accused did not  

have the room keys, as the accused’s roommate took away the  

keys and, when PW-40 offered the accused to come and stay in  

his room, at about 5.30 a.m. the accused came to his room and  

kept a suitcase, i.e., MO-14 and went to sleep in the room of  

PW-41 along with MO-13. When PWs 40 & 41 came from mess  

at about 8.30 a.m. PW-41 complaint about foul smell coming  

from his room [Room No. 325].  Thereafter,  accused took the  

MO-13 from the room at about 12.30 p.m. This statement of  

PW-40 was also supported by the statement of PW-41. PW-42,  

student of the college, stated that on 8.11.1996 at 12.30 p.m.  

accused was sleeping in Room No. 325 and that on 9.11.1996  

accused  along  with  one  other  student  went  to  ‘B’  Mess  for  

lunch but accused did not take the lunch on the ground that  

his  stomach  is  not  alright  and  on  return  he  saw  accused  

keeping his  hand on the wall  with sad look on his face.  He  

28

further stated that when he entered in the room of the accused  

[Room No. 319] he smelt foul smell and on asking about the  

same from the accused, the accused replied that it  is of  the  

Biriyani  which was given to him by his mother. Later at 4.30  

p.m.  the  accused  asked  PW-42  to  drop  him  at  the  

Chidambaram Railway Station as he wanted to go to his native  

place  and  thereafter  he  dropped  the  accused  along  with  a  

briefcase at the Railway Station on the bike of one Rangarajan.  

PW-42  also  purchased  a  train  ticket  for  Tanjavur  for  the  

accused. PW-42 also stated that on 10.11.1996 he saw accused  

standing before Room No. 319 and on asking the accused told  

that  he  went  upto  Trichy  and  returned  back.  PW-35,  

Receptionist  of  Hotel  Saradharam,  Chidambaram stated that  

on 10.11.1996 at about 8.10 p.m. accused stayed in the hotel  

along with one Dr. Esthar and they vacated the room at 3.15  

a.m. on 12.11.1996. The accused on 14.11.1996 surrendered  

in  the  Court  of  Judicial  Magistrate,  Mannarkudi  and  was  

remanded to judicial  custody till  18.11.1996. On 18.11.1996  

the Court ordered for five days police custody of the accused on  

the condition that the accused should be produced before  a  

Doctor  in  the  Government  Hospital,  Chidambaram  at  10.00  

a.m. daily for medical check up. The above said unusual and  

29

eccentric conduct of the accused which is unequivocally told by  

the  witnesses  makes  the  conduct  of  the  accused  highly  

suspicious  and  leads  to  corroborate  the  case  of  the  

prosecution.  

CONFESSIONAL  STATEMENT  OF  ACCUSED  AND  CONSEQUENTIAL RECOVERIES.

26.In the present case,  as stated supra,  PW-1,  father  of  the  

deceased, filed a report with the police for missing of his son on  

10.11.1996 which was registered  as  Crime No.  509 of  1996  

[Exhibit-P1]. In the present case the accused after surrendering  

before  the  Court  of  Judicial  Magistrate,  Mannarkudi  on  

14.11.1996 also  gave his  confessional  statement  [Exhibit-50]  

on 19.11.1996 in the presence of Rajaraman [PW-58], Village  

Administrative  Officer  for  the  non-municipal  area  of  

Chidambaram,  wherein  in  very  clear  terms  he  admitted  his  

crime as is presented by the prosecution. After the surrender of  

the accused on 14.11.1996 he was lodged in the Central Prison  

at  Tiruchi.  Prosecuting  agency  in  Crime  No.  509/96  filed  a  

petition before the Judicial  Magistrate,  Chidambaram for the  

police custody of the accused U/s 167 of Cr. P.C., which was  

allowed  by  the  Court  for  five  days  from  18.11.1996  on  the  

condition that the accused should be produced before a Doctor  

30

in the Government Hospital, Chidambaram at 10.00 a.m. daily  

for  medical  check  up  and  at  1.30  a.m.  On  19.11.1996  the  

accused made a voluntary confession as stated  hereinabove.  

Also it has been admitted by the Trial Court as also by the High  

Court that at no stage of trial there is any allegation of torture  

of the accused in the hands of the police, which clearly proves  

that the statement made by the accused on 19.11.1996 was  

given voluntarily and is an admissible piece of evidence. The  

High  Court  merely  on  an  assumed  basis  held  that  the  

confessional statement could not have been voluntarily given  

by the accused without referring to any particular evidence in  

support of the said conclusion. The confession was given by the  

accused  in  presence  of  Rajaraman  [PW-58],  Village  

Administrative Officer; Mr. Subramanian [assistant of PW-58],  

who are totally independent persons.  

27.In the case of Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur v. State of  

Maharashtra reported in  (2007) 2 SCC 310 this Court  had  

said  that,  when  on  the  basis  of  information  given  by  the  

accused there is a recovery of an object of crime which provides  

a link in the chain of  circumstances,  then such information  

leading to the discovery of object is admissible.  

31

28.We may at this stage, would like to state the proposition of  

law that only such information which is found proximate to the  

cause  of  discovery  of  material  objects,  alone  is  taken  as  

admissible  in  law  and  in  the  present  case  there  are  lot  of  

materials  which  were  recovered  at  the  instance  of  such  

confessional  statement  made  by  the  accused  only.  We  may  

detail out such material findings in this case.

29.At the  instance and in pursuance of the said confessional  

statement  given  by  the  accused  PW-78,  Police  Inspector,  

Annamalai  Nagar;  Rajaraman [PW-58],  Village  Administrative  

Officer; Mr. Subramanian [assistant of PW-58] along with other  

witnesses went to the south canal of the KRM Hostel at about  

7.30 a.m. where he had thrown the head of the deceased after  

putting it in a zip bag and since the water level of the canal was  

high, Fire Service and University Authorities were requested to  

drain  the  water,  which  was  accordingly  done  and  in  the  

meantime at about 8.45 a.m. at the instance of accused only  

MO-3,  a  rexine  bag,  was  recovered  which  contained  two  

notebooks belonging to the deceased [MOs 4 & 5]. Thereafter,  

after  producing  the  accused  before  the  Doctors  of  Govt.  

Hospital at 10.00 a.m. as per the directions of the court, the  

32

accused, took PW-78 along with other witnesses to Room No.  

319 and from there material objects from 9 to 15 and 29 were  

recovered which included three knifes, one blue colour small  

brief  case,  among  others  and  from Room No.  323  and  325  

material objects from 30 to 33 were recovered which included  

blood  stained  cement  mortar.  At  about  4.00  p.m.  when  the  

search party returned to the boat canal, the zip bag [MO-22]  

containing a severed human head was recovered at 4.30 p.m.  

In  the  instant  case  the  fact  that  the  severed  head  of  the  

deceased-Navarasu was recovered from the specific place which  

was indicated and identified by the accused. The recovery of  

other material objects at the indication/instance of the accused  

creates/generates enough incriminating evidence against him  

and  makes  such  part  of  the  confessional  statement  clearly  

admissible  in evidence.  The fact  that  the  skull  found in the  

water canal of the university belonged to Navarasu-deceased is  

proved  from  the  evidence  of  Dr.  Ravindran  [PW-66],  Dr.  

Venkataraman, [PW-52] and G.V. Rao [PW-77].  PW-66 in his  

evidence  has  stated  that  the  deceased  appear  to  have  died  

because of decapitation of injuries and that the injury is ante-

mortem.  The Doctor also opined that a sharp cutting weapon  

would have been used for causing injuries.   He further stated  

33

in  his  evidence  that  severing  of  head  and  removal  of  the  

muscles and nerves of limbs could have been done by MOs 9 to  

11.  PW-66 also opined that both the torso and head belongs to  

one  and  the  same  person.  Also  from  the  evidence  of  Dr.  

Venkataraman, [PW-52] Parasu Dental Clinic, Adyar, Madras it  

is found that he had given silver filling on the right upper first  

molar of the deceased and that he had removed the left upper  

milk tooth and removed the root thereof and the said fact was  

also clearly and rightly found in the post mortem conducted by  

PW-66 on the head recovered from the boat-canal. The said fact  

was also proved from the DNA test conducted by PW-77. PW-77  

had compared the tissues taken from the severed head, torso  

and  limbs  and on  scientific  analysis  he  has  found that  the  

same gene found in the blood of PW-1 and Baby Ponnusamy  

were  found  in  the  recovered  parts  of  the  body  and  that  

therefore they should belong to the only missing son of PW-1.  

30.In  the  present  case  Trial  Court  relied  upon  the  super-

imposition  process/test  made  by  Dr.  Jayaprakash  [PW-65],  

Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department, Madras, who  

stated in his evidence that the skull recovered was of Navarasu.  

Therefore, from the evidence of PWs 65 & 66 it becomes amply  

34

clear  that  the  skull  recovered  from  the  boat  canal  is  of  

Navarasu only.

31.Now,  so  far  as  the  recovery  of  limbs  and  torso  of  the  

deceased-Navarasu is  concerned,  we would like to detail  the  

recovery of the same, their identification and also their relation  

insofar  as  the  confessional  statement  made  by  accused  is  

concerned.

32.On  7.11.1996  at  about  6.00  p.m.  Prakash  [PW-53]  the  

conductor of Bus [bearing no. T.B.01-2366] having route No.  

21G  [from  Thambaram  suburban  of  Chennai  City  to  Paris  

Corner]  found  a  male  torso  under  the  last  seat  of  the  bus  

packed in white blood stained polythene bag with red letters  

[marked as MO-16] and thereafter Crime No. 1544 of 1996 case  

was registered and investigation was started by G. Boopathy  

[PW-55], Inspector of Police, E.5, Pattinapakkam PS, Chennai.  

Dr.  Ravindran  [PW-66]  conducted  autopsy/post-mortem  at  

10.00 a.m. on 8.11.1996 and he found that the deceased have  

died  of  decapitation  of  injuries,  he  opined  that  the  injuries  

found  on  the  torso  and  skull  were  anti-mortem  and  the  

deceased  would  appear  to  have  died  of  decapitation  and  he  

further stated that the respective surface of the fifth cervical  

35

vertebra  of  the  head  are  reciprocally  fitting  into  the  

corresponding surface of the sixth cervical vertebra of the torso  

and this articulation was exact in nature and hence he opined  

that the head and torso belonged to one and the same person.  

33.The other limbs of the deceased were recovered by Gopalan  

[PW-44],  Sub-Inspector  in  Marakkanam  Police  Station  on  

21.11.1996  in  a  pale-coloured  with  yellow,  red  and  green  

checks  in  a  lungi-like  bed-sheet  and along  with  it  was torn  

polythene bag and a pale cloth thread.

34.In the present case there is no direct evidence to prove that  

the  accused  had  himself  taken  the  torso  and  limbs  of  the  

deceased  to  Madras  and  threw  the  limbs  somewhere  (while  

transit to Madras) and also that accused carried the parcel of  

torso  to  Madras  and  dropped  it  in  the  bus  No.  21G  at  

Tambaram but, there is only circumstantial evidence.  

35.One of the clinching evidence against the accused is the two  

suitcases [MOs 13 & 14]. Raja Chidambaram [PW-37], the room  

mate  of  the  accused,  stated  in  his  evidence  that  the  two  

suitcases in which the blood of the deceased was found belong  

to the accused. He also stated that MO-22, which is a bag in  

which the head of the deceased was recovered, also belong to  

36

the accused. Shagir Thabris [PW-38] also corroborated the said  

fact in his evidence. Blood found in the suitcases matched with  

the blood of the deceased which is blood group ‘A’. It is also  

proved from the evidence of the students adduced in the case  

that foul smell was emanating from the said two suitcases and  

that when accused was asked about the said smell,  he only  

replied  that  it  is  because  of  Biryani,  which  his  mother  had  

given  him.  Subba  @  Vankatesan  [PW-28],  auto  driver,  has  

affirmatively stated that the accused had taken out those two  

suitcases with him in his auto rickshaw on 06.11.1996 when  

he dropped him at Chidambaram Railway Station. The hostel  

chowkidar examined as PW-29 [Vijayarangam] corroborated the  

said fact.  The students  of  the  hostel,  Senthilkumar [PW-40],  

Joe  Bulgani  [PW-41],  not  only  spoke  about  the  foul  smell  

emanating from the room where those suitcases were kept but  

also  of  the  fact  that  the  accused  had  brought  those  two  

suitcases  with  him  when  he  came  back  to  the  hostel  on  

08.11.1996 morning. These are indeed circumstantial evidence  

but all leading to one conclusion that the accused is guilty of  

the  offence  of  killing  the  deceased.  There  is  however  some  

doubt with regard to the place of occurrence but there is also  

strong and cogent evidence to indicate that the room mates of  

37

the  accused,  i.e.,  PWs  37  and  38,  were  watching  a  cricket  

match during the entire afternoon, evening and till late night  

on 06.11.1996 in the TV room, and the accused had the room  

(Room No. 319) all to himself in the afternoon and evening upto  

11.00 p.m. The accused left the said room with two suitcases at  

8.30 p.m. which is proved by way of evidence of the watchman  

and auto driver. The room mate of the accused, viz.,  PW-38,  

came back to Room No. 319 at about 11.00 p.m. and slept and  

on the next day went home.

36.There  are  enough  circumstantial  evidence,  as  discussed  

above, to hold that it is none else but the accused who could  

have caused the concealment of torso and limbs because it was  

the accused who had severed the head of deceased-Navarasu  

as  found  earlier  and,  therefore,  he  must  have  been  in  

possession  to  the  torso  and  limbs,  which  were  also  

subsequently  recovered  and  were  also  proved  to  be  that  of  

deceased-Navarasu.

37.Therefore,  if  we  look  at  the  case,  we  find  that  the  

prosecution  has  succeeded  in  proving  its  case  on  

circumstantial evidence. In the present case all the witnesses  

are independent and respectable eye-witnesses and they have  

38

not been shown to have any axe to grind against the accused.  

And from the evidence of the several witnesses, as mentioned  

above, it is clear that the accused nurtured ill feeling against  

the deceased as the deceased refused to write the record note  

for accused; that the deceased was last seen with the accused  

in the afternoon of 06.11.1996 and he was searching for him  

very eagerly; that the conduct of the deceased was very weird  

and strange and the bags/suitcases kept by him also produced  

stinking smell; the recovery of skull from canal water, material  

objects, like, note books of deceased, gold chain, blood stained  

bags, knifes etc.,; and also the evidence of PW-66, PW-65 and  

PW-77 who have categorically stated that the skull, torso and  

limbs recovered were of the deceased only.

38.It is well-settled proposition of law that the recovery of crime  

objects  on  the  basis  of  information  given  by  the  accused  

provides a link in the chain of circumstances. Also failure to  

explain  one of  the  circumstances  would not  be  fatal  for  the  

prosecution case and cumulative effect of all the circumstances  

is  to  be  seen  in  such  cases.  At  this  juncture  we  feel  it  is  

apposite to mention that in the case of State of Karnataka v.  

K. Yarappa Reddy reported in  (1999)  8 SCC 715 this Court  

39

has  held  that;  the  court  must  have  predominance  and  pre-

eminence  in  criminal  trials  over  the  action  taken  by  the  

investigating officers.  Criminal  justice  should not be made a  

casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers  

in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the  

testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free  

to act on it.  

39.Hence,  minor  loopholes  and  irregularities  in  the  

investigation process cannot form the crux of the case on which  

the  respondent  can  rely  upon  to  prove  his  innocence  when  

there  are  strong  circumstantial  evidences  deduced  from  the  

said investigation which logically and rationally point towards  

the guilt of the accused.

40. Therefore  in  our  considered  opinion  prosecution  has  

established  its  case  on  the  basis  of  strong  and  cogent  

circumstantial  evidence  and  that  on  the  basis  of  the  

circumstances proved, there cannot be any other possible or  

plausible  view favouring the accused. The view taken by the  

High Court is totally erroneous and outcome of misreading and  

misinterpreting the evidence on record.

40

41.In view of the aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances  

of the case, we are of the considered view that the High Court  

erred in reversing the order of conviction recorded by the trial  

Court as the prosecution has established its case.  Accordingly,  

we set aside the judgment and order of  the High Court and  

restore the judgment and decision of the trial Court but only  

with  one  rider  that  the  sentence  awarded  shall  run  

concurrently  and  not  consecutively  as  ordered  by  the  trial  

court. While doing so we rely upon sub-section (2) of section 31  

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

42.In  the  result,  the  appeal  is  allowed,  bail  bond  of  the  

respondent  is  cancelled  and  the  respondent  is  directed  to  

surrender before the jail authorities immediately, failing which  

the concerned authorities are directed to proceed in accordance  

with law.

.............................................J    [Dalveer Bhandari]

          .............................................J                    [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

New Delhi, April 20, 2011.

41