Page 1

1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2341 OF 2010

Kadamanian @ Manikandan ..Appellant versus

State Represented by Inspector of Police ..Respondent

J U D G M E N T

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.

The prosecution in the instant case was lodged against the appellant herein - Kadamanian @ Manikandan, as well as, against co-accused  -  I.T.  Manian  @  Manikanda,  for  the  offences  under Sections  201,  302,  376  and  404  of  the  Indian  Penal  Code.  The aforesaid offences were allegedly committed by the accused with reference to M. Jayalakshmi.   

As  per  the  prosecution  version,  M.Jayalakshmi  went missing at 7 a.m. on 6.9.2007, having left her residence to answer the call of nature.  Since she did not return, a missing person's report  was  lodged  on  7.9.2007  by  her  father  P.Matheswaran  at Namakkam  Kumarapalayam  Police  Station.   It  is  also  relevant  to mention,  that  in  the  first  information  report  registered  on 7.9.2007,  the  complainant  had  attached  the  photograph  of  M. Jayalakshmi, and had also indicated for her identification, that she was wearing a green colour jacket and saree.  It was also expressly mentioned, that she was wearing a nose-stud.

Page 2

2

On 9.9.2007, a dead body of a female, was found by a sweeper, Natarajan – PW4.  Based on the recovery of the dead body, another first information report came to be lodged.  On 18.9.2007, the parents of the deceased – Jayalakshmi, identified the clothing and other artifacts, recovered with the dead body, as belonging to their  daughter.  It  is  also  relevant  to  indiacate,  that  the aforesaid identification was affirmed by none other than the mother of  the  deceased,  Vedammal  –  PW2.   The  mother  identified  her daughter from the photograph of the dead body.

The  first  needle  of  suspicion  with  reference  to  the appellant herein - Kadamanian @ Manikandan emerged  from  the statement  of  the  investigating  officer,  Arumugam  –  PW20  dated 21.01.2008, affirming with Shanmugam – PW6, that the appellant had been seen close to the place of occurrence.  Consequent upon the needle  of  suspicion  having  been  pointed  at  the  appellant,  the appellant  allegedly  made  an  extra-judicial  confession  to R.V.Alagurajan – PW12.  The aforesaid extra-judicial confession can be extracted from his statement made by R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, to the  police.   A  relevant  portion  thereof  is  being  reproduced hereunder:  

“...My name is Manikandan.  I am also addressed as Keda Manian.  Name of my wife is Durgadevi.  I have one  son  and  a  daughter.   My  native  place  is Karanthai near Tanjavur.  I have come to Bavani many years back and settled here.  I am engaged in the  profession  of  driving  autorikshaw.   From 1.9.2007 onwards, I am running share autorikshaw bearing  registration  number  T.N.  38  Q  1311 Annamalai of Krishnampalayam taking on hire basis along  with  I.T.  Mani.   One  Mubarak  take  the collection from me every day and deposit with the owner on two installments.  Myself and I.T. Manian have  the  habit  enjoying  the  prostitutes  who

Page 3

3

approach bus stand area.  On the last 8.9.07 when myself  and  I.T.  Manian  were  operating  share autorikshaw,  one  woman  boarded  the  share autorikshaw from the bus stand.  She did not get down till the last even after other passengers got down from the autorikshaw.  When asked her name, she innocently told that her name as Jayalakshmi and she was from Komarapalayam. She also told that she did not have any money. When myself and Mani told her that we will take her to her village for which she agreed.  On the way, myself and Mani planned to enjoy that woman.  We came to share autorikshaw stand near bus stand and handed over the collection to Mubarak and left that place. When Mubarak  enquired,  Mani  told  that  woman  was  his relative lady. Then on the way, I along went to a brancy shop in Nachippa street and consumed liquor. Then all three of us consumed food in the nearby Amutham mess. When we came out, it was slightly drizzling.  We told that lady that we can leave after  the  rain  stops  and  after  passing  through public toilet and took her to old municipal ward office.  We engaged discussion with that lady and told her to compromise to our desire and asked her to lay with us. She refused and started to shout and then we took her to the land on the southern side.  There,  we  tried  to  remove  her  blouse  and saree, she shouted.  That lady was a strong woman. We  could  not  perform  what  we  planned.   I  got annoyed  and  picked  up  a  stick  from  nearby  and inserted twice or thrice in her private part. Her shout mellowed down. Mani told that “let us leave”. From  not  to  find  further  identification  of  the lady, I smashed her face with a stone.  Mani also picked up another stone and threw it on the face of that woman.  We stripped that woman's saree and petty coat and threw them out.  We came to know that she was dead. We thought that the nose pin worn by her would disclose her identity.  I removed the nose pin and kept it with myself. Then both of us came and picked up the share autorikshaw and left  it  in  the  workshop  of  the  owner  at Moolapattarai. On the next day, I came and asked Mani whether police made any enquiry with him for which  Mani  replied  in  negative.  I  thought  that Mubarak may suspect us and indirectly told Mani, if any one say anything, let us slit the throat. There after,  we  went  to  the  vacant  plot  near  the municipality Kalyana Mandapam and put the nose pin removed  from  that  woman  in  a  plastic  bag  and concealed it there and then for the next 5 days, I did not run the autorikshaw.  Therefore, I went to jail in connection with two case in Bavani.  I came

Page 4

4

to know that police were in search me suspecting me. I was scarred and have to you and surrender myself.”

After R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 had allegedly effectuated the surrender of the accused – appellant before the Inspector of Police,  Erode  town,  he  had  also  submitted  a  letter  dated 21.01.2008, at the police station, which read as under:

“I,  village  administrative  officer  of  35B  Erode town was in my office today at about 12.30 O'Clock in the afternoon with my assistant Manikkam, Keda Manian alias Manikandan, resident of door number 47 Sreenivasapuram,  Bavani  appeared  before  and  told that he was involved in the murder of a woman on the last 8th September near the Erode bus stand and gave a statement and I am producing him and the statement given by him to you for further action.”

Consequent upon the appellant, having been produced before the Inspector of Police, the accused-appellant Kadamanian @ Manikandan made a confessional statement on the same day, i.e., on 22.01.2008, to the Inspector of Police, Erode,  inter alia affirming as under:  

“... That woman was a healthy and strong and she pushed me and started shouting. We got annoyed as we  could  not  do  anything  as  we  planned  and therefore,  I  picked  up  a  stick  which  was  lying there and stabbed her private part three times with that  stick.   Her  shouts  mellowed  down  and  she became semi conscious.  I.T. Mani told to leave at that stage.  I told him that it would be dangerous if we leave her like that and she would identify us and her identity should not be known to any one and therefore, I picked up the stone which was laying nearby and threw it on her face and assaulted her. Mani also picked up another stone and threw it on her face. We came to know that she was dead. There was no movement of her. We removed her saree, petty coat, beads from her neck and kept it nearby and we thought with the nose pic worn by her, her identity would be known easily and there removed the nose pin also. Then we came out. At that time, Shanmugam

Page 5

5

who  words  as  Kalasi  saw  us.  We  went  to  share autorikshaw  stand  and  picked  up  the  share authorikshaw and went to Moolapattaqrai and left the auto rikshaw  in the work shop. I.T. Mani left for his house.  On the next day, earlier morning, I boarded a bus from Moolapatrai reached home.  On the next day after noon, I reached Erode share auto bus stand, as if I know nothing met Mani and asked him whether police made any enquiry. He answered in negative.  I told him that some information may come out through Mubarak and if any information is leaked out through some one, we should slit throat of such person.  However, we told him to assess the situation.  I told him that I will not come for next five days and when I left there, I went to vacant  plot  on  the  south  of  municipality Kalyanamandapam  and  put  the  nose  pin  which  I removed from that woman in a plastic bag and buried it near the transformer in that plot.  Then I left for home.  I was careful that no one should suspect me. In the meanwhile on one, there was a quarrel between  me  and  my  wife  as  regard  to  eating  of mutton.  Neighbor Gobi came and asked “why are you shouting? How can we live here?  And a dispute arose  between  me  and  him  and  a  case  has  been registered against me and I was in custody for 13 days. When I came out on bail, I was arrested on a Rowdy case and sent me to custody. When I came out on bail, when I reached to share auto rikshaw stand for running auto rikshaw, police however came to know that myself and I.T.Mani have committed the murder of that woman and the police is in search of us.  I thought, if police arrest me, they would beat  me  and  harass  and  therefore,  surrendered before town VAO today.  He has sent me to you. At that time, I have given this statement. If I am taken, I would identify and produce the nose pin where I have concealed it.” It is the version of the prosecution, that based on the

afore-stated  statement  made  by  the  appellant,  a  nose-stud  was recovered at the instance of the appellant on 22.01.2008. The fact, that the same belong to the deceased – Jayalakshmi was confirmed by various witnesses including  PW2 – Vedammal, the mother of the deceased.   After  recording  the  statements  of  the  prosecution witnesses, and also, the statement of the accused under Section 313

Page 6

6

of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code,  the  accused  were  afforded  an opportunity to lead their evidence in defence.  The accused availed off the above opportunity, and thereafter, the trial Court rendered its judgment dated 5.8.2009, convicting both the accused of the offences levelled against them.

Dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial Court dated 5.8.2009, both the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 528  of  2009,  before  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Madras (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”).  A Division Bench of the High Court, accepted the appeal preferred by  accused no.2 – I.T. Manian @ Manikanda, and ordered his acquittal.  The appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed.  Although,  the sentences awarded by the trial Court, under various provisions of the IPC, were by and large maintained, the sentence awarded to the appellant (by the trial Court) under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was reduced from 10 years to 7 years. Insofar as the other sentences are concerned, the appellant was ordered to suffer imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer life imprisonment, and for the offence under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant raised various contentions.  First and foremost , it was sought to be canvassed, that there was no direct or ocular evidence recorded at the behest of the prosecution, so as to render clear and unambiguous culpability of the appellant.  It was pointed out,

Page 7

7

that the conviction of the appellant by the trial Court, as also, by the High Court, was based only on circumstantial evidence.  The most relevant circumstantial evidence taken into consideration by the  High  Court,  according  to  learned  counsel,  was  the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant, to R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 on 22.1.2008.  The details of the aforesaid confessional statement have already been recorded by us hereinabove.  It was the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that R.V. Alagurajan  –  PW12  was  a  stark  stranger  to  the  appellant,  and therefore, there was no occasion for the appellant, to have made a confessional statement to him.  It was submitted, that in any case, keeping in mind the fact, that the deceased – Jayalakshmi had gone missing on 6.9.2007, there was no justification for the accused – appellant to have made a confessional statement months thereafter, on 22.1.2008.   

We would have ordinarily dealt with the instant submission by itself.  However, during the course of hearing, the same was sought to be linked with another submission advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant, namely, the recovery of the nose-stud at the behest of the confessional statement made by the accused -appellant to the Inspector Arumugam – PW20 on 22.1.2008. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that  the  nose-stud  recovered  at  the  behest  of  the  appellant, weighted  only  0.215  mg.   It  was  pointed  out,  that  there  are thousands of such nose-pins, and it was wholly improper for the prosecution to rely on the trumped up recovery of a nose-pin.  It was submitted, that it was the case of the prosecution itself, that

Page 8

8

the nose-pin in question was of the value of just about Rs.450/-. The more vigorous submission with reference to the nose-pin was, that the case of the prosecution, that the appellant herein, as also, the co-accused had badly mutilated the face of the deceased – Jayalakshmi, by crushing her face with stones, and as such, there was no  question of the recovery of the nose-pin form a mutilated face. It was submitted, that if the accused had taken the nose-pin after mutilating the face of the accused, the nose-pin ought to have had fragments of  skin, bone and blood.  However, the nose-pin recovered was clean and without any human tissue.  It was also submitted, that the nose-pin, which was allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellant, was perfectly in-tact.  In this behalf, it was pointed out, that if the face of the deceased – Jayalakshmi was crushed with stones, the nose-pin could not be expected to have retained its original shape.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the two submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant.  Insofar as the extra-judicial confession is concerned, it  is  necessary  to  emphasize,  that  the  non-recording  of  the extra-judicial confession over a span of time, in the facts of the present  case,  was  inconsequential.   We  say  so,  because  the appellant was not a suspect till 21.1.2008.  The appellant feared his arrest with reference to the allegations pertaining to the deceased  –  Jayalakshmi,  only  when  the  investigating  officer, Arumugam – PW20  affirmed with Shanmugam – PW6 on 21.01.2008, that the appellant had been seen, close to the place of occurrence.  It is immediately thereafter, and on the immediately following day,

Page 9

9

that  the  appellant  made  an  extra-judicial  confession  to  R.V. Alagurajan – PW12.

It is also not a matter of dispute, that R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 was the then Village Administrative Officer.  It is obvious, that  the  aforesaid  extra-judicial  confession  was  made  as  is apparent  from  the  statement  of  the  appellant  (extracted hereinabove) to save himself from any adverse, physical handling by the investigating authorities.  Undoubtedly,  R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, the Village Administrative Officer, effectuated the aforesaid object, by accompanying the appellant to the police station, and ensuring his arrest at the hands of Arumugam – PW20.  

Insofar as the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to the nose-pin are concerned, we are of the view, that none of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant, can be accepted as a valid justification,  for  exculpating  the  appellant  from  the  charges levelled against him.  In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention,  that  a  missing  person's  report  was  registered  by  the father of the deceased – P. Matheswaran, on 7.9.2007.  In the missing  person's  report,  it  was  clearly  mentioned,  that  the deceased  was wearing a nose-pin when she had gone missing.  The reason for indicating, that the deceased was wearing a nose-pin, was with the clear purpose of aiding the identification of his missing daughter – Jayalakshmi.  This was obviously for the reason, that the deceased – Jayalakshmi, was mentally unstable, and would not have been in a position to express her identification, or the identification of her parents, or the place of her residence, by

Page 10

10

herself.  In the recovery mahazar dated 22.1.2008, the recovered nose-pin was depicted as being imbedded with four white stones. It is therefore apparent, that the nose-pin worn by the deceased – Jayalakshmi  when  she  had  gone  missing,  was  not  any  ordinary unidentifiable artifact, but was clearly different from the usual nose-studs.   Not  only  that,  the  photograph  of  the  deceased submitted along with the missing person's report dated 7.9.2007 shows a clear picture of the nose-pin, and therefore, to say that the involvement of the accused on the basis of the nose-pin, was improper, is not acceptable.  Insofar as the absence of blood, skin tissue and bone tissue on the nose-pin is concerned, it is clear to us, that the submissions were made by the learned counsel, without having viewed the photograph of the deceased, as is available on the record of the trial Court.  As already noticed hereinabove, the nose-pin was worn by the deceased – Jayalakshmi, in the photograph attached to the missing person's report dated 7.9.2007.  The same was missing  from the photograph of the deceased, after her body was recovered.  The nose itself was not mutilated, and was in-tact. No injury whatsoever was found on the nose, in the photograph of the deceased.  It was therefore wholly unjustified, for the learned counsel for the appellant to have raised the submission, that the absence of any human tissue on the nose-pin, would lead to the inference, that the nose-pin in question, was not the one belonging to the deceased.  For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit  in  the  instant  contentions,  advanced  on  behalf  of  the appellant.

Insofar as the veracity of the extra judicial confession

Page 11

11

made by the appellant is concerned, it would be relevant to mention that,  learned  counsel,  during  the  course  of  hearing,  placed reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in Kala @ Chandrakala vs. State through Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of 2010,  decided on 12.08.2016), wherein this Court had observed as under:

6.Firstly,  we  will  examine  whether  the extra-judicial confession which is a weak kind of evidence, inspire the confidence.  Susheela, P.W.4 has  stated  that  Murugesan  was  married  to  the appellant 14 years before the incident.   She came in search of his brother Murugesan to the house of the deceased.   Murugesan has told her on 12.5.2005 that appellant had threatened to kill him as he was habitual of consuming alcohol.  When she did not receive any telephone call for 15 days from the deceased, she went to his village. On enquiry she was informed by the appellant that she, her nephew Prakasam and father murdered the deceased and threw his  body  under  the  bridge.    Susheela,  P.W.4 further stated that the appellant touched her legs and stated that she would give properties of her father  to  two  children  and  that  she  should  not inform the police.   Thereafter, P.W.4 went to the police  station  on  the  same  day  and  lodged  the complaint  – Ex.P2.    The police  showed her  the photograph,  shirt  and  slippers  and  asked  her  to identify the same.  She identified them to be of her brother.  She has further stated to have gone to police station after 5 days with photograph of deceased. In the cross-examination, she has also stated that she had signed the agreement for sale of land executed by the accused. It is apparent that accused was not having good relationship with Susheela,  PW.4.   Making  confession  to  such  an inimical person is most unlikely.  When the witness had gone in search of the deceased to the house of the  accused  it  is  most  unlikely  that  the confessional  statement  would  be  made  to  her readily.  It is not that the appellant had gone to the house of P.W.4 to make the confession. On the other hand query was made by the daughter of the deceased to Susheela, P.W.4 as to the whereabouts of the deceased, meaning thereby the whereabouts of the deceased were not known even to his daughter. In case the deceased had been killed in the house, perhaps  the  daughter  would  have  known  about  the

Page 12

12

offence having been committed by the accused.     7.In  Sahadevan  and  Anr.  v.  State  of  Tamil  Nadu (2012)  6  SCC  403,  it  has  been  observed  that extra-judicial  confession  is  weak  piece  of evidence.  Before acting upon it the Court must ensure that the same inspires confidence and it is corroborated  by  other  prosecution  evidence.   In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259, it has been observed that extra-judicial confession requires great deal of care and caution before acceptance.  There should be no suspicious circumstances surrounding it.  In Pakkirisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997) 8 SCC 158 it has been observed  that  there  has  to  be  independent corroboration  for  placing  any  reliance  upon extra-judicial confession.  In Kavita v. State of Tamil Nadu (1998) 6 SCC 108 it has been observed that  reliability  of  the  same  depends  upon  the veracity  of  the  witnesses  to  whom  it  is  made. Similar  view  has  been  expressed  in  State  of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC 180, in which this Court has further observed that witness must be unbiased and not even remotely inimical to the accused.   In  Aloke nath  Dutta v.  State of  West Bengal (2007) 12 SCC 230 it has been observed that the main features of confession are required to be verified.  In Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan (2010)  10  SCC  604  it  has  been  observed  that extra-judicial confession should be corroborated by some  other  material  on  record.   In  Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat (2009) 5 SCC 740  it  has  been  observed  that  in  the  case  of retracted confession it is unsafe for the Court to rely on it.   In Vijay Shankar v. State of Haryana (2015)  12  SCC  644  this  Court  has  followed  the decision in Sahadevan (supra).”

Based on the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court, it was submitted, that the extra-judicial confession being  a weak piece of evidence, should not have been relied upon, for determining the culpability of the appellant.

Having given our thoughtful consideration on the above contention, we are of the view, that the judgment relied upon by

Page 13

13

learned  counsel,  is  wholly  inapplicable  in  the  facts  and circumstances of this case, for two distinguishing features in the present case, namely, that the extra judicial confession in the instant case was made to the Village Administrative Officer R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, who was totally unbiased and unconnected with the controversy in hand.  He could also not to be stated to be inimical to the appellant. He is not shown to have any relationship with either the complainant or the accused. Moreover, insofar as the extra judicial confession made in the judgment relied upon by the appellant is concerned, the same had been made by the accused, to the sister of the deceased, which by itself made the extra judicial  confession  extremely  doubtful.   We  are  therefore  not impressed with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, based on the cited judgment.

The next contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant was, on the third circumstantial evidence taking into consideration, namely, the last seen evidence.  For establishing  the  above  circumstance,  the  prosecution  had  relied upon two witnesses, Shanmugam – PW6, and Mubarak – PW7.  In the statements recorded by the aforesaid two witnesses under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they had stated, that they had seen  the  appellant  and  the  co-accused  in  the  company  of  the deceased – Jayalakshmi.  While recording their statements before the trial Court,  Shanmugam – PW6 and Mubarak – PW7 resiled from the version indicated by them, to the investigating officer.  It is therefore  apparent,  that  no  last  seen  evidence,  could  be substantiated by the prosecution,  during the course of the trial

Page 14

14

of the appellant. We are of the view, that the deposition at the hands of Shanmugam – PW6 and Mubarak – PW7, can be described as a matter  of  improper  handling  of  the  case,  inasmuch  as,  both Shanmugam  –  PW6  and  Mubarak  –  PW7  had  also  recorded  their statements  under  Section  164  of  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code, affirming, that they had seen the appellant and the co-accused in the  company  of  the  deceased  –  Jayalakshmi.  However,  since  the statement of the two prosecution witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was not put to them, after  they  were  declared  hostile,  and  were  subjected  to cross-examination at the behest of the prosecution, we have no alternative, but to overlook the last seen evidence sought to be projected by the prosecution.   

In the above view of the matter, it was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that there was no material evidence available on the record of the case, to return a clear finding of guilt, against the appellant. It was submitted, that the circumstantial  evidence  projected  through  the  prosecution witnesses, did not complete the chain of circumstances, as would establish the guilt of the appellant.   

We  have  given  our  thoughtful  consideration  to  the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant.  As noticed hereinabove, there was a clear and categoric extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 on 22.1.2008.  During the course of recording his testimony, R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 was subjected to vigorous cross-examination. His  testimony  however  remained  unshaken.  Resultantly,  the  trial

Page 15

15

Court, as also, the High Court, concluded that the extra-judicial confession was genuine.  We endorse the above determination at the hands of the trial Court and the High Court.  Consequent upon the accused-appellant's  extra-judicial  confession,  the  appellant  was taken to the police station by R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, and produced before Inspector Arumugam – PW20. It is therefore apparent, that the arrest of the appellant at the behest of R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, has also been clearly established.  The next chain in the circumstantial evidence projected at the hands of the prosecution, was  the  recovery  of  the  nose-pin  on  22.1.2008,  based  on  the statement of the appellant, to Inspector Arumugam – PW20.  The afore-stated nose-pin has been identified by the members of the family of the deceased, as the one that was actually worn by the deceased, when she went missing.  Since the nose-pin was recovered at the instance of the appellant, from a remote place under an electric transformer, no one but the appellant could have been aware of its location.  Its recovery was therefore suffient, along with the other evidence referred to above, to clearly implicate the appellant.  It is also necessary for us to mention, that there is yet another aspect of the matter, which furthers the cause of the prosecution, namely, the statement of M.Abdul Khader – PW8.  In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that the appellant used to hire a share-autorikshaw, for earning his livelihood.  The aforesaid autorikshaw was hired from the garrage of Annamalai – PW9.  M.Abdul Khader – PW8 was engaged as an accountant at the garrage of  Annamalai – PW9.  It was pointed out in the deposition of  M.Abdul  Khader  –  PW8,  that  on  a  daily  basis  the

Page 16

16

share-autorikshaw hired by the accused-appellant and the co-accused used to be returned to the garrage of  Annamalai – PW9 between 8.30 p.m to 9.30 p.m.. However, on the date of occurrence, i.e., the relevant  date  when  the  alleged  crime  was  committed,  the share-autorikshaw was returned on the following day, at 1.30 a.m. The case of the prosecution is, that the autorikshaw was used by the appellant and the co-accused in commission of the crime.  It was imperative for the appellant to have expressly indicated the reasons and justification for not returning the autorikshaw to the garrage of Annamalai – PW9 between 8.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m., on the relevant  date.   Not  having  done  so,  by  itself,  is  a  cause  of suspicion,  specially  when  there  is  other  material  evidence, projected by the prosecution, to demonstrate the involvement of the appellant, in the commission of the crime.  We are of the view, that  the  aforesaid  evidence  recorded  by  the  prosecution  was sufficient, even in the absence of last seen evidence, to return a finding of guilt against the appellant.

It is imperative for us to record, that in addition to the afore-stated submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel had also contended, that the  co-accused  was  acquitted  by  the  High  Court,  and  that,  his acquittal was based on the same evidence, produced through the same witnesses. It was contended, that it was improper and unjustified, for the High Court, to have convicted the appellant, and acquitted the co-accused, on the same evidence.  We find no justification in the  instant  contention  advanced  at  the  hands  of  the  learned counsel.  We  have  already  recorded  hereinabove,  that  the  extra

Page 17

17

judicial confession made to R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, was by the appellant herein, and not by the co-accused. We have also recorded hereinabove, that the recovery of the nose-pin found missing from the nose of the deceased, was at the instance of the appellant, and not at the hands of the co-accused.  Therefore, the case of the co-accused,  was  on  a  clearly  different  footing,  and  there  was sufficient  justification  for  the  High  Court,  to  have  taken  a different view,SW in the case of the co-accused.   

For  the  reasons  recorded  hereinabove,  we  find  no justification  whatsoever  to  interfere  with  the  conviction  and sentence awarded to the appellant, by the High Court.

The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.

…....................J. [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR]

NEW DELHI; …....................J. AUGUST 31, 2016. [ARUN MISHRA]

Page 18

18

ITEM NO.102               COURT NO.3               SECTION IIA                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).  2341/2010 KADMANIAN @ MANIKANDAN                             Appellant(s)                                 VERSUS STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE                            Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for permission to file additional documents and  exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date : 31/08/2016 This appeal was called on for hearing today. CORAM :           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA

For Appellant(s) Mr. Sunil Fernandes,Adv.                    Mr. Puneeth K.G., Adv.

Ms. Astha Sharma, Adv.   For Respondent(s) Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna,Adv.                    Ms. Nithya, Adv.             UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                              O R D E R

The  appeal  is  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  Reportable judgment, which is placed on the file.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

 (Renuka Sadana) (Parveen Kumar)  Assistant Registrar    AR-cum-PS