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