{"id":179997,"date":"2002-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002"},"modified":"2016-07-01T12:44:18","modified_gmt":"2016-07-01T07:14:18","slug":"ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"Ezhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ezhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: Raju<\/div>\n
Bench: R.P. Sethi, Doraiswamy Raju<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.) 1268-1270  of  1999\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nEZHIL & ORS.   APPELLANTS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF TAMIL NADU  RESPONDENT\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t24\/04\/2002\n\nBENCH:\nR.P. Sethi & Doraiswamy Raju\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
RAJU, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe three accused In Sessions Case No.11 of 1997 on the file of the
\nAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Nagai Quaide-e-Milet District in Tamil
\nNadu, Ezhil (A-1), Saravanan (A-2) and Mohammed Iqbal (A-3), are the
\nappellants before us.  They have been charged for offences under Sections 364,
\n392 and 302 read with Section 34, IPC, and Section 120B of the Indian Penal
\nCode.  After trial and on consideration of the evidence and materials placed on
\nrecord, the learned Trial Judge found the first accused guilty under Sections 364,
\n302, 392 and 201, IPC, the second and third accused guilty under Sections 364,
\n302 read with Section 34, 392 read with Section 34 and 201, IPC.  So far as the
\nquestion of sentence is concerned, the Trial Judge imposed death sentence on
\nthe first accused for the offence committed under Section 302, IPC.  For the
\noffences committed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 under Sections 364, a rigorous
\nimprisonment for a period of ten years was imposed.  For the offence committed
\nby accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, they were
\nawarded life imprisonment.  For the offence committed under Section 392 by the
\nfirst accused and accused Nos.2 and 3 for the offence committed by them under
\nSection 392 read with Section 34, IPC, they were awarded rigorous
\nimprisonment for ten years.  For the offence under Section 201, IPC, the accused
\nwere awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years.  The sentences awarded as
\nabove, except death sentence, were ordered to run concurrently.\t So far as the
\ncharge under Section 120B, IPC, is concerned, the learned Trial Judge held the
\nsame to be not proved against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
\tThereupon, the accused filed Criminal Appeal Nos.410, 482 and 492 of
\n1997, which were taken up for disposal along with R. T. No.4 of 1997 for
\nconfirmation of the death sentence imposed on the first accused.  A Division
\nBench of the High Court thought fit to set aside the conviction of the accused
\nunder Sections 364 and 201 of IPC.  The conviction and sentence imposed by
\nthe Trial Court for the offence under Sections 302 and 392, IPC, was upheld, with
\na modification that all the accused shall stand convicted under Section 392, IPC,
\nread with Section 34, IPC., while choosing not to interfere with the quantum of
\npunishment for the offence under Section 392, IPC.  So far as the offence under
\nSection 302, IPC, is concerned, while modifying the death sentence against the
\nfirst accused into one of rigorous imprisonment for life, such sentence imposed
\nby the Trial Court upon accused Nos.2 and 3 came to be affirmed.  Hence, the
\nabove appeals.\n<\/p>\n
\tShri S. Muralidhar, learned counsel for the appellants, strenuously
\ncontended that the various circumstances noticed by the courts below to indict
\nthe accused of the offences found guilty cannot be said to be proved or
\nsubstantiated beyond reasonable doubt and even the circumstances found
\nsubstantiated do not go to form the necessary link to constitute a chain inevitably
\nleading to the guilt of the accused of the offences charged with and held proved.
\nAccording to the learned counsel, not only there is a strong and reasonable
\ndoubt about the case of prosecution, but the stand of the accused reasonably
\nand plausibly explains away the circumstances noticed to hold them guilty and
\nconsequently the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal in our hands.
\nShri S. Balakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State,
\nwhile relying upon the findings of the courts below, contended that the decisions
\nrecorded against the accused for the various offences were on a proper and
\nobjective consideration of all the relevant materials and the reasons assigned in
\nsupport thereof were based on overwhelming material available on record and
\nthis Court may not be pleased to interfere with the same in this appeal filed
\ninvoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn order to appreciate the respective stand of the learned counsel
\nappearing on either side and the legality and correctness of the findings
\nrecorded, a brief reference to the relevant materials becomes necessary.  PW-4,
\nan Inspector of Police attached to Zam Bazaar Police Station, who was on duty
\nfrom the midnight of 10.3.94 to check the passing vehicles in Marina at
\nKamarajar Salai, noticed at 5.00 a.m. in the morning of 11.3.1994 a White
\nAmbassador Car bearing registration No.PY-02-0160 coming from south
\ndirection and going towards north very fast and stopped the same for verification.
\nAt that time, the Car was found driven by A-3 Mohammed Iqbal, and the other
\ntwo, namely, A-1 Ezhil and A-2 Saravanan, were seated on the rear seat.\t When
\nPW-4 questioned them and found their replies to be inconsistent, the Car Dicky
\nwas opened and a parcel (M.O.8) bearing a label “A.K.Jamal Mohammed
\nIhamam Dharan-Madras” was found.  When further inquired, A-1 replied that he
\nwas coming from abroad and on being asked to show his Passport, a Passport
\n(Ex.P15) bearing No.E.025019 dated 25.5.1988 was produced by him.  On
\nfurther finding that the photograph on the Passport did not match with either A-1
\nor anyone-else in the Car, the Dicky was said to have been again opened and
\nsearched, as a result of which a plastic bag was found concealed under the mat
\ncontaining a blood stained bed-sheet, a pair of blood stained hawai chappals, a
\nblood stained lungi, a blood stained broken knife and a blood stained cigar
\nlighter.  Further questioning resulted in the accused claiming that the third
\naccused was the Driver while the second accused was the Cleaner and the Car
\nwas hired by the first accused.\t  When M.O.8, a Car Board Box, was opened,
\nnumber of foreign goods were found in the same.\t The Police party got
\nsuspicious and took the accused in their custody and seized the Car and all the
\narticles found therein.\t A mahazar was also drawn in the presence of two
\nindependent witnesses, namely, PW-5 Dharman and one Ramu.  A list of articles
\nfound in the Dicky was drawn up.  A few other parcels bearing various names
\nwere also found therein, of which one was in the name of A.Faizal and another in
\nthe name of S.M.Zinnah.\t A money purse containing some Indian currency and
\nforeign currency was also found with a driving license in the name of one Jamal
\nMohammed bearing No.12711-B3\/88.  After preparing the list of all these articles
\nalong with a mahazar, the accused were taken to the Zam Bazaar Police Station
\nand were further questioned.  A First Information Report (Ex.P17) was given by
\nPW-4 to the Zam Bazaar Police Station and the same was registered In Crime
\nNo.409 of 1994 under Sections 41 and 102, Cr. P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhile that be the events at Chennai, at a Village called Nallathur under
\nthe jurisdiction of Olakkur Police Station, a resident of the Village, who went near
\nKonnerikuppam bridge to pluck water melons, saw a dead-body lying there.
\nGetting frightened, he ran to the Thalaiyari (menial servant) of the Villages
\nKonnerikuppam, Nallathur and Pallipakkam and gave him the information.
\nThereupon, the Village Administrative Officer was told about the same at 1.00
\np.m., who, after a visit to the spot and personal verification, went to Olakkur
\nPolice Station at 2.30 p.m. and lodged the report (Ex.P1), resulting in the
\nregistration of a case in Crime No.75\/94 under Seciton 174(3), Cr.P.C.\t An FIR
\n(Ex.P44) was said to have been forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate No.1,
\nTindivanam.  The Sub-Inspector of Police, Olakkur Police Station, thereafter
\ncontacted PW-28, the Inspector of Police, Tindivanam Circle, and informed him
\nabout the suspicious state in which the body was found.\t Thereafter, PW-28 went
\nto Olakkur Police Station at 8.20 p.m. and reached the spot where the dead-body
\nwas lying and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P3).\tA rough sketch
\n(Ex.P48) was prepared and arrangements made for taking photographs besides
\nconducting an inquest and preparing a report under Ex.P49.  Statements of the
\nwitnesses, who had found the body, were also recorded and a seizure mahazar
\nof the articles found on the body being clothes, shoes, socks and some currency
\nnotes, etc. was prepared and the body was sent for post mortem examination.
\nFrom the clothes of the deceased, a Tailor Mark “New Gentle Tailor, Vadakarai”
\nwas noticed and PW-26, who was put on the job, contacted PW-16, who not only
\nrecognized his own tailoring mark but also the person found in the photograph to
\nbe that of one Masukuthu Ali, who was working abroad.  Thereafter, the father of
\nthe said person was contacted and he could recognize the photo to be of his own
\nson.  He was also taken to the Government Hospital at Tindivanam along with
\nthe relatives and it was confirmed that the deceased was his son Masukuthu Ali.
\nThe post mortem was said to have been conducted at 1.00 p.m. on 12.3.1994 by
\nPW-22, and Ex.P35 report prepared by the Doctor.  Thereafter the body was said
\nto have been handed over to the relatives of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 13.3.1994, PW-28 got a wireless message from Zam Bazaar Police
\nStation, pursuant to which PW-25, attached to Olakkur Police Station, was sent
\nto Zam Bazaar Police Station and PW-26 collected the whole file from Zam
\nBazaar Police Station relating to Cr. No.409 of 1994 and handed over the same
\nto PW-28 at Tindivanam.\t Thereafter, the case, which was registered by Olakkur
\nPolice Station under Section 174(3), Cr.P.C., was altered to Sections 120B, 364,
\n302, 392, 201 read with Section 34, IPC.  At that stage, an Express FIR (Ex.P47)
\nwas sent to the Judicial Magistrate at Tindivanam as also to the Metropolitan
\nMagistrate No.13 at Chennai, where the accused were remanded.  From the
\nmaterials gathered, it was found that the deceased was the same person in
\nwhose favour the Passport (Ex.P15) was issued, though it was found to have
\nbeen issued in the name of Abdul Jamal Mohammed.  The accused thereafter
\nwere taken into the custody by PW-28 on 26.3.1994 and brought to Olakkur
\nPolice Station.\t The accused were taken to the scene of occurrence on 27.3.94 in
\nthe presence of PW-6 and another and an observation mahazar (Ex.P18) and a
\nrough sketch Ex.P50 were drawn up.  On further investigation, PW-28 went to
\nNeyveli and examined PW-8, who was said to have travelled with the deceased
\nand the accused in the Car in question.\t The accused were thereupon remanded
\nto judicial custody on 28.3.1994.  Thereafter, the Inspector General of Police,
\nMadras Crime Branch, made an order on 27.6.1994 transferring the investigation
\nto CB, CID and PW-29 took up the investigation on 16.10.1994.  During the
\ninvestigation made by him, the statement of PW-14, who was running a Driving
\nSchool at Myladuthurai, who recognized the photograph in the Driving License
\n(M.O.87) and stated that it was issued in the name of Jamal Mohammed.\t The
\nphotograph on Ex.P12 as also M.O.87 were said to be of the same person and
\nthese, as noticed earlier, were recovered from the accused persons on
\n11.3.1994.  The elder sister of the deceased was also examined and seized
\nthree Passports of the deceased obtained on different dates, namely, Ex.P8,
\nEx.P10 as also the Driving License Ex.P12, which stood in the name of
\nMasukuthu Ali.\tAfter examining the other witnesses, PW-11, the owner of the
\nCar, PW-12, Van Driver, and PW-10, a friend of the deceased, who last saw him
\nalive and on information given by him, PW-9, working in a Petrol Pump where the
\ncar in question was stated to have got 20 liters of diesel filled up, seized Ex.P20
\ncash bill under proper mahazar in the presence of PW-13 and another.  The
\nrecords and the articles seized by PW-4 on 11.3.1994 at Chennai were thereafter
\nsent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate only on 5.12.1994.   PW-29, the
\nInvestigating Officer, seized the knife and caused the blood stained articles to be
\nsent for chemical examination through the Judicial Magistrate, Tindivanam, on
\n13.12.1994 and thereafter the investigation was transferred on 5.1.1995 to PW-
\n30, who was said to have got the left thumb impression of the deceased
\ncompared with those found in the other exhibits such as passport applications
\netc.  After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 25.3.1996
\nagainst the accused for offences under Sections 120B, 364, 302, 392, 201 and
\n34, IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe learned Trial Judge as well as the High Court noticed the following
\nincriminating circumstances lending credence to the prosecution case of
\ncommission of the offence by the accused and leading to the guilt of the
\ndeceased, namely, (1) that the three accused were together in the Car; (2) that
\nthe Car was entrusted to the accused persons, particularly A-3 as its Driver and
\nA-2 as its Cleaner; (3) that the Car in which all the three accused were, when it
\nwas intercepted at Marina at Chennai, was found carrying the articles, which
\nwere proved to be that of the deceased as also those entrusted to him by others
\nand were in his possession; (4) that when PW-4 asked A-1 to show the Passport,
\nhe produced the same which really belonged to the deceased and from the
\nsuitcase of the deceased found in the Dicky even the driving license of the
\ndeceased was retrieved; (5) that all the recoveries of the articles from the car
\nwere on the early hours of 11.3.1994 even prior to the discovery of the body of
\nthe deceased in almost less than 24 hours; (6) that the articles with blood stains,
\nparticularly the bed-sheet, lungi and chappals recovered from the car, were found
\nvide the Serologist Report (Ex.P43) with human blood and there is absolutely no
\nreasonable explanation for the same; (7) that the accused did not give any
\nreasonable explanation for all the stolen articles being found in their possession
\nimmediately after the occurrence; (8) that the deceased was serving in Saudi
\nArabia and when he was due to visit India, he was entrusted with certain articles
\nby PW-15 and PW-23 also, which were identified and proved by them; (9) the
\narrival of the deceased at Chennai Airport at 6.30 a.m. on 10.3.1994; (10) the
\nrecovery of dead-body of Masukuthu Ali and the articles; and (11) the accused
\nshowing the scene of offence when taken by PW-26.  The High Court, in spite of
\nexpressing certain doubts as also want of faith on some of the witnesses and the
\nstatements in Court and recording its inability to agree with the observations of
\nthe Trial Court in relation to such aspects, chose to place strong reliance upon
\nthe recovery of the articles belonging to as well as in the possession of the
\ndeceased when he arrived from abroad from the possession and custody of the
\naccused shortly after the commission of the offence and applying the
\npresumption in Illustration-(a) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and
\nnoticing the absence of any plausible or reasonable explanation for being in
\npossession of those articles, finally held that notwithstanding the fact that they
\ncannot be convicted under Sections 364 and 201, IPC, the conviction under
\nSections 302 and 392 read with Section 34, IPC, would stand affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
The case rests purely on circumstantial evidence and the most vital
\ncircumstance to prove the case of the prosecution is the recovery of the articles
\nbelonging to and in possession of the deceased as well as the blood stained
\narticles from the car in the exclusive possession of the accused, about which
\nthere could be no reasonable or plausible explanation by any of the accused.
\nSince the questions very much depend upon the drawl of presumptions engrafted
\nin Section 106 and illustration (a) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, over which
\nonly there has been serious contest by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is
\nappropriate to notice the principles governing the same, before undertaking any
\nconsideration of the justification to apply them to the facts of the case.  The entire
\ncase law on the subject has been extensively reviewed by this Court in a
\ndecision reported in Sanjay Alias Kaka vs State (NCT of Delhi) [2001(3) SCC
\n190] authored by one of us (R.P.Sethi, J) and it was held that courts can draw
\npresumptions under Section 106 and illustration (a) to Section 114 of the
\nEvidence Act, and to attract and apply illustration (a) to Section 114 the nature of
\nevidence adduced must be seen to find, among other things the ‘important time
\nfactor’.  Though no standard time limits can be fixed to determine whether the
\npossession is recent or otherwise, each case must be judged on its own facts
\nand in a case where there is no plausible explanation by the accused for lawful
\npossession of the articles belonging to the deceased, immediately after the
\nmurder, the courts cannot be held to be in error in considering that murder and
\nrobbery were integral parts of the same transaction giving rise to the presumption
\nthat the appellants not only committed the murder of the deceased but also
\ncommitted robbery of articles found in the possession of the deceased.\tAs
\nobserved by this Court in State of West Bengal vs Mir Mohammad Omar &
\nOthers<\/a> [2000(8) SCC 382], the pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the
\nprosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilized
\ndoctrine, admitting no process of an intelligent reasoning even when the doctrine
\nof presumption considered to be not a rule alien to the above has become
\nstatutorily recognized and engrafted in Section 114 and other provisions of the
\nEvidence Act.  Permitting a presumption of fact, otherwise doubtful, by a process
\nof reasoning and inference from other proved facts having regard to the common
\ncourse of natural events, human conduct etc., in relation to the facts of the case,
\nwas found necessary by the legislature to ensure a rational, realistic and genuine
\napproach while administering justice in criminal trial for arriving at the truth and
\nthere is no scope for adopting any hyper technical approach or extend undue
\nlatitudes in favour of the accused, which only tend to cause erosions in the
\nmaintenance of law and order in society otherwise essential in the larger
\ninterests of society and mankind.\n<\/p>\n
\tSo far as the case on hand is concerned some of the basic and vitally
\nimportant facts necessary for drawing the presumption by applying illustration (a)
\nto Section 114 of the Evidence Act, are found to have been substantiated and
\nproved beyond reasonable doubt, by overwhelming evidence on record.  That the
\ncar in question (M.O.91) belonging to PW-11 was entrusted to the third accused
\nand the second accused, the cleaner also accompanied him from Karaikal and
\nthey reached Madras Airport by about 2 a.m. on the early hours of 9.3.94 and
\nthat on 9.3.94 at 7 a.m. the third accused, who knew earlier the first accused and
\nwho used to hire persons for his car at the airport was met and asked whether
\nthere are any parties available to return back and from that time onwards till, all
\nthe accused were found together in the car when they were intercepted,
\ninterrogated and articles seized from the dickey of the car stand proved  by the
\nvery admissions made in the written statement filed by the third accused under
\nSection 233 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and also stated to have been adopted by the other
\naccused.  The presence of all the accused in the car when the same was
\nintercepted and interrogated on the Marina at Chennai with all the articles
\nrecovered, in the dickey of the car have been found established by other
\nevidence, even dehors the written statement.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe further facts found proved are that the dickey of the car contained
\nseven parcels of which one was bearing label “A.K. Jamal Mohammed Thamam
\nDharam-Madras” M.O.8.  PW-15 Fazhil Mohammed, who claimed to know the
\ndeceased and working in abroad in 1994, has stated that he sent the parcel and
\nthe articles in the parcels M.O.96 and M.O.97, identified by him to be the very
\nsame carried in the name of A. Faizal.\tAll the seven parcels were found to
\ncontain clear cut address slips and noticed even in the mahazar Ex.P16 prepared
\nby PW-4 and the First Information Report Ex.P17.  PW-23, S.M. Jinnah, was, at
\nthe relevant point of time, working in Saudi Arabia and who knew the deceased
\nworking at Thamam also claims to have sent one parcel on 5.3.94 to be delivered
\nto his house at Vadakarai Village, containing M.O.s.15, 18, 19, 24 series, 102
\nseries, 29 series and M.O. 103.\t Serial No.67(f) mentioned in Ex.P16 bearing the
\nname S.M. Jinnah refers to textile parcel and conforms to the relevant M.Os.
\nEntries at serial No. 2, 6, 7 and 12 conformed to the other articles covered by the
\nM.Os., in respect of which no challenge seem to have been made also in the
\ncross examination.  The passports and the driving licence, which belonged to the
\ndeceased, though in different names but the identity of the person from the photo
\nin all of them pointing towards the deceased stood established firmly and
\nremained un-assailed.  The blood stained articles recovered from a plastic bag,
\nconcealed under the mat in the dickey of the car viz., (1) Metal blade (2) Cigar
\nlighter (3) Bed sheet, (4) Chappals and (5) Lungi were sent to chemical
\nexamination and the bed sheet, chappals and lungi were fund to contain human
\nblood, though due to disintegration, the further grouping or classification in
\nrespect of others were found not possible.  The ring M.O.89 and watch M.O.90
\nbelonging to the deceased and some of the exclusive personal belongings such
\nas purse, passport were also seized from the car.  Though an attempt has been
\nmade to disown recovery of these from their possession, the claims and stand
\ntaken in this regard on behalf of the accused seem to be not only farfetched but
\nsuch stories do not inspire any confidence and in our view have been rightly
\nrejected by both the courts below, for valid and just reasons after a proper
\nappreciation the same.\tThere is no justification to discredit, disbelieve or reject
\nthe evidence of PW-4 who handled the case from the time of interception till
\nsubmission of the report and production of the materials recovered before the
\nCourt at the first time.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe interception and initial interrogation of the accused in the car was at
\nabout 5 a.m. on 11.3.94 and after preparation of mahazar, they were taken to the
\nZam Bazaar Police Station by 8 a.m. and after further formalities undertaken and
\npreparation of the printed FIR Ex.P17, the accused and the evidence gathered
\nwere sent under Form No.95 to the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate Court.  In the
\nmeanwhile, as noticed earlier at about 12.30 p.m. on 11.3.94 PW-2 first saw the
\ndead body and by about 2.30 p.m. the complaint Ex.P1 was prepared by the
\nvillage Administrative Officer and lodged with Olakkur Police Station.\tOn receipt
\nof the information from the Sub Inspector, the Inspector of police, Tindivanam,
\nwent to the said Police Station at about 3.20 p.m. and after holding inquest and
\nthe usual and necessary formalities sent the dead body to the Government
\nhospital by 11 p.m.  The autopsy was conducted by PW-22, the Government
\nDoctor at 1 p.m. on 12.3.94 and the post-mortem report Ex.P35, as well as final
\nopinion marked as Ex.P33 (a) was prepared showing that injury No.1 sustained
\nby the deceased could be fatal and cause death and could have been caused by
\na stab inflicted with the knife M.O.12.\t During the course of trial, the Doctor
\nopined that the deceased might have died 48 hours prior to the autopsy and the
\nsame helped the Courts to fix the death somewhere prior to 1 p.m. on 10.3.94 or
\nwithin 12 hours prior to that.\tThe death indisputably was a homicidal death.\n<\/p>\n
\tThough, the learned counsel for the appellants attempted to discredit the
\nevidence by pointing out some minor variations and contradictions, we are of the
\nview that the appreciation of evidence by the High Court, and broadly even by
\nthe Trial Court, could not said to be either arbitrary or perverse or considered to
\nsuffer any patent infirmities or illegalities so as to vitiate the findings.  It is not
\nevery discrepancy or contradiction that renders the witness or evidence tendered
\nby him unacceptable or tainted so as to call for their rejection in toto.  On a
\nconsideration of the evidence, to which our attention has been invited and on
\ngoing through the judgments of the courts below, particularly of the High Court,
\nwe find that the evidence has been carefully scrutinized noticing the
\ncontradictions and infirmities wherever found and properly marshelled and
\nanalyzed before affirming the verdict of guilt recorded by the Trial Court in
\nrespect of offences under Sections 392 and 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe possession by the accused, no doubt in the dickey of the car
\nentrusted to the third accused, in which along with him only the 1st and the 2nd
\naccused alone were found present at all relevant and material points of time, of
\nthe articles belonging to as well as those supposed to be in the possession of the
\ndeceased having been entrusted with them by PW-15 and PW-23 and others, as
\nper the address slips found on the parcels, some of whom are the personal
\nbelongings of the deceased, which should have been only in his custody, have
\nbeen substantiated by the prosecution by cogent and convincing evidence and
\naccepted concurrently by both the courts below.\t Such possession by the
\naccused is very much proximate in point of time to the death of the deceased to
\nconstitute whole thing an integrated affair and the controversy sought to be
\nraised about the actual date of arrival (whether it is 9th or 10th March, 1994) even
\npales into insignificance, with the strong material glaringly starring against the
\naccused.  The accused have not been able to properly or reasonably explain as
\nto the legitimacy or origin of their possession of the articles carried by the
\ndeceased when he arrived from abroad at the airport at Chennai.\t In such
\ncircumstances, since the facts relating to the same being especially within the
\nexclusive knowledge of the accused, the legislature engrafted a special rule in
\nSection 106 of the Evidence Act, to meet certain exceptional cases in which not
\nonly it would be impossible but disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to
\nestablish such facts which are specially and exceptionally within the exclusive
\nknowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or
\ninconvenience.\tThe appellants in this case have miserably failed to explain their
\nlawful possession of those articles with them that really belonged to and were in
\nthe possession of the deceased when he landed at the airport at Chennai.
\nConsequently, it was legitimate for the courts below, on the facts and
\ncircumstances of this case, to draw the presumption not only of the fact that they
\nwere in possession of the stolen articles after committing robbery but also
\ncommitted the murder of the deceased, keeping in view the proximity of time
\nwithin which the act of murder was supposed to have been committed and body
\nfound and the articles recovered from the possession of the accused.  The
\nconclusions, in this regard, concurrently recorded by both the courts below are
\nunassailable and do not call for our interference, within the area permissible for
\ninterference in an appeal entertained under Article 136 of the Constitution of
\nIndia  only wherein it is shown that on the proved facts wrong inference of law
\nhas been drawn or the conclusions on facts are manifestly perverse and based
\non no evidence.\t No such infirmities could be successfully substantiated on
\nbehalf of the appellants in this case, to warrant any such interference.\n<\/p>\n
\tSo far as the quantum of sentence also we are not persuaded to differ
\nfrom the view taken by the courts below.  A grave act of depravity, to kill an
\ninnocent person only for the purpose of enriching themselves of the fortunes
\nbrought by the deceased, who unaware of their diabolical scheme got lured into
\ntheir company for a safe travel to his destination, deserves to be dealt with iron
\nhand and the imposition of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence of
\nrobbery under Section 392, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence
\nof murder under Section 302, IPC cannot be considered to be either harsh or so
\ngrossly disproportionate as to shock the conscience of this court.  The appeals
\nfail and shall stand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t      [R.P. Sethi]<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t..J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t      [Doraiswamy Raju]
\nApril 24, 2002.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ezhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002 Author: Raju Bench: R.P. Sethi, Doraiswamy Raju CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1268-1270 of 1999 PETITIONER: EZHIL & ORS. APPELLANTS Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU RESPONDENT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/2002 BENCH: R.P. Sethi & Doraiswamy Raju JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nEzhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ezhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-01T07:14:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ezhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-01T07:14:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":4730,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002\",\"name\":\"Ezhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-01T07:14:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ezhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ezhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ezhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-01T07:14:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ezhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-01T07:14:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002"},"wordCount":4730,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002","name":"Ezhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-01T07:14:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ezhil-ors-appellants-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-respondent-on-24-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ezhil & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Tamil Nadu Respondent on 24 April, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179997","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=179997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179997\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}