{"id":203110,"date":"2008-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008"},"modified":"2017-02-17T06:03:43","modified_gmt":"2017-02-17T00:33:43","slug":"ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ponusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ponusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  429 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nPonusamy\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Tamil Nadu\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/04\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\nREPORTABLE<\/p>\n
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2006<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd June,
\n2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras
\nin Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 1998 whereby and whereunder an appeal
\nfrom a judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Ist Additional
\nDistrict Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode dated 12th October,
\n1998 in S.C. No. 93 of 1998 convicting  the appellant herein for commission
\nof an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as also under
\nSection 201 thereof and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment
\nfor life and two years respectively, was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tDeceased Selvi was the wife of the appellant.  She was earlier married
\nto one Easwaran, PW-9.  Allegedly Easwaran had married one Balamani and
\nafter divorcing her, he married the deceased.  He, however, continued to
\nhave relations with Balamani.  He purported to have divorced Balamani by a
\nletter.  The deceased was living with her mother Ramathal, PW-1.  Appellant
\nthereafter married the deceased.  He had been informed, about the fact of the
\nearlier marriage of the deceased.  He agreed to the proposal of marriage but
\nwanted two acres of land.  A Deed of Gift in favour of the deceased was
\nexecuted by her father.  Appellant wanted the same to be registered in his
\nname.  His request was not acceded to.   He left the house of PW-1 after
\nthree days of marriage.  A year thereafter, he intended to live with the
\ndeceased and approached Thangavel, PW-2, therefor.  As the deceased also
\nagreed to the said proposal, they left the house of PW-1 on 5th March, 1997.
\nShe was not seen thereafter.  Allegedly in the morning of 10th March, 1997,
\nthe appellant met PW-2 and informed him that the deceased had gone away
\nfrom his house on that date.  A search for her was carried out.  On the next
\ndate, the appellant was seen at the Sevoor bus stop.  Kannan Naicker, PW-10
\nwas also present there.  He asked the appellant and questioned the
\ndeceased’s whereabouts, in response whereto he allegedly disclosed that he
\nhad murdered her on 9th March, 1997.  PW-10 allegedly became panicky.
\nHe became sick.  He then requested Arunachalam @ Mani, PW-11, to take
\nhim to a doctor.  When they returned from the doctor’s clinic, they found the
\nappellant in the office of the Village Administrative Officer, PW-18.  He
\npurported to have made a confession again before PW-18 that he had
\nmurdered Selvi before PW-18.  He also had a packer of paper in his hand.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tPW-10 then requested PW-11 to inform PW-2 about the matter.  On
\nreceiving the said information an attempt was made to lodge a First
\nInformation Report at Sathyamangalam police station.  The First
\nInformation Report was refused to be registered thereat in the absence of any
\ndead body or any other evidence with regard to the murder.  A search was
\nconducted for the dead body.  On the bank of L.B.P. canal dead body was
\nfound on 14th March, 1997 which fell within the jurisdiction of Kadathur
\npolice station.  A complaint was made before Ramasamy, Inspector of
\nPolice, PW-13, at 10.30 a.m. on the same day, whereupon a First
\nInformation Report was registered under Section 302 and Section 201 of the
\nIndian Penal Code.  Investigation was taken up by PW-22, the Deputy
\nSuperintendent of Police of Gobichettipalayam.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tPW-1 identified the dead body on the basis of a talisman, which was
\nfound on her hand, as also on identification of her saree.  A key was found
\ntagged in the saree.  The key was removed.  On a query enquiry made by
\nPW-22, in regard to the lock for which the key was used, it was stated that
\nthe lock was fitted to a trunk.  The trunk was brought.  The key was fitted in
\nthe lock of the trunk.  It was opened with the said key.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tAn inquest was conducted.  The dead body was also subjected to
\npostmortem examination.  In the said report it was stated :-\n<\/p>\n
“Highly decomposed with maggots all over the body.
\nTeeth 1\/3 nose, eye, mouth absent.  Thorax : No fracture
\nribs.  Heart : Partially decomposed.  Lungs :\n<\/p>\n
Decomposed.  Hyoid Bone : Intact.  Stomach, Liver,
\nSpleen and Kideny : Partially liquefied with greenish
\ndiscolouration.  Intestine, Bladder and Uterus : Partially
\ndecomposed.  Head : No fracture skull.  Brain :
\nCompletely liquefied.”\n<\/p>\n
6.\tPW-18, the Village Administrative Officer, in the meantime took the
\nappellant to the Tahsildar, PW-19.  Not only he confessed that he had
\nmurdered his wife and thrrown the dead-body in the canal but also produced
\na ‘thali chain’ , M.O. 1 and ear rings, M.O.2 belonging to the deceased.
\nConfessional statement of the appellant was reduced into writing.  He was
\nthereafter produced before the Judicial Magistrate.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tAdmittedly, there was no eye witness to the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThe entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.  The
\nLearned Sessions Judge in his judgment found the following circumstances
\nto arrive at his conclusion with regard to the guilt of the appellant. :-\n<\/p>\n
1)\tDeceased was last seen in his company on 5th March,
\n1997.\n<\/p>\n
2)\tShe was not seen in anybody else’s company between 5th
\nMarch, 1997 and 10th March, 1997.\n<\/p>\n
3)\tAppellant made an extra judicial confession not only
\nbefore PW-2 but also before PWs. 10 & 18.\n<\/p>\n
4)\tOn the basis of his confession that the dead body had
\nbeen thrown in L.B.P. canal a search for the dead body
\nwas made and recovered.\n<\/p>\n
5)\tDead body was that of a female.  It was identified to be
\nthat of the deceased with reference to the manglasutra
\nand some other jewellery which were found on her
\nperson.  Photograph of the deceased  was superimposed
\non the photograph of the dead-body and it was found to
\nbe that of her.\n<\/p>\n
6)\tAppellant produced the belongings of the deceased
\nbefore the Village Administrative Officer, PW-18,
\nwhich admittedly belonged to her.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed
\nby the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tMr. A.T.M. Rangaramanajam, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the appellant, in support of the appeal would submit :-\n<\/p>\n
1)\tIt was improbable that the appellant had confessed his guilt
\nbefore PW-2.\n<\/p>\n
2)\tThe purported extra judicial confession by the appellant before
\nPW-10 should not be relied upon, having regard to the latter’s
\nconduct, inasmuch, he did not report thereabout to the police on
\nthe pretext of his becoming sick in respect of which no material
\nwas brought on record.\n<\/p>\n
2)\tPost-mortem report clearly established that the body recovered
\nwas in a highly decomposed stage which was, thus, not in a
\nposition to be identified, and, in that view of the matter, the
\ncorpus delicti having not been proved, the impugned judgment
\ncannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
4)\tNo fracture having been found on hyoid bone, it is evident that
\nthe deceased did not die of strangulation which was the positive
\ncase of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
5)\tNo explanation having been furnished for the delay in lodging
\nthe First Information Report, the entire prosecution case is
\nsuspicious.\n<\/p>\n
67)\tConduct of the prosecution witnesses and in particular that of
\nPW-1, PW-2 and PW-10 is such, that would lead to the
\nconclusion that they are not trustworthy witnesses.\n<\/p>\n
7)\tExtra judicial confession, in any event, being a weak evidence,
\nit was obligatory on the part of the prosecution to lead
\nevidence corroborating thereto.\n<\/p>\n
8)\tExtra judicial confession in any event being contrary to or
\ninconsistent with the medical report, it would not be safe to rely
\nthereupon.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tMr. R. Shunmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the State, on the other hand urged :-\n<\/p>\n
1)\tThe dead body having been identified with reference to
\nmanglasutra, key and saree, the courts below rightly held that
\nthe dead-body was that of the deceased ‘Selvi’.\n<\/p>\n
2)\tThe jewellery items which were handed over by the appellant
\nhimself in a packet, were identified by PW-1 when she was
\nafforded an opportunity to do so.\n<\/p>\n
3)\tIt is not correct to contend that PW-10, despite extra judicial
\nconfession made before him, did not take any step in that behalf
\nas he had immediately sent PW-11, Mani, to inform PW-2
\nthereabout.  It is thereafter only, that they went to the police
\nstation.\n<\/p>\n
4)\tSufficient explanation had been offered by PW-1, in regard to
\nthe delay in lodging of the First Information Report, having
\nregard to the fact that Sathyamangalam police station had
\nrefused to record the First Information Report in the absence of
\nthe dead body and\/or any other record.  A First Information
\nReport was lodged only after the dead body was seen and
\nidentified with reference to the talisman, M.O.4;  key, M.O. 5
\nand the silver ring which was found on her toe.\n<\/p>\n
5)\tThiru Devarajan, who examined himself as PW-22, and was
\nworking as Deputy Superintendent of Police, was a witness to
\nthe identification of the dead-body to be that of Selvi from the
\nninji, “dayath” tied on the hand and from the key tied to the end
\nof the saree.  Only at his instance, the trunk was brought and the
\nlock opened with the key.\n<\/p>\n
6)\tRequisition, Ext.P.3, was made by the Superintendent of the
\npolice for chemical test and the Chemical Text Report, Ext.P.5
\ncategorically established the identity of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
7)\tAbsence of fracture on the hyoid bone itself would not lead to
\nthe conclusion that the deceased did not die of strangulation as
\nmedical jurisprudence suggests that only in a fraction of such
\ncases, a fracture of hyoid bone is found.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tThe relationship of the appellant with that of the deceased is not in
\ndispute.  That they were married and immediately thereafter started living in
\nthe house of P-1 is also not denied or disputed.  It further stands established
\nthat PW-2 is the husband of Rukmani, another daughter of PW-1.  It has also
\nnot been disputed that the deceased was earlier married to Easwaran, PW-9.
\nThe prosecution has also brought on record a Deed of Gift dated 25th
\nJanuary, 1996 executed by the husband of PW-1 in favour of the deceased.
\nThere is also no serious dispute that the appellant did not maintain any
\nrelationship with the deceased for about a year.  They were last seen together
\non 5th March, 1997, when they travelled together from the house of PW-1.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tVoluntary statement made by the appellant to PW-2 on 10th March,
\n1997 that she had been missing was found by both the courts below to be
\nuntrue.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIndisputably, some delay took place in lodging the First Information
\nReport.  Till 11th March, 1997 PW-1 or for that matter PW-2, was not sure
\nabout the death of the deceased.  Only when an extra judicial confession was
\nmade by the appellant, an attempt was made to lodge a First Information
\nReport.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe contention of the learned counsel  that the statement to the said
\neffect, purported to have been made,  by PW-1 should not be relied upon as
\nno officer from the police station had been examined to establish the said
\nfact, cannot be accepted for more than one reason.  PW1 is a rustic villager.
\nShe is an illiterate lady.  According to her, she had been turned away from
\nthe police station on the premise that no dead body was recovered or there
\nbeing no other evidence relating to her death.  No exception to such a
\nstatement can be taken.  The courts cannot be oblivious of such conduct on
\nthe part of the police officers. Apathy on the part of the police officers to
\naccept complaints promptly is well known phenomena.\n<\/p>\n
They were searching for the deceased earlier but without success.
\nOnly on the disclosure statement made by the appellant before PW-10 and
\nthe police officer at Sathyamangalam police station having refused to record
\nthe First Information Report, they started searching for the body on the bank
\nof the canal.  The Investigating Officer, Village Administrative officer as
\nalso other prosecution witnesses , clearly proved the discovery of a dead
\nbody.  Identification of the dead body on the basis of the manglasutra, saree
\nas also the sliver ring on the toe of the deceased is not in dispute.
\nSignificantly, a key was also recovered.  PW-22, a responsible officer, with
\na view to satisfy himself as regards the identity of the dead body, with
\nreference to the key tied at the end of the saree, asked PW-2 to bring the
\ntrunk and found it to be of the lock put on the said trunk.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tAttempts on the part of the prosecution to establish identity of the
\ndead body to be that of the deceased did not stop there.  It was sent for
\nopinion of a Chemical Examiner.  It was opined :-\n<\/p>\n
”\tDuring superimposition, the following
\nobservations were made :-\n<\/p>\n
a)\tThe anthroposcopic land mark on the fact in item 1
\nand those on the skull item 2 fitted fairly well.\n<\/p>\n
b)\tThe outline of the face in item 1 and the outline of
\nskull item 2 were found to be in fair congruence.\n<\/p>\n
OPINION<\/p>\n
The skull item 2 could very well have belonged to
\nthe female individual seen in photograph item 1.”\n<\/p>\n
The said report has been proved.  Its’ veracity is not disputed before
\nus.  We do not find any cogent reason to doubt its correctness thereof.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tAppellant is said to have thrown the dead-body in the canal.  The fact
\nthat there was sufficient water in the canal has also been established.   In a
\nsituation of this nature, a presumption about the knowledge of the appellant
\nin regard to location of the dead body of ‘Selvi’ can be drawn.   His
\nconfession led to a discovery of fact which had a nexus with commission of
\na crime.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tThis Court in State of Mahasrashtra  vs.  Suresh<\/a> : (2000) 1 SCC 471
\nopined :-\n<\/p>\n
“26. We too countenance three possibilities when an
\naccused points out the place where a dead body or an
\nincriminating material was concealed without stating that
\nit was conceded by himself. One is that he himself would
\nhave concealed it. Second is that he would have seen
\nsomebody else concealing it. And the third is that he
\nwould have been told by another person that it was
\nconcealed there. But if the accused declines to tell the
\ncriminal court that his knowledge about the concealment
\nwas on account of one of the last two possibilities the
\ncriminal court can presume that it was concealed by the
\naccused himself. This is because accused is the only
\nperson who can offer the explanation as to how else he
\ncame to know of such concealment and if he chooses to
\nrefrain from telling the court as to how else he came to
\nknow of it, the presumption is a well justified course to
\nbe adopted by the criminal court that the concealment
\nwas made by himself. Such an interpretation is not
\ninconsistent with the principle embodied in Section 27 of
\nthe Evidence Act.\n<\/p>\n
18.\tWe have to consider the factual background of the present case in the
\nlight of the relationship between the parties.  If his wife was found missing,
\nordinarily, the husband would search for he.  If she has died in an unnatural
\nsituation when she was in his company, he is expected to offer an
\nexplanation therefor.  Lack of such explanation on the part of the appellant
\nitself would be a circumstantial evidence against him.\n<\/p>\n
19.\tIn Trimukh Maroti Kirkan  vs.  State of Maharashtra<\/a> : (2006) 10 SCC
\n681, it was observed :-\n<\/p>\n
“22.  Where an accused is alleged to have committed the
\nmurder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in
\nleading evidence to show that shortly before the
\ncommission of crime they were seen together or the
\noffence takes placed in the dwelling home where the
\nhusband also normally resided, it has been consistently
\nheld that if the accused does not offer any explanation
\nhow the wife received injuries or offers an explanation
\nwhich is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance
\nwhich indicates that he is responsible for commission of
\nthe crime.\n<\/p>\n
[See also Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar  vs.  State of Bihar and another : 2007
\n(1) SCALE 19].\n<\/p>\n
20.\tIt is true that the autopsy surgeon, PW-17, did not find any fracture on
\nthe hyoid bone.  Existence of such a fracture lead to a conclusive proof of
\nstrangulation but absence thereof does not prove contra.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Taylor’s Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence,
\nThirteenth Edition, pages 307-308, it is stated :-\n<\/p>\n
”\t The hyoid bone is ‘U’ shaped and composed of
\nfive parts : the body, two greater and two lesser horns.  It
\nis relatively protected, lying at the root of the tongue
\nwhere the body is difficult to feel.  The greater horn,
\nwhich can be felt more easily, lies behind the front part
\nof the strip-muscles (sternomastoid), 3 cm below the
\nangle of the lower jaw and 1.5 cm from the midline.  The
\nbone ossifies from six centres, a pair for the body and
\none for each horn.  The greater horns are, in early life,
\nconnected to the body by cartilage but after middle life
\nthey are usually united by bone.  The lesser horns are
\nsituated close to the junction of the greater horns in the
\nbody.  They are connected to the body of the bone by
\nfibrous tissue and occasionally to the greater horns by
\nsynovial joints which usually persist throughout life but
\noccasionally become ankylosed.\n<\/p>\n
\tOur own findings suggest that although the
\nhardening of the bone is related to age there can be
\nconsiderable variation and elderly people sometimes
\nshow only slight ossification.\n<\/p>\n
\tFrom the above consideration of the anatomy it
\nwill be appreciated that while injuries to the body are
\nunlikely, a grip high up on the neck may readily produce
\nfractures of the greater horns.  Sometimes it would
\nappear that the local pressure from the thumb causes a
\nfracture on one side only.\n<\/p>\n
\tWhile the amount of force in manual strangulation
\nwould often appear to be greatly in excess of that
\nrequired to cause death, the application of such force, as
\nevidenced by  extensive external and soft tissue injuries,
\nmake it unusual to find fractures of the hyoid bone in a
\nperson under the age of 40 years.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs stated, even in older people in which
\nossification is incomplete, considerable violence may
\nleave this bone intact.  This view is confirmed by Green.
\nHe gives interesting figures : in 34 cases of manual
\nstrangulation the hyoid was fractured in 12 (35%) as
\ncompared with the classic paper of Gonzales who
\nreported four fractures in 24 cases.  The figures in
\nstrangulation by ligature show that the percentage of
\nhyoid fractures was 13.  Our own figures are similar to
\nthose of Green.”\n<\/p>\n
22.\tIn ‘Journal of Forensic Sciences’ Volume 41 under the Title
\nFracture of the Hyoid Bone in Strangulation : Comparison of Fractured and
\nUnfractured Hyoids from Victims of Strangulation, it is stated :-\n<\/p>\n
”\tThe hyoid is the U-shaped bone of the neck that is
\nfractured in one-third of all homicides by strangulation.
\nOn this basis, postmortem detection of hyoid fracture is
\nrelevant to the diagnosis of strangulation. However, since
\nmany cases lack a hyoid fracture, the absence of this
\nfinding does not exclude strangulation as a cause of
\ndeath. The reasons why some hyoids fracture and others
\ndo not may relate to the nature and magnitude of force
\napplied to the neck, age of the victim, nature of the
\ninstrument (ligature or hands) used to strangle, and
\nintrinsic anatomic features of the hyoid bone. We
\ncompared the case profiles and xeroradiographic
\nappearance of the hyoids of 20 victims of homicidal
\nstrangulation with and without hyoid fracture (n = 10,
\neach). The fractured hyoids occurred in older victims of
\nstrangulation (39 1 14 years) when compared to the
\nvictims with unfractured hyoids (30 1 10 years). The age-
\ndependency of hyoid fracture correlated with the degree
\nof ossification or fusion of the hyoid synchondroses. The
\nhyoid was fused in older victims of strangulation (41 1
\n12 years) whereas the unfused hyoids were found in the
\nyounger victims (28 1 10 years). In addition, the hyoid
\nbone was ossified or fused in 70% of all fractured hyoids,
\nbut, only 30% of the unfractured hyoids were fused. The
\nshape of the hyoid bone was also found to differentiate
\nfractured and unfractured hyoids. Fractured byoids were
\nlonger in the anterior-posterior plane and were more
\nsteeply sloping when compared with unfractured hyoids.
\nThese data indicate that hyoids of strangulation victims,
\nwith and without fracture, are distinguished by various
\nindices of shape and rigidity. On this basis, it may be
\npossible to explain why some victims of strangulation do
\nnot have fractured hyoid bones.”\n<\/p>\n
23.\tMr. Rangaramanajam, however, relied upon Modi’s ‘Medical
\nJurisprudence and Toxicology’, Twenty-Third Edition at page 584 wherein a
\ndifference between hanging and strangulation has been stated.  Our attention
\nin this connection has been drawn to point No.12 which reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
         Hanging
\n       Strangulation
\nFracture of the larynx and
\ntrachea  Very rare and that
\ntoo in judicial hanging.\n<\/p>\n
 Fracture of the larynx and
\ntrachea  Often found also
\nhyoid bone.\n<\/p>\n
24.\tA bare perusal of the opinion of the learned Author by itself does not
\nlead to the conclusion that fracture of hyoid bone, is a must in all the cases.\n<\/p>\n
25.\tWe must also take into consideration the fact that the dead-body was
\ndecomposed with maggots all over it.   Other marks of strangulation which
\ncould have been found were not to be found in this case.  The dead body was
\nfound after a few days.   We are, therefore, of the opinion that medical
\nevidence does not negate the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
26.\tThere cannot be any doubt that extra judicial confession is evidence of
\nweaks nature as has been held in Kuldip Singh and another  vs.  State of
\nPunjab : (2002) 6 SCC 757  <\/p>\n
However, it must also be noticed that therein, not only the confession
\nmade by the appellant was found to be unbelievable, even the recovery of
\nthe dead body, pursuant to the disclosure statement made, was also found to
\nbe so.  There was no other evidence on record on the basis of which the
\nconviction of the appellant could be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
In this case, however, not only an extra judicial confession was made
\nby the appellant before PW-10, the same was also made before PW-11.  The
\njewellery which had been put on by the deceased was produced by the
\nappellant.  Only upon the disclosure made by the appellant that the dead
\nbody had been thrown in the canal, a search was made and it was found.
\nThe dead body was also identified to be that of the deceased.\n<\/p>\n
27.\tIn Vinayak Shivajirao Pol  vs.  State of Mahasrashtra : (1998) 2 SCC
\n233 this Court opined :-\n<\/p>\n
“10. There is no ambiguity in the above statement. It
\nshows that the appellant killed his wife. Both the Courts
\nhave found that the statement was made voluntarily by
\nthe appellant. The sequence of events shows that at the
\ntime when the appellant made a confession, neither he
\nnor the military authorities had any knowledge of the
\nrecovery of the headless trunk of the appellant’s wife.
\nThe military authorities were in no way biased or
\ninimical to the appellant. Nothing is brought out in the
\nevidence in respect of the military officers which may
\nindicate that they had a motive for attributing an
\nuntruthful statement to the appellant. The statement has
\nbeen proved by one of the officers to whom it was made.
\nThe said officer has been examined as PW 32. A perusal
\nof the evidence shows that the vague plea raised by the
\nappellant that the statement was obtained from him on
\ninducement and promise is not true. In such
\ncircumstances it is open to the Court to rest its conclusion
\non the basis of such statement and no corroboration is
\nnecessary.”\n<\/p>\n
28.\tWe have been taken through the evidence of PW-10 and PW-18.   We
\nhave no reason to differ with the findings of the learned trial Judge as also
\nthe High Court that the extra judicial confession was voluntary or truthful.
\nWe, therefore, are of the opinion that no case has been made out for
\ninterference with the impugned judgment.  The appeal fails and is dismissed
\naccordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ponusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 429 of 2006 PETITIONER: Ponusamy RESPONDENT: State of Tamil Nadu DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/04\/2008 BENCH: S.B. SINHA & HARJIT SINGH BEDI JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/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-203110","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPonusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008 - 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\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ponusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-17T00:33:43+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ponusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-17T00:33:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3964,\"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\\\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Ponusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-17T00:33:43+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ponusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"Ponusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008 - 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\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ponusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-17T00:33:43+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ponusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-17T00:33:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008"},"wordCount":3964,"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\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008","name":"Ponusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-17T00:33:43+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ponusamy-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-10-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ponusamy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 April, 2008"}]},{"@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\/203110","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=203110"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203110\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}