{"id":48721,"date":"2011-04-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-04-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011"},"modified":"2018-04-30T09:59:36","modified_gmt":"2018-04-30T04:29:36","slug":"inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011","title":{"rendered":"Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David on 20 April, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David on 20 April, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: . M Sharma<\/div>\n
Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Mukundakam Sharma<\/div>\n
                                                                      REPORTABLE\n\n\n                IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  384 OF 2002\n\n\n\n\n\nInspector of Police, Tamil Nadu                                .... Appellant\n\n\n\n\n                                  Versus\n\n\n\nJohn David                                                    ...Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated <\/p>\n
05.10.2001   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Madras   whereby   the <\/p>\n
High   Court   has   allowed   the   appeal   filed   by   the   respondent <\/p>\n
herein.   The   High   Court   acquitted   the   respondent   under <\/p>\n
Sections 302, 364, 201 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 <\/p>\n
(for   short   “IPC”)   by   reversing   the   Judgment   and   order   dated <\/p>\n
11.03.1988 rendered by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, <\/p>\n
Cuddalore in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
                                     1<\/span><\/p>\n
2.The facts of this case are very shocking and very distressing.\n<\/p>\n
Murder   is   committed   of   a   young   boy,   the   only   son   of   his <\/p>\n
parents,   who   at   the   relevant   time   was   studying   for   a   medical <\/p>\n
degree. The manner in which he was killed and his dead body <\/p>\n
was   disposed   of   after   cutting   it   into   different   pieces   was   very <\/p>\n
gruesome   and   ghastly.   The   person   in   the   dock   and   who   was <\/p>\n
accused   of   the   crime   was   another   senior   student   in   the   same <\/p>\n
campus.\n<\/p>\n
3.Brief   relevant   facts   leading   to   the   registration   of   the   first <\/p>\n
information   report   and   giving   rise   to   the   present   appeal   are <\/p>\n
being set out hereunder.\n<\/p>\n
4.In the academic year of 1995-96 the respondent-accused was <\/p>\n
studying   in   the   senior   first   year   course   of   MBBS   and   the <\/p>\n
deceased-Navarasu,   son   of   Dr.   P.K.   Ponnusamy   [PW-1],   a <\/p>\n
retired   Vice-Chancellor   of   Madras   University,   was   studying   in <\/p>\n
the  junior  first  year  course  of MBBS  in  Raja  Muthiah  Medical <\/p>\n
College,   Annamalai   University,   Annamalai   Nagar.   The <\/p>\n
respondent was staying in room no. 319 of KRM hostel and the <\/p>\n
deceased   was   staying   in   room   no.   95   in   E.1   Malligai   Hostel <\/p>\n
belonging to the same medical college campus. PW-1 returned <\/p>\n
from   his   foreign   trip   on   07.11.1996   and   was   waiting   for   the <\/p>\n
                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
arrival   of   his   son-Navarasu   from   college   to   celebrate   Diwali <\/p>\n
which   in   that   relevant   year   fell   on   10.11.96.   When   Navarasu <\/p>\n
did   not   return   home   till   09.11.1996,   PW-1   started   enquiring <\/p>\n
from   the   friends   of   his   son,   available   at   Madras   but   no <\/p>\n
information of his whereabouts could be gathered by the father.\n<\/p>\n
PW-1 then on 09.11.1996 rang up the university authorities to <\/p>\n
find   out   and   ascertain   the   whereabouts   of   his   son.   When   he <\/p>\n
was informed that the college authority found his hostel  room <\/p>\n
locked   and   when   it   was   broken   upon,   it   was   found   that   his <\/p>\n
belongings along with a small box were lying in the room but he <\/p>\n
was not available in the room. The college authorities and the <\/p>\n
father were of the opinion that Navarasu had not left for Diwali <\/p>\n
to   Madras.   PW-1   thereafter   rushed   to   the   University   on <\/p>\n
10.11.96 and made a complaint of missing of his son at about <\/p>\n
11.30 p.m. on 10.11.96 which was registered as Crime No. 509 <\/p>\n
of 1996 [Exhibit-P1].\n<\/p>\n
5.While  this  process  was  going  on  and  without  the   knowledge <\/p>\n
of Annamalai Nagar Police, a torso was recovered at about 8.30 <\/p>\n
a.m.   on   07.11.1996   by   G.   Boopahty,   Inspector   of   Police,   E.5 <\/p>\n
Pattinapakkam   [PW-55],   from   the   PTC   Bus   Depot   at <\/p>\n
Mandaiveli, Madras based on the information given by Prakash <\/p>\n
                                      3<\/span><\/p>\n
[PW-53],   conductor   of   the   bus   route   NO.   21G.   The   said <\/p>\n
recovered   torso   was   sent   for   post-mortem   after   inquest.   The <\/p>\n
Annamalai   Nagar   Police   after   registering   the   missing   report <\/p>\n
started   investigation   and   during   the   course   of   such <\/p>\n
investigation   gathered   materials   and   also   received  information <\/p>\n
from various persons including students of the college pointing <\/p>\n
the guilt towards the accused, who was also found absconding <\/p>\n
from the college premises from 12-14.11.1996. On 14.11.1996 <\/p>\n
the accused surrendered himself before the Judicial Magistrate, <\/p>\n
Mannargudi. The message of his surrender was conveyed to the <\/p>\n
Annamalai Nagar PS, which got the police custody for five days <\/p>\n
of the accused from 18.11.1996. On 19.11.1996 at about 1.30 <\/p>\n
a.m. the accused gave a confessional statement stating that he <\/p>\n
has   put   the   severed   head   of   the   deceased   in   the   boat-canal <\/p>\n
within the University campus. Pursuant to the said confession, <\/p>\n
the   head   was   also   recovered.   Annamalai   Nagar   PS   on <\/p>\n
20.11.1996   asked   E5.   Pattinapakkam   PS   for   sending   the <\/p>\n
records   connected   with   the   torso   recovered   at   Madras   on   the <\/p>\n
suspicion   that   it   may   belong   to   the   severed   head   of   the <\/p>\n
deceased-Navarasu, which was recovered at the instance of the <\/p>\n
accused.   Dr.   K.   Ravindran   [PW-66]   conducted   autopsy\/post-\n<\/p>\n
mortem   of   the   head   at   10.00   am   on   21.11.1996.   On <\/p>\n
                                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
22.11.1996   a   message   was   received   from   Villupuram   Control <\/p>\n
Room   which   was   forwarded   to   Annamalai   Nagar   PS   which <\/p>\n
mentioned   that   three   human   bones   femur,   tibia   and   fibula <\/p>\n
have been recovered at 1.30 a.m. on 21.11.1996 from the sea-\n<\/p>\n
shore   of   Konimedu   of   Merkanam   based   on   the   information <\/p>\n
given by the concerned Village Administrative Officer-Nagarajan <\/p>\n
[PW-43].   Post   mortem   of   the   limbs   were   conducted   by   Dr. <\/p>\n
Srinivasan [PW-45] and later limbs were sent to PW-66. PW-66 <\/p>\n
after   examining   the   severed  head,   the   torso   and   three   human <\/p>\n
bones   above   mentioned,   found   that   there   are   scientific <\/p>\n
materials   to   hold   that   they   belong   to   a   single   individual   and <\/p>\n
also the fact that they belong to deceased-Navasaru. The father <\/p>\n
of the deceased PW-1 and Thandeeswaran [PW-60], nephew of <\/p>\n
PW-1, also identified and confirmed that the head and torso are <\/p>\n
of the deceased. For confirming the said fact, the sample blood <\/p>\n
of   PW-1   and   his   wife   Baby   Ponnusamy   [mother   of   Navasaru] <\/p>\n
was  examined  by  Dr.  G.V.   Rao  [PW-77]   at  Hyderabad   by   DNA <\/p>\n
test. PW-77 compared the tissues taken from the severed head, <\/p>\n
torso   and   limbs   and   on   scientific   analysis   he   found   that   the <\/p>\n
same   gene   found   in   the   blood   of   PW-1   and   Baby   Ponnusamy <\/p>\n
were   found   in   the   recovered   parts   of   the   body   and   that <\/p>\n
therefore they should belong to the only missing son of PW-1.\n<\/p>\n
                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
6.The prosecution’s version of facts leading to the present case <\/p>\n
are   that   on   06.11.1996   at   about   2.00   p.m.   the   accused-John <\/p>\n
David   [first   year   senior   medical   student   of   Muthiah   Medical <\/p>\n
College,  Annamalai  Nagar]   took   away  Navarasu-deceased [first <\/p>\n
year   junior   medical   student   of   Muthiah   Medical   College, <\/p>\n
Annamalai Nagar] and subjected him to severe ragging in Room <\/p>\n
No.   319   of   KRM   Hostel   of   the   college   and   when   the   latter   did <\/p>\n
not   subjugate   himself   to   the   accused,   accused   caused   head <\/p>\n
injury to the deceased and when Navarasu-deceased was lying <\/p>\n
on the ground unconscious, the accused severed his head and <\/p>\n
limbs   with   the   help   of   stainless   steel   knives   and   removed   his <\/p>\n
gold   ring,   watch   and   gold   chain   and   caused   his   death.   After <\/p>\n
doing   such  gruesome   act  and   with   the   intention   of  hiding  the <\/p>\n
evidence   and   also   to   show   his   alibi   he   put   the   head   and   the <\/p>\n
gold   articles   of   Navarasu-deceased   in   a   zip   bag   and   threw   it <\/p>\n
into   canal   water   near   the   hostel   and   burnt   the   bloodstained <\/p>\n
clothes   of   the   deceased   in   the   open   terrace   of   the   hostel <\/p>\n
building and took the torso in a suitcase along with the limbs <\/p>\n
in   a   train   to   Madras   and   threw   the   limbs   in  a  river   when   the <\/p>\n
train   crossed   Cuddalore   and   put   the   torso   in   a   bus   at <\/p>\n
Tambaram.\n<\/p>\n
                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
7.On completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge <\/p>\n
sheet   against   the   respondent.   On   the   basis   of   the   aforesaid <\/p>\n
charge   sheet,   charges   were   framed   against   the   accused-\n<\/p>\n
respondent.   The   prosecution   in   order   to   establish   the   guilt   of <\/p>\n
the   accused   examined   several   witnesses   and   exhibited   a <\/p>\n
number   of   documents   including   scientific   reports.   Thereafter, <\/p>\n
the   accused   was   examined   under   Section   313   Cr.P.C.   for   the <\/p>\n
purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances existing <\/p>\n
against him. After hearing arguments advanced by the parties, <\/p>\n
the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore by its judgment dated <\/p>\n
11.03.1998   convicted   the   accused.  Principal   Sessions   Judge, <\/p>\n
Cuddalore found that there are enough circumstantial evidence <\/p>\n
and   motive   on   the   part   of   the   accused   for   committing   such   a <\/p>\n
crime   and   held   the   accused\/respondent   guilty   under   Sections <\/p>\n
302, 201, 364 and 342 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to <\/p>\n
undergo imprisonment for life under sections 302 and 364 IPC, <\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 342 IPC, and <\/p>\n
rigorous   imprisonment   for   seven   years   and   to   pay   a   fine   of <\/p>\n
rupees   one   lakh   and   in   default   to   undergo   rigorous <\/p>\n
imprisonment for twenty one months under Section 201 IPC. It <\/p>\n
was also ordered that the sentences would run consecutively.\n<\/p>\n
                                       7<\/span><\/p>\n
8.Aggrieved  by  the aforesaid  judgment  and order of conviction <\/p>\n
passed   by   the   trial   Court,   the   respondent   herein   preferred   an <\/p>\n
appeal before the High Court.   The High Court entertained the <\/p>\n
said   appeal   and   heard   the   counsel   appearing   for   the   parties.\n<\/p>\n
On conclusion of the arguments, the High Court held that the <\/p>\n
prosecution   has   failed   to   prove   the   guilt   of   the   accused   and <\/p>\n
accordingly the High Court acquitted the respondent of all the <\/p>\n
charges   vide   its   judgment   and   order   dated   05.10.2001   by <\/p>\n
reversing   and   setting   aside   the   order   of   conviction   passed <\/p>\n
against the respondent under Sections 302, 201, 364 and 342 <\/p>\n
IPC.\n<\/p>\n
9.We   may   now   at   this   stage   refer   to   the   arguments   of   the <\/p>\n
counsel   of   the   parties   in   order   to   understand   the   scope   and <\/p>\n
ambit   of   the   appeal   and   also   to   appreciate   the   contentions   so <\/p>\n
as   to   enable   us   to   arrive   at   a   well-considered   findings   and <\/p>\n
conclusions.\n<\/p>\n
10.Mr. S. Thananjayan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of <\/p>\n
the State emphatically argued before us that the decision of the <\/p>\n
High   Court   of   acquitting   the   accused   person   is   totally <\/p>\n
erroneous   and   suffers   from   serious   infirmities.   He   also <\/p>\n
submitted that the prosecution has proved the case to the hilt <\/p>\n
                                       8<\/span><\/p>\n
and that a compete and well-connected chain of circumstantial <\/p>\n
evidences   have   been   established   to   prove   the   guilt   of   the <\/p>\n
accused.   He   also   submitted   that   the   prosecution   has <\/p>\n
established   the   case   against   the   accused   beyond   reasonable <\/p>\n
doubt.  It was also submitted that the motive of the accused to <\/p>\n
cause  bodily  injury   to  the   deceased has   also  been  proved  and <\/p>\n
that   the   evidence   on   record   clearly   establish   that   on <\/p>\n
06.11.1996   the   deceased   was   in   the   company   of   the   accused <\/p>\n
and that thereafter, deceased could not be found and that the <\/p>\n
confessional statement of the accused leading to the discovery <\/p>\n
of head of the deceased in the canal is a clinching circumstance <\/p>\n
to connect the accused with the offence. He also contended and <\/p>\n
relied   upon   the   fact   that   the   accused   absconded   from   the <\/p>\n
hostel   for   several   days   and   thereafter   surrendered   before   the <\/p>\n
Court  which  would  serve  as an additional link in  the chain of <\/p>\n
circumstances   to   prove   the   charges   levelled   against   him.   He <\/p>\n
also submitted that the High Court was not justified in setting <\/p>\n
aside   the   order   of   conviction,   for   what   the   High   Court   had <\/p>\n
found proved was only a plausible or possible view and version, <\/p>\n
which   did   not   find   favour   with   the   trial   Court.     He   also <\/p>\n
submitted that the High Court was not justified in disbelieving <\/p>\n
the   recording   of   confession   merely   because   of   the   omission   to <\/p>\n
                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
mention the same in the case diary.  It was also submitted that <\/p>\n
the   High   Court   was   not   justified   in   disbelieving   the   recovery <\/p>\n
merely because there was contradiction with regard to timing of <\/p>\n
recovery.        He   further   submitted   that   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
erroneously   disbelieved   the   case   of   the   prosecution   that   the <\/p>\n
torso could be carried in MO-13 – Suit Case which is 21 inches <\/p>\n
as according to Exhibit   P52 mahazar – the length of MO-13 is <\/p>\n
21   inches   and   diameter   is   24   inches   and   therefore,   the   torso <\/p>\n
could not have been parceled in the suit case MO-13.   He also <\/p>\n
took   us   through   the   evidence   on   record   in   support   of   his <\/p>\n
contention   that   the   High   Court   committed   an   error   in <\/p>\n
acquitting   the   respondent   solely   on   the   ground   that   it   is <\/p>\n
hazardous to convict the accused on the basis of the evidence <\/p>\n
placed   by   the   prosecution.   He   submitted   that   in   the   present <\/p>\n
case   all   the   witnesses   produced   are   of   respectable   status   and <\/p>\n
are   independent   witnesses   and   they   do   not   have   any   axe   to <\/p>\n
grind   against   the   accused   and,   therefore,   the   High   Court <\/p>\n
committed an error in disbelieving the evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
11.On   the   other   hand,   Mr.   Sushil   Kumar,   learned   senior <\/p>\n
counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respondent-accused   very <\/p>\n
painstakingly drew our attention to various aspects of the case, <\/p>\n
                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
which   according   to   him   demolish   the   very   substratum   of   the <\/p>\n
prosecution   case.   He   also   heavily   relied   upon   the   fact,   by <\/p>\n
making   submission,   that   there   are   no   eye-witnesses   and   no <\/p>\n
direct   evidence   regarding   commission   of   the   crime   by   the <\/p>\n
respondent.   He submitted that there are no materials to show <\/p>\n
that  the respondent  took  the deceased  to  room No. 319  [room <\/p>\n
of the accused] and killed him there. He further submitted that <\/p>\n
as no blood was recovered from the room No. 319 and that the <\/p>\n
two   roommates   of   the   respondent,   viz.,   Raja   Chidambaram <\/p>\n
[PW-37]   &   Shagir   Thabris   [PW-38]   have   not   stated   that   they <\/p>\n
smelled   any   blood   or   saw   any   blood   stains   in   the   room,   it <\/p>\n
definitely   belies   prosecution   case   that   murder   was   committed <\/p>\n
in   the   said   room   of   the   hostel.   Further   submission   was   that <\/p>\n
PWs 37 & 38 admitted that the three knives [i.e., MOSs 9 to 11] <\/p>\n
were   used   for   cutting   fruits   and   that   PW   37   further   admitted <\/p>\n
that during the time of interrogation police neither showed the <\/p>\n
articles   seized   from   the   room   of   accused   nor   asked   him   to <\/p>\n
identify   the   said   articles.   The   counsel   for   the   respondent <\/p>\n
further   submitted   that   there   is   no   evidence   to   prove   that   the <\/p>\n
accused proceeded to Madras on 06.11.1996 at 9.00 p.m. from <\/p>\n
Chidambaram railway station, albeit he submitted that accused <\/p>\n
took train at Chidambaram on 06.11.1996 at 9.00 p.m. bound <\/p>\n
                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
for Tiruchirapalli to go to his native place, Karur and returned <\/p>\n
from   Karur   on  8th  morning.   Counsel   stated   that   accused  took <\/p>\n
his briefcase [MO-13] along with him and that MO-14 belongs <\/p>\n
to Raja Chidambaram [PW-37] and after meeting his parents on <\/p>\n
7.11.96,   the   accused   returned   to   Chidambaram   hostel   on   the <\/p>\n
morning of 8.11.96 and he was in the hostel from 9-11.11.96.\n<\/p>\n
On   the   night   of   10.11.96   his   mother   and   his   cousin   brother <\/p>\n
had arrived at Chidambaram and stayed in Saradha Ram Hotel <\/p>\n
and   they   left   on   11.11.96   Noon.   Counsel   for   the   respondent <\/p>\n
further   submitted   that   the   non-examination   of   the   Vice-\n<\/p>\n
Chancellor   and   the   Dean   of   the   university   though   they   have <\/p>\n
been   cited   in   the   charge   sheet   as   witnesses   is   fatal   to   the <\/p>\n
prosecution case. Next submission was that the chain of events <\/p>\n
to   prove   the   guilt   of   the   accused   has   many   loopholes   in   it.\n<\/p>\n
Learned senior counsel for the respondent also submitted that <\/p>\n
the   High   Court   has   rightly   acquitted   the   accused   as <\/p>\n
circumstances   alleged   by   the   prosecution   have   not   been <\/p>\n
proved.     It  was   also   his   submission   that  this   being   an   appeal <\/p>\n
against acquittal, it is to be ascertained very carefully whether <\/p>\n
the view taken by the High Court is a plausible or possible view <\/p>\n
and that if the order of acquittal is one of the possible view, the <\/p>\n
same   deserves   deference   rather   than   interference   by   the <\/p>\n
                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
appellate   court.     He   also   submitted   that   the   trial   court   was <\/p>\n
wrong in holding the respondent guilty for evidence adduced by <\/p>\n
the prosecution  to prove that the deceased was last seen with <\/p>\n
the   accused   replete   with   inherent   improbabilities   and <\/p>\n
inconsistencies.\n<\/p>\n
LEGAL POSITION:-\n<\/p>\n
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL<\/p>\n
12.Before we enter into the merit of the case, we are required to <\/p>\n
deal with the contention of the counsel appearing on behalf of <\/p>\n
the   respondent   regarding   the   scope   and   ambit   of   an   APPEAL <\/p>\n
AGAINST   ACQUITTAL.     Various   decisions   of   this   Court   have <\/p>\n
dealt   with   the   issue   very   extensively.   Therefore,   it   would   be <\/p>\n
suffice, if we extract few decisions of this Court laying down the <\/p>\n
law in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
13.In the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Sajivan & Ors.<\/a> reported <\/p>\n
at  (2010) 1 SCC 529, one of us  (Bhandari, J.)  detailed the law <\/p>\n
in this regard as follows: –\n<\/p>\n
      “46. ……………..  This Court would  ordinarily be slow  <\/p>\n
      in   interfering   in   order   of   acquittal.   The   scope   of   the  <\/p>\n
      powers   of   the   appellate   court   in   an   appeal   is   well  <\/p>\n
      settled.   The   powers   of   the   appellate   court   in   an  <\/p>\n
      appeal   against   acquittal   are   no   less   than   in   an  <\/p>\n
      appeal against conviction.<\/p>\n
                                         13<\/span><\/p>\n
                  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n
                  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n
                  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n
In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka<\/a> this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
(SCC p.      432, para 42)<\/p>\n
     “(1) An appellate court has full power to review,  <\/p>\n
     reappreciate   and   reconsider  the   evidence  upon  <\/p>\n
     which the order of acquittal is founded.\n<\/p>\n
     (2)   The  Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   1973   puts  <\/p>\n
     no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise  <\/p>\n
     of   such   power   and   an   appellate   court   on   the  <\/p>\n
     evidence   before   it   may   reach   its   own  <\/p>\n
     conclusion,   both   on   questions   of   fact   and   of  <\/p>\n
     law.\n<\/p>\n
     (3)   Various   expressions,   such   as,   `substantial  <\/p>\n
     and   compelling   reasons’,   `good   and   sufficient  <\/p>\n
     grounds’, `very strong circumstances’, `distorted  <\/p>\n
     conclusions’,   `glaring   mistakes’,   etc.   are   not  <\/p>\n
     intended   to   curtail   extensive   powers   of   an  <\/p>\n
     appellate   court   in   an   appeal   against   acquittal.\n<\/p>\n
     Such   phraseologies   are   more   in   the   nature   of  <\/p>\n
     `flourishes   of   language’   to   emphasise   the  <\/p>\n
     reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with  <\/p>\n
     acquittal   than   to   curtail   the   power   of   the   court  <\/p>\n
     to   review   the   evidence   and   to   come   to   its   own  <\/p>\n
     conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
     (4)   An   appellate   court,   however,   must   bear   in  <\/p>\n
     mind   that   in   case   of   acquittal,   there   is   double  <\/p>\n
     presumption   in   favour   of   the   accused.   Firstly,  <\/p>\n
     the presumption of innocence is available to him  <\/p>\n
     under   the   fundamental   principle   of   criminal  <\/p>\n
     jurisprudence   that   every   person   shall   be  <\/p>\n
     presumed   to   be   innocent   unless   he   is   proved  <\/p>\n
     guilty   by   a   competent   court   of   law.   Secondly,  <\/p>\n
     the   accused   having   secured   his   acquittal,   the  <\/p>\n
     presumption   of   his   innocence   is   further  <\/p>\n
     reinforced,  reaffirmed and  strengthened  by the  <\/p>\n
     trial court.\n<\/p>\n
                                  14<\/span><\/p>\n
       (5)   If   two   reasonable   conclusions   are   possible  <\/p>\n
       on   the   basis   of   the   evidence   on   record,   the  <\/p>\n
       appellate court should not disturb the finding of  <\/p>\n
       acquittal recorded by the trial court.”\n<\/p>\n
                    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n
                    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n
                    xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<\/p>\n
In   Ghurey   Lal   v.   State   of   U.P.,<\/a>   one   of   us   (Bhandari,  <\/p>\n
J.) summarised the legal position as follows in paras  <\/p>\n
69 and 70: (SCC p.           477)<\/p>\n
       “69.   The   following   principles   emerge   from   the  <\/p>\n
       cases above:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              1.   The   appellate   court   may   review   the  <\/p>\n
              evidence   in   appeals   against   acquittal  <\/p>\n
              under   Sections   378   and   386   of   the  <\/p>\n
              Criminal  Procedure Code, 1973. Its  power  <\/p>\n
              of   reviewing   evidence   is   wide   and   the  <\/p>\n
              appellate court can reappreciate  the entire  <\/p>\n
              evidence on record. It  can  review the  trial  <\/p>\n
              court’s   conclusion   with   respect   to   both  <\/p>\n
              facts and law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
              2. The accused is presumed innocent until  <\/p>\n
              proven guilty. The accused possessed this  <\/p>\n
              presumption when he was  before the trial  <\/p>\n
              court.   The   trial   court’s   acquittal   bolsters  <\/p>\n
              the presumption that he is innocent.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
              3. Due or proper weight and consideration  <\/p>\n
              must be given to the trial  court’s decision.  <\/p>\n
              This   is   especially   true   when   a   witness’  <\/p>\n
              credibility   is  at  issue.   It  is   not  enough  for  <\/p>\n
              the  High Court to take  a different view of  <\/p>\n
              the   evidence.   There   must   also   be  <\/p>\n
              substantial   and   compelling   reasons   for  <\/p>\n
              holding that the trial court was wrong.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In a recently delivered judgment of this Court in State  <\/p>\n
of   U.P.   v.   Banne,<\/a>   one   of   us   (Bhandari,   J.)  <\/p>\n
summarised   the   entire   legal   position   and   observed  <\/p>\n
that this Court would be justified in interfering in the  <\/p>\n
judgment   of   the   High   Court   in   the   following  <\/p>\n
                                     15<\/span><\/p>\n
      circumstances   which   are   illustrative   and   not  <\/p>\n
      exhaustive: (SCC p. 286, para 28)<\/p>\n
             “(i) The High Court’s decision is based on totally  <\/p>\n
             erroneous   view   of   law   by   ignoring   the   settled  <\/p>\n
             legal position;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (ii) The High Court’s conclusions are contrary to  <\/p>\n
             evidence and documents on record;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (iii)   The   entire   approach   of   the   High   Court   in  <\/p>\n
             dealing   with   the   evidence   was   patently   illegal  <\/p>\n
             leading to grave miscarriage of justice;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (iv)   The   High   Court’s   judgment   is   manifestly  <\/p>\n
             unjust   and   unreasonable   based   on   erroneous  <\/p>\n
             law and facts on the record of the case;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (v)   This  Court   must   always   give   proper   weight  <\/p>\n
             and   consideration   to   the   findings   of   the   High  <\/p>\n
             Court;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             (vi)  This  Court  would   be   extremely   reluctant   in  <\/p>\n
             interfering with  a case when both the Sessions  <\/p>\n
             Court   and   the   High   Court   have   recorded   an  <\/p>\n
             order of acquittal.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      This   Court   would   be   justified   in   interfering   with   the  <\/p>\n
      judgment   of   acquittal   of   the   High   Court   only   when  <\/p>\n
      there are very substantial  and compelling reasons to  <\/p>\n
      discard the High Court decision. When we  apply the  <\/p>\n
      test   laid   down   by   this   Court   repeatedly   in   a   large  <\/p>\n
      number   of   cases,   the   irresistible   conclusion   is   that  <\/p>\n
      the   High   Court   in   the   impugned   judgment   has   not  <\/p>\n
      correctly followed the legal position.”\n<\/p>\n
14.In   another   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of  Sannaia <\/p>\n
Subba Rao & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. reported at 2008 (17) SCC <\/p>\n
225,   one   of  us,   has   referred   to   and   quoted   with   approval   the <\/p>\n
general   principles   while   dealing   with   an   appeal   against <\/p>\n
                                       16<\/span><\/p>\n
acquittal, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that; the appellate <\/p>\n
court   has   full   power   to   review,   relook   and   re-appreciate   the <\/p>\n
entire   evidence   based   on   which   the   order   of   acquittal   is <\/p>\n
founded; further it was also accepted that the Code of Criminal <\/p>\n
Procedure   puts   no   limitation   or   restriction   on   the   appellate <\/p>\n
court to reach its own conclusion based on the evidence before <\/p>\n
it.\n<\/p>\n
15.In   the   case   of  Sidhartha   Vashisht   alias   Manu   Sharma   v.\n<\/p>\n
State   (NCT   of   Delhi)  reported   at  (2010)   6   SCC   1  this   court <\/p>\n
held as follows: –\n<\/p>\n
       “27. The following principles have to be kept in mind
\n       by   the   appellate   court   while   dealing   with   appeals,
\n       particularly against an order of acquittal:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (i) There  is no  limitation   on  the  part  of  the  appellate
\n       court to review the evidence upon which the order of
\n       acquittal is founded.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (ii) The appellate court in an appeal against acquittal
\n       can   review  the   entire   evidence  and   come   to   its   own
\n       conclusions.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (iii)   The   appellate   court   can   also   review   the   trial
\n       court’s conclusion with respect to both facts and law.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (iv)   While   dealing   with   the   appeal   preferred   by   the
\n       State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal
\n       the   entire   evidence   on   record   and   by   giving   cogent
\n       and   adequate   reasons   set   aside   the   judgment   of
\n       acquittal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       (v) An order of acquittal  is to  be interfered with  only
\n       when there are “compelling and substantial reasons”
\n       for doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it
\n       is a compelling reason for interference.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                        17<\/span><\/p>\n
      (vi)   While   sitting   in   judgment   over   an   acquittal   the
\n      appellate  court is first required to seek an answer  to
\n      the   question   whether   findings   of   the   trial   court   are
\n      palpably           wrong,         manifestly         erroneous         or
\n      demonstrably   unsustainable.   If   the   appellate   court
\n      answers the above question in the negative the order
\n      of acquittal  is not to be disturbed.  Conversely, if  the
\n      appellate   court   holds,   for   reasons   to   be   recorded,
\n      that  the order of acquittal  cannot at all be sustained
\n      in   view   of   any   of   the   above   infirmities,   it   can
\n      reappraise   the   evidence   to   arrive   at   its   own
\n      conclusion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (vii) When the trial  court has ignored the evidence or
\n      misread   the   material   evidence   or   has   ignored
\n      material   documents   like   dying   declaration\/report   of
\n      ballistic experts, etc. the appellate court is competent
\n      to reverse the decision of the trial court depending on
\n      the materials placed.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.Therefore,   one   of   the   settled   position   of   law   as   to   how   the <\/p>\n
Court   should   deal   with   an   appeal   against   acquittal   is   that, <\/p>\n
while  dealing with such an appeal, the appellate Court has no <\/p>\n
restriction   to   review   and   relook   the   entire   evidence   on   which <\/p>\n
the order of acquittal is founded.  On such review, the appellate <\/p>\n
Court   would   consider   the   manner   in   which   the   evidence   was <\/p>\n
dealt with by the lower Court.       At the same time, if the lower <\/p>\n
Court’s   decision   is   based   on   erroneous   views   and   against   the <\/p>\n
settled position of law, then such an order of acquittal should <\/p>\n
be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
17.Another   settled   position   is   that,   if   the   trial   Court   has <\/p>\n
ignored material and relevant facts or misread such evidence or <\/p>\n
                                          18<\/span><\/p>\n
has  ignored   scientific   documents,  then  in  such a  scenario  the <\/p>\n
appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial <\/p>\n
court.\n<\/p>\n
18.Therefore keeping in mind the aforesaid broad principles of <\/p>\n
the   settled   position   of   law,   we   would   proceed   to   analyse   the <\/p>\n
evidence that is  adduced  and come  to the conclusion  whether <\/p>\n
the decision of the High Court should be upheld or reversed.\n<\/p>\n
CASE ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE<\/p>\n
19.The  principle  for   basing   a   conviction   on   the   edifice   of <\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence has also been indicated in a number of <\/p>\n
decisions of this Court and the law is well-settled that each and <\/p>\n
every   incriminating   circumstance   must   be   clearly   established <\/p>\n
by   reliable   and   clinching   evidence   and   the   circumstances   so <\/p>\n
proved   must   form   a   chain   of   events   from   which   the   only <\/p>\n
irresistible   conclusion   that   could   be   drawn   is   the   guilt   of   the <\/p>\n
accused   and   that   no   other   hypothesis   against   the   guilt   is <\/p>\n
possible. This Court has clearly sounded a note of caution that <\/p>\n
in a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there <\/p>\n
is   always   a   danger   that   conjecture   or   suspicion   may   take   the <\/p>\n
place   of  legal   proof.   The   Court   must   satisfy   itself   that   various <\/p>\n
                                       19<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances   in   the   chain   of   events   have   been   established <\/p>\n
clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to <\/p>\n
rule   out   a   reasonable   likelihood   of   the   innocence   of   the <\/p>\n
accused.   It   has   also   been   indicated   that   when   the   important <\/p>\n
link   goes,   the   chain   of   circumstances   gets   snapped   and   the <\/p>\n
other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt <\/p>\n
of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been held <\/p>\n
that   the   Court   has   to   be   watchful   and   avoid   the   danger   of <\/p>\n
allowing   the   suspicion   to   take   the   place   of   legal   proof.   It   has <\/p>\n
been   indicated   by   this   Court   that   there   is   a   long   mental <\/p>\n
distance between ‘may be true’ and ‘must be true’ and the same <\/p>\n
divides conjectures from sure conclusions.\n<\/p>\n
20.This   Court   in   the   case   of  State   of   U.P.   v.  Ram   Balak   & <\/p>\n
Anr.,<\/a> reported at (2008) 15 SCC 551 had dealt with the whole <\/p>\n
law relating to circumstantial evidence in the following terms: –\n<\/p>\n
       “11.       It   has   been   consistently   laid   down   by   this
\n       Court   that   where   a   case   rests   squarely   on
\n       circumstantial  evidence, the inference of guilt can be
\n       justified   only   when   all   the   incriminating   facts   and
\n       circumstances are  found to be incompatible with  the
\n       innocence   of   the   accused   or   the   guilt   of   any   other
\n       person.   (See   Hukam   Singh   v.   State   of   Rajasthan,
\n       Eradu<\/a>   v.   State   of   Hyderabad,   Earabhadrappa   v.  <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       State   of   Karnataka,   State   of   U.P.   v.   Sukhbasi,
\n       Balwinder   Singh   v.   State   of   Punjab   and   Ashok
\n       Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.) The circumstances
\n       from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused
\n       is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
\n       and   have   to   be   shown   to   be   closely   connected   with
\n       the   principal   fact   sought   to   be   inferred   from   those  <\/p>\n
                                        20<\/span><\/p>\n
circumstances.   In   Bhagat   Ram   v.   State   of   Punjab   it
\nwas   laid   down   that   where   the   case   depends   upon
\nthe   conclusion   drawn   from   circumstances   the
\ncumulative  effect of the  circumstances  must be such
\nas   to   negative   the   innocence   of   the   accused   and
\nbring   home   the   offences   beyond   any   reasonable
\ndoubt.\n<\/p>\n
We   may   also   make   a   reference   to  a   decision   of   this
\nCourt in C. Chenga Reddy v. State  of A.P. wherein it
\nhas been observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07, para 21)<\/p>\n
   `21.   In   a   case   based   on   circumstantial   evidence,  <\/p>\n
the settled law is that the circumstances from which  <\/p>\n
the   conclusion   of   guilt   is   drawn   should   be   fully  <\/p>\n
proved   and   such   circumstances   must   be   conclusive  <\/p>\n
in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be  <\/p>\n
complete and there should be no gap left in the chain  <\/p>\n
of evidence. Further,  the  proved circumstances  must  <\/p>\n
be consistent only with  the hypothesis of the guilt of  <\/p>\n
the   accused   and   totally   inconsistent   with   his  <\/p>\n
innocence.’<\/p>\n
11.   In   Padala   Veera   Reddy   v.   State   of   A.P.   it   was
\nlaid   down   that   when   a   case   rests   upon
\ncircumstantial   evidence,   such   evidence   must   satisfy
\nthe following tests: (SCC pp. 710-11, para 10)<\/p>\n
`(1)   the   circumstances   from   which   an   inference   of  <\/p>\n
guilt   is   sought   to   be   drawn,   must   be   cogently   and  <\/p>\n
firmly established;\n<\/p>\n
(2)   those   circumstances   should   be   of   a   definite  <\/p>\n
tendency   unerringly   pointing   towards   guilt   of   the  <\/p>\n
accused;\n<\/p>\n
(3)   the   circumstances,   taken   cumulatively,   should  <\/p>\n
form a chain so complete that there is no escape from  <\/p>\n
the   conclusion   that   within   all  human   probability   the  <\/p>\n
crime was  committed  by the accused and none else;\n<\/p>\n
and<\/p>\n
  (4)   the   circumstantial   evidence   in   order   to   sustain
\nconviction   must   be   complete   and   incapable   of
\nexplanation  of any other hypothesis than  that of the
\nguilt   of   the   accused   and   such   evidence   should   not
\nonly   be   consistent   with   the   guilt   of   the   accused   but
\nshould be inconsistent with his innocence.’<\/p>\n
`10. … It is well to remember that in cases where the
\nevidence   is   of   a   circumstantial   nature,   the
\ncircumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
\nbe   drawn   should   in   the   first   instance   be   fully  <\/p>\n
                                  21<\/span><\/p>\n
      established,   and   all   the   facts   so   established   should
\n      be consistent only with  the hypothesis of the guilt of
\n      the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a
\n      conclusive nature   and  tendency and   they  should be
\n      such   as   to   exclude   every   hypothesis   but   the   one
\n      proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be
\n      a   chain   of   evidence   so   far  complete   as   not   to   leave
\n      any   reasonable   ground   for   a   conclusion   consistent
\n      with   the   innocence   of   the   accused   and   it   must   be
\n      such   as   to   show   that   within   all   human   probability
\n      the act must have been done by the accused.’<\/p>\n
      16.   A   reference   may   be   made   to   a   later   decision   in
\n      Sharad  Birdhichand  Sarda v. State  of  Maharashtra.
\n      Therein,<\/a>   while   dealing   with   circumstantial   evidence,
\n      it   has   been   held   that   the   onus   was   on   the
\n      prosecution   to   prove   that   the   chain   is   complete   and
\n      the infirmity of lacuna in prosecution cannot be cured
\n      by false defence or plea. The conditions precedent in
\n      the   words   of   this   Court,   before   conviction   could   be
\n      based   on   circumstantial   evidence,   must   be   fully
\n      established. They are: (SCC p. 185, para 153)<\/p>\n
      (1)   the   circumstances   from   which   the   conclusion   of
\n      guilt is to be drawn  should be fully established. The
\n      circumstances   concerned   `must’   or   `should’   and   not
\n      `may be’ established;\n<\/p>\n
      (2) the facts so established should be consistent only
\n      with   the  hypothesis  of  the  guilt of  the  accused,   that
\n      is   to   say,   they   should   not   be   explainable   on   any
\n      other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;\n<\/p>\n
      (3)   the   circumstances   should   be   of   a   conclusive
\n      nature and tendency;\n<\/p>\n
      (4)   they   should   exclude   every   possible   hypothesis
\n      except the one to be proved; and<\/p>\n
      (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
\n      not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
\n      consistent   with   the   innocence   of   the   accused   and
\n      must show that in all human probability the act must
\n      have been done by the accused.”\n<\/p>\n
      These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan
\n      v. Raja Ram,<\/a> at SCC pp.            187-90,   paras   9-16   and
\n      State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh.<\/a>”\n<\/p>\n
21.In   the   light   of   the   above   principle   we   proceed   to   ascertain <\/p>\n
whether  the prosecution has been able to establish a chain of <\/p>\n
circumstances so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the <\/p>\n
                                        22<\/span><\/p>\n
conclusion that the allegations brought against the respondent <\/p>\n
are sufficiently proved and established.\n<\/p>\n
MOTIVE<\/p>\n
22.In   the   present   case,   in   the   chain   of   events,   the   first   point <\/p>\n
which   arises   for   our   consideration   is   the   MOTIVE   behind   the <\/p>\n
alleged   crime   done   by   the   accused-John   David.   The <\/p>\n
prosecution   has   alleged   that   accused   was  in   the   habit   of <\/p>\n
ragging   the   junior   students   and   accustomed   in   getting   his <\/p>\n
home work done by the junior students  and that is why when <\/p>\n
the   deceased   did   not  subjugate   himself   to   the   accused,   the <\/p>\n
accused   gathered   ill-will   against   the   deceased   and   therefore, <\/p>\n
that was the motive for which the accused killed him.\n<\/p>\n
23.For   the   purpose   of   proving   the   aforesaid   motive   of   the <\/p>\n
accused the prosecution has placed reliance upon the evidence <\/p>\n
of Dr. R. Sampath [PW-3], Karthikeyan [PW-4], Praveen Kumar <\/p>\n
[PW-5] and Subhash [PW-6], V. Balaji [PW-19] and Ramaswamy <\/p>\n
[PW-20].     Dr.   R.   Sampath   [PW-3],   who   is   the   Head   of   the <\/p>\n
Department   of   Radiology,   Annamalai   University   as   also   part-\n<\/p>\n
time   Warden   of   Malligai   Hostel   of   the   University,   who   in   his <\/p>\n
deposition has stated that on 19.11.1996 at about 8.30 p.m. he <\/p>\n
had   witnessed   the   junior   students   standing   in   front   of   the <\/p>\n
                                        23<\/span><\/p>\n
Hostel in a row in front of the seniors, including the accused-\n<\/p>\n
John   David.   Thereafter   PW-3   made   enquiries   on   the   incident <\/p>\n
and   submitted   a   report   about   the   incident   of   ragging   to   the <\/p>\n
higher   officials   which   is   marked   as   Exhibit   P-3.   Karthikeyan <\/p>\n
[PW-4],   1st  year   junior   student   of   the   college,   stated   that   on <\/p>\n
06.11.1996 accused-John David along with one Kumaran came <\/p>\n
to Hostel and forced him to purchase the tickets of Engineering <\/p>\n
Cultural Programme, which they purchased with hesitation and <\/p>\n
this   fact   was   also   witnessed   by   the   Warden   and   Deputy <\/p>\n
Warden. Along with PW-4, Praveen Kumar [PW-5] and Subhash <\/p>\n
[PW-6],   both   1st  year   students   of   the   college,   stated   in   their <\/p>\n
evidence   that   they   have   written   record   work   for   the   accused-\n<\/p>\n
John   David   under   compulsion   and   with   the   fear   of   being <\/p>\n
ragged. V. Balaji [PW-19], 1st  year student of college, stated  in <\/p>\n
his evidence that the accused-John David along with Kumaran <\/p>\n
forced them to purchase the tickets for the Cultural Programme <\/p>\n
and   also   made   them   to   stand   and   that   Warden,   Dean   and <\/p>\n
Deputy   Warden   got   the   students   released   from   such   ragging.\n<\/p>\n
Ramaswamy [PW-20],  1st  year student of the college, stated in <\/p>\n
his   evidence   that   accused-John   David   used   to   come   to   hostel <\/p>\n
for ragging and to get the record work completed after ragging.\n<\/p>\n
PW-19   further   stated   that   on   06.11.1996,   after   finishing   his <\/p>\n
                                      24<\/span><\/p>\n
viva-voce   test   at   about   11.30   a.m.   when   he   returned,   the <\/p>\n
accused came to his room between 11.30 a.m. to 12 Noon and <\/p>\n
asked   him   about   the   deceased-Navarasu.   PW-20   also   stated <\/p>\n
that   when   he   was   returning   after   finishing   his   viva-voce   test, <\/p>\n
the accused on 06.11.1996 at about 12 Noon asked him about <\/p>\n
the   completion   of   the   test   of   Navarasu.   From   the   evidence   of <\/p>\n
the   above   witnesses   and   other   documents   on   records   it <\/p>\n
becomes   quite   evident   that   the   record   books   of   the   accused <\/p>\n
were written by other juniors and that accused was in the habit <\/p>\n
of ragging junior students. The evidence of PWs 19 & 20 also go <\/p>\n
to prove that the accused was looking for Navarasu frantically <\/p>\n
in the  morning,  which  was definitely  not for the benefit of the <\/p>\n
deceased   looking   at  the   background   behaviour   of  the   accused <\/p>\n
towards   deceased,   for   there   is   enough   evidence   on   record   to <\/p>\n
support   the   case   of   the   prosecution   that   the   accused   was <\/p>\n
having malice and ill-will against with the deceased as he had <\/p>\n
refused to succumb to the ragging demands of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
LAST SEEN ALIVE<\/p>\n
24.In the chain of events, the second point which arises for our <\/p>\n
consideration is the LAST SEEN evidence of deceased with the <\/p>\n
accused.   For   proving   the   said   fact   that   the   deceased   was   last <\/p>\n
                                      25<\/span><\/p>\n
seen alive in the company of the deceased, the prosecution has <\/p>\n
placed   reliance   upon   the   evidence   of   V.   Balaji   [PW-19]   and <\/p>\n
Ramaswamy   [PW-20],   G.M.   Nandhakumar   [PW-21],   R.\n<\/p>\n
Mohamed   Shakir   [PW-22],   R.   Saravanan   [PW-23]   and   T.   Arun <\/p>\n
Kumar   [PW-25].   PWs   21   and   22,   1st  year   students   of   the <\/p>\n
college, stated in their evidence that when they were returning <\/p>\n
from   the   college   at   about   12.45   p.m.   on  06.11.1996   they   saw <\/p>\n
the   deceased   and   accused   together   and   accused   stopped <\/p>\n
Navarasu   and   asked   them   to   leave   from   there   and   thereafter <\/p>\n
they had not seen Navarasu alive. PW-23, Laboratory Attendant <\/p>\n
of the college, stated in his evidence that he saw both accused <\/p>\n
and deceased in conversation with each other on 06.11.1996 at <\/p>\n
about   12.45   or  1.00   p.m.   in   front   of   Dean’s   office.   PW-25,   2nd <\/p>\n
year college student, stated that he also saw both accused and <\/p>\n
deceased together at about 2.00 p.m. on 06.11.1996. From the <\/p>\n
evidence of Dr. Sethupathy [PW-7], Mrs. Alphonsa [PW-8], Prof. <\/p>\n
Gunasekaran  [PW-10]  and V. Balaji  [PW-19]  it also comes  out <\/p>\n
that   till   the   afternoon   of   06.11.1996   deceased   attended   the <\/p>\n
lectures but after meeting with the accused he did not appear <\/p>\n
in   the   lecture\/test   on   the   same   day   and   was   also   absent <\/p>\n
thereafter   from   lectures\/tests.   Ramaswamy   [PW-20]   also <\/p>\n
categorically   stated   that   after   the   viva-voce   test   held   on <\/p>\n
                                        26<\/span><\/p>\n
06.11.1996,   he   did   not   see   the   deceased   alive.   From   the <\/p>\n
evidence of all the abovesaid witnesses it is also clear that the <\/p>\n
deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused on <\/p>\n
06.11.1996 between 12.45  to 2.00 p.m.  and thereafter  no one <\/p>\n
had   seen   the   deceased   alive   and   this   fact   also   supports   the <\/p>\n
case   of   the   prosecution.   Moreover   accused   admitted   in   his <\/p>\n
statement   filed   during   question   U\/s   313,   Cr.P.C.   that   he   was <\/p>\n
sitting   in   the   corridor   of   Dean’s   office   in   the   afternoon   of <\/p>\n
06.11.1996,   which   further   corroborates   the   case   of <\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED<\/p>\n
25.The   conduct   of   the   accused   is   the   next   chain   of <\/p>\n
circumstance   which   is   heavily   relied   upon   by   the   prosecution <\/p>\n
for   proving   the   guilt   of   the   accused   and   for   this   it   placed <\/p>\n
reliance   on   the   evidence   of   Subba   @   Vankatesan   [PW-28], <\/p>\n
Vijayarangam [PW-29], Murali [PW-35], Senthilkumar [PW-40], <\/p>\n
Joe   Bulgani   [PW-41]   and   Rajmohan   [PW-42].   PW-28,   auto <\/p>\n
driver, stated in his evidence that on 06.11.1996 at about 8.00 <\/p>\n
p.m.   accused   took   his   auto   to   the   hostel   from   where   the <\/p>\n
accused  went   to   Chidambaram   railway   station   along   with   two <\/p>\n
suitcases.   PW-29,   Watchman   of   KRM   Hostel,   stated   in   his <\/p>\n
                                      27<\/span><\/p>\n
evidence   that   on   06.11.1996   at   8.15   p.m.   accused   came   to <\/p>\n
hostel   in  an  auto  and  brought  two   bags  inside   the   hostel  and <\/p>\n
left   in   auto   immediately   thereafter   and   that   the   accused <\/p>\n
returned with the two suitcases at 4.00 a.m. on 8.11.1996. PW-\n<\/p>\n
40,   student   of   the   college   stated   that   on   08.11.1996   at   4.30 <\/p>\n
a.m. he saw the accused sleeping in the varanda of Room No. <\/p>\n
319   with   two   suitcases   nearby   because   the   accused   did   not <\/p>\n
have the room keys, as the accused’s roommate took away the <\/p>\n
keys and, when PW-40 offered the accused to come and stay in <\/p>\n
his room, at about 5.30 a.m. the accused came to his room and <\/p>\n
kept   a   suitcase,   i.e.,   MO-14   and   went   to   sleep  in   the   room   of <\/p>\n
PW-41 along with MO-13. When PWs 40 & 41 came from mess <\/p>\n
at   about   8.30   a.m.   PW-41   complaint   about   foul   smell   coming <\/p>\n
from   his   room   [Room   No.   325].   Thereafter,   accused   took   the <\/p>\n
MO-13   from   the   room   at   about   12.30   p.m.   This   statement   of <\/p>\n
PW-40 was also supported by the statement of PW-41. PW-42, <\/p>\n
student of the college, stated that on 8.11.1996 at 12.30 p.m. <\/p>\n
accused was sleeping in Room No. 325 and that on 9.11.1996 <\/p>\n
accused   along   with   one   other   student   went   to   `B’   Mess   for <\/p>\n
lunch  but  accused   did  not  take the  lunch  on the  ground  that <\/p>\n
his   stomach   is   not   alright   and   on   return   he   saw   accused <\/p>\n
keeping   his   hand   on   the   wall   with   sad   look   on   his   face.   He <\/p>\n
                                        28<\/span><\/p>\n
further stated that when he entered in the room of the accused <\/p>\n
[Room   No.   319]   he   smelt   foul   smell   and   on   asking   about   the <\/p>\n
same   from   the   accused,   the   accused   replied   that   it   is   of   the <\/p>\n
Biriyani  which  was  given   to   him  by   his   mother.   Later   at   4.30 <\/p>\n
p.m.   the   accused   asked   PW-42   to   drop   him   at   the <\/p>\n
Chidambaram Railway Station as he wanted to go to his native <\/p>\n
place   and   thereafter   he   dropped   the   accused   along   with   a <\/p>\n
briefcase at the Railway Station on the bike of one Rangarajan.\n<\/p>\n
PW-42  also   purchased   a   train   ticket   for   Tanjavur   for   the <\/p>\n
accused. PW-42 also stated that on 10.11.1996 he saw accused <\/p>\n
standing before Room No. 319 and on asking the accused told <\/p>\n
that   he   went   upto   Trichy   and   returned   back.                PW-35, <\/p>\n
Receptionist   of   Hotel   Saradharam,   Chidambaram   stated   that <\/p>\n
on 10.11.1996 at about 8.10 p.m. accused stayed in the hotel <\/p>\n
along   with   one   Dr.   Esthar   and   they   vacated   the   room   at   3.15 <\/p>\n
a.m.   on   12.11.1996.   The   accused   on   14.11.1996   surrendered <\/p>\n
in   the   Court   of   Judicial   Magistrate,   Mannarkudi   and   was <\/p>\n
remanded   to   judicial   custody   till   18.11.1996.   On   18.11.1996 <\/p>\n
the Court ordered for five days police custody of the accused on <\/p>\n
the   condition   that   the   accused   should   be   produced   before   a <\/p>\n
Doctor   in   the   Government   Hospital,   Chidambaram   at   10.00 <\/p>\n
a.m.   daily   for   medical   check   up.  The   above   said   unusual   and <\/p>\n
                                       29<\/span><\/p>\n
eccentric conduct of the accused which is unequivocally told by <\/p>\n
the   witnesses   makes   the   conduct   of   the   accused   highly <\/p>\n
suspicious   and   leads   to   corroborate   the   case   of   the <\/p>\n
prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
CONFESSIONAL                STATEMENT             OF         ACCUSED         AND <\/p>\n
CONSEQUENTIAL RECOVERIES.\n<\/p>\n
26.In   the   present   case,   as   stated   supra,   PW-1,   father   of   the <\/p>\n
deceased, filed a report with the police for missing of his son on <\/p>\n
10.11.1996   which   was   registered   as  Crime   No.   509   of   1996 <\/p>\n
[Exhibit-P1]. In the present case the accused after surrendering <\/p>\n
before   the   Court   of   Judicial   Magistrate,   Mannarkudi   on <\/p>\n
14.11.1996   also   gave   his   confessional   statement   [Exhibit-50] <\/p>\n
on   19.11.1996   in   the   presence   of   Rajaraman   [PW-58],   Village <\/p>\n
Administrative   Officer   for   the   non-municipal   area   of <\/p>\n
Chidambaram,   wherein   in   very   clear   terms   he   admitted   his <\/p>\n
crime as is presented by the prosecution. After the surrender of <\/p>\n
the accused on 14.11.1996 he was lodged in the Central Prison <\/p>\n
at   Tiruchi.   Prosecuting   agency   in   Crime   No.   509\/96   filed   a <\/p>\n
petition   before   the   Judicial   Magistrate,   Chidambaram   for   the <\/p>\n
police   custody   of  the  accused   U\/s  167  of  Cr.   P.C.,   which   was <\/p>\n
allowed   by   the   Court  for   five   days   from   18.11.1996   on   the <\/p>\n
condition that the accused should be produced before a Doctor <\/p>\n
                                      30<\/span><\/p>\n
in the Government Hospital, Chidambaram at 10.00 a.m. daily <\/p>\n
for   medical   check   up   and   at   1.30   a.m.   On   19.11.1996   the <\/p>\n
accused   made   a   voluntary   confession   as   stated   hereinabove.\n<\/p>\n
Also it has been admitted by the Trial Court as also by the High <\/p>\n
Court that at no stage of trial there is any allegation of torture <\/p>\n
of the accused in the hands of the police, which clearly proves <\/p>\n
that   the   statement   made   by   the   accused   on   19.11.1996   was <\/p>\n
given   voluntarily   and   is   an   admissible   piece   of   evidence.   The <\/p>\n
High   Court   merely   on   an   assumed   basis   held   that   the <\/p>\n
confessional   statement   could   not   have   been   voluntarily   given <\/p>\n
by the  accused  without referring to  any  particular  evidence in <\/p>\n
support of the said conclusion. The confession was given by the <\/p>\n
accused   in   presence   of   Rajaraman   [PW-58],   Village <\/p>\n
Administrative   Officer;   Mr.   Subramanian   [assistant   of   PW-58], <\/p>\n
who are totally independent persons.\n<\/p>\n
27.In the case of Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur v. State of <\/p>\n
Maharashtra  reported   in  (2007)   2   SCC   310  this   Court   had <\/p>\n
said   that,   when   on   the   basis   of   information   given   by   the <\/p>\n
accused there is a recovery of an object of crime which provides <\/p>\n
a   link   in   the   chain   of   circumstances,   then   such   information <\/p>\n
leading to the discovery of object is admissible.\n<\/p>\n
                                      31<\/span><\/p>\n
28.We may at this stage, would like to state the proposition of <\/p>\n
law that only such information which is found proximate to the <\/p>\n
cause   of   discovery   of   material   objects,   alone   is   taken   as <\/p>\n
admissible   in   law   and   in   the   present   case   there   are   lot   of <\/p>\n
materials   which   were   recovered   at   the   instance   of   such <\/p>\n
confessional   statement   made   by   the   accused   only.   We   may <\/p>\n
detail out such material findings in this case.\n<\/p>\n
29.At   the  instance  and   in   pursuance   of   the   said   confessional <\/p>\n
statement   given   by   the   accused   PW-78,   Police   Inspector, <\/p>\n
Annamalai   Nagar;   Rajaraman   [PW-58],   Village   Administrative <\/p>\n
Officer; Mr. Subramanian [assistant of PW-58] along with other <\/p>\n
witnesses went to the south canal of the KRM Hostel at about <\/p>\n
7.30 a.m. where he had thrown the head of the deceased after <\/p>\n
putting it in a zip bag and since the water level of the canal was <\/p>\n
high, Fire Service and University Authorities were requested to <\/p>\n
drain   the   water,   which   was   accordingly   done   and   in   the <\/p>\n
meantime   at   about   8.45   a.m.   at   the   instance   of   accused   only <\/p>\n
MO-3,   a   rexine   bag,   was   recovered   which   contained   two <\/p>\n
notebooks   belonging   to   the   deceased  [MOs   4  &  5].   Thereafter, <\/p>\n
after   producing   the   accused   before   the   Doctors   of   Govt.\n<\/p>\n
Hospital   at   10.00   a.m.   as   per   the   directions   of   the   court,   the <\/p>\n
                                        32<\/span><\/p>\n
accused,   took   PW-78   along   with   other   witnesses   to   Room   No. <\/p>\n
319 and from there material objects from 9 to 15 and 29 were <\/p>\n
recovered   which   included   three   knifes,   one   blue   colour   small <\/p>\n
brief   case,   among   others   and   from   Room   No.   323   and   325 <\/p>\n
material   objects   from   30   to  33  were  recovered   which   included <\/p>\n
blood   stained   cement   mortar.   At   about   4.00   p.m.   when   the <\/p>\n
search   party   returned   to   the   boat   canal,   the   zip   bag   [MO-22] <\/p>\n
containing   a  severed  human   head   was  recovered  at   4.30  p.m. <\/p>\n
In   the   instant   case   the   fact   that   the   severed   head   of   the <\/p>\n
deceased-Navarasu was recovered from the specific place which <\/p>\n
was   indicated   and   identified   by   the   accused.   The   recovery   of <\/p>\n
other material objects at the indication\/instance of the accused <\/p>\n
creates\/generates   enough   incriminating   evidence   against   him <\/p>\n
and   makes   such   part   of   the   confessional   statement   clearly <\/p>\n
admissible   in   evidence.   The   fact   that   the   skull   found   in   the <\/p>\n
water canal of the university belonged to Navarasu-deceased is <\/p>\n
proved   from   the   evidence   of   Dr.   Ravindran   [PW-66],   Dr. <\/p>\n
Venkataraman,   [PW-52]   and   G.V.   Rao   [PW-77].   PW-66   in   his <\/p>\n
evidence   has   stated   that   the   deceased   appear   to   have   died <\/p>\n
because of decapitation of injuries and that the injury is ante-\n<\/p>\n
mortem.   The Doctor also opined  that a sharp cutting weapon <\/p>\n
would have been used for causing injuries.     He further stated <\/p>\n
                                      33<\/span><\/p>\n
in   his   evidence   that   severing   of   head   and   removal   of   the <\/p>\n
muscles and nerves of limbs could have been done by MOs 9 to <\/p>\n
11.  PW-66 also opined that both the torso and head belongs to <\/p>\n
one   and   the   same   person.   Also   from   the   evidence   of   Dr. <\/p>\n
Venkataraman, [PW-52] Parasu Dental Clinic, Adyar, Madras it <\/p>\n
is found that he had given silver filling on the right upper first <\/p>\n
molar of the deceased and that he had removed the left upper <\/p>\n
milk tooth and removed the root thereof and the said fact was <\/p>\n
also clearly and rightly found in the post mortem conducted by <\/p>\n
PW-66 on the head recovered from the boat-canal. The said fact <\/p>\n
was also proved from the DNA test conducted by PW-77. PW-77 <\/p>\n
had   compared   the   tissues   taken   from   the   severed   head,   torso <\/p>\n
and   limbs   and   on   scientific   analysis   he   has   found   that   the <\/p>\n
same   gene   found   in   the   blood   of   PW-1   and   Baby   Ponnusamy <\/p>\n
were   found   in   the   recovered   parts   of   the   body   and   that <\/p>\n
therefore they should belong to the only missing son of PW-1.\n<\/p>\n
30.In   the   present   case  Trial   Court   relied   upon   the   super-\n<\/p>\n
imposition   process\/test   made   by   Dr.   Jayaprakash   [PW-65], <\/p>\n
Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department, Madras, who <\/p>\n
stated in his evidence that the skull recovered was of Navarasu.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, from the evidence of PWs 65 & 66 it becomes amply <\/p>\n
                                     34<\/span><\/p>\n
clear   that   the   skull   recovered   from   the   boat   canal   is   of <\/p>\n
Navarasu only.\n<\/p>\n
31.Now,   so   far   as   the   recovery   of   limbs   and   torso   of   the <\/p>\n
deceased-Navarasu   is   concerned,   we   would   like   to   detail   the <\/p>\n
recovery of the same, their identification and also their relation <\/p>\n
insofar   as   the   confessional   statement   made   by   accused   is <\/p>\n
concerned.\n<\/p>\n
32.On   7.11.1996   at   about   6.00   p.m.   Prakash   [PW-53]   the <\/p>\n
conductor   of   Bus   [bearing   no.   T.B.01-2366]   having   route   No. <\/p>\n
21G   [from   Thambaram   suburban   of   Chennai   City   to   Paris <\/p>\n
Corner]   found   a   male   torso   under   the   last   seat   of   the   bus <\/p>\n
packed   in   white   blood   stained   polythene   bag   with   red   letters <\/p>\n
[marked as MO-16] and thereafter Crime No. 1544 of 1996 case <\/p>\n
was   registered   and   investigation   was   started   by   G.   Boopathy <\/p>\n
[PW-55], Inspector  of Police, E.5,  Pattinapakkam  PS, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
Dr.   Ravindran   [PW-66]   conducted   autopsy\/post-mortem   at <\/p>\n
10.00 a.m. on 8.11.1996 and he found that the deceased have <\/p>\n
died   of   decapitation   of   injuries,   he   opined   that   the   injuries <\/p>\n
found   on   the   torso   and   skull   were   anti-mortem   and   the <\/p>\n
deceased   would   appear   to   have   died   of   decapitation   and   he <\/p>\n
further   stated   that   the   respective   surface   of   the   fifth   cervical <\/p>\n
                                       35<\/span><\/p>\n
vertebra   of   the   head   are   reciprocally   fitting   into   the <\/p>\n
corresponding surface of the sixth cervical vertebra of the torso <\/p>\n
and this articulation was exact in nature and hence he opined <\/p>\n
that the head and torso belonged to one and the same person.\n<\/p>\n
33.The other limbs of the deceased were recovered by Gopalan <\/p>\n
[PW-44],   Sub-Inspector   in   Marakkanam   Police   Station   on <\/p>\n
21.11.1996   in   a   pale-coloured   with   yellow,   red   and   green <\/p>\n
checks   in   a   lungi-like   bed-sheet   and   along   with   it   was   torn <\/p>\n
polythene bag and a pale cloth thread.\n<\/p>\n
34.In the present case there is no direct evidence to prove that <\/p>\n
the   accused   had   himself   taken   the   torso   and   limbs   of   the <\/p>\n
deceased   to   Madras   and   threw   the   limbs   somewhere   (while <\/p>\n
transit  to   Madras)   and  also   that accused  carried  the   parcel  of <\/p>\n
torso   to   Madras   and   dropped   it   in   the   bus   No.   21G   at <\/p>\n
Tambaram but, there is only circumstantial evidence.\n<\/p>\n
35.One of the clinching evidence against the accused is the two <\/p>\n
suitcases [MOs 13 & 14]. Raja Chidambaram [PW-37], the room <\/p>\n
mate   of   the   accused,   stated   in   his   evidence   that   the   two <\/p>\n
suitcases in which the blood of the deceased was found belong <\/p>\n
to   the   accused.   He   also   stated   that  MO-22,   which   is   a   bag   in <\/p>\n
which   the   head   of  the   deceased  was   recovered,  also   belong   to <\/p>\n
                                       36<\/span><\/p>\n
the accused. Shagir Thabris [PW-38] also corroborated the said <\/p>\n
fact in his evidence. Blood found in the suitcases matched with <\/p>\n
the   blood   of   the   deceased   which   is   blood   group   `A’.   It   is   also <\/p>\n
proved   from  the  evidence  of  the  students  adduced in  the  case <\/p>\n
that foul smell was emanating from the said two suitcases and <\/p>\n
that   when   accused   was   asked   about   the   said   smell,   he   only <\/p>\n
replied   that   it   is   because   of  Biryani,   which   his   mother   had <\/p>\n
given   him.   Subba   @   Vankatesan   [PW-28],   auto   driver,   has <\/p>\n
affirmatively   stated   that   the   accused   had   taken   out   those   two <\/p>\n
suitcases   with   him   in   his   auto   rickshaw   on   06.11.1996   when <\/p>\n
he   dropped   him   at   Chidambaram   Railway   Station.   The   hostel <\/p>\n
chowkidar examined as PW-29 [Vijayarangam] corroborated the <\/p>\n
said   fact.   The   students   of   the   hostel,   Senthilkumar   [PW-40], <\/p>\n
Joe   Bulgani   [PW-41],   not   only   spoke   about   the   foul   smell <\/p>\n
emanating from the room where those suitcases were kept but <\/p>\n
also   of   the   fact   that   the   accused   had   brought   those   two <\/p>\n
suitcases   with   him   when   he   came   back   to   the   hostel   on <\/p>\n
08.11.1996 morning. These are indeed circumstantial evidence <\/p>\n
but   all  leading  to   one   conclusion   that  the   accused   is   guilty   of <\/p>\n
the   offence   of   killing   the   deceased.   There   is   however   some <\/p>\n
doubt  with regard to  the  place of occurrence  but  there is  also <\/p>\n
strong and cogent evidence to indicate that the room mates of <\/p>\n
                                         37<\/span><\/p>\n
the   accused,   i.e.,   PWs   37   and   38,   were   watching   a   cricket <\/p>\n
match   during   the   entire   afternoon,   evening   and   till   late   night <\/p>\n
on 06.11.1996 in the TV room, and the accused had  the room <\/p>\n
(Room No. 319) all to himself in the afternoon and evening upto <\/p>\n
11.00 p.m. The accused left the said room with two suitcases at <\/p>\n
8.30 p.m. which is proved by way of evidence of the watchman <\/p>\n
and   auto   driver.   The   room   mate   of   the   accused,   viz.,   PW-38, <\/p>\n
came back to Room No. 319 at about 11.00 p.m. and slept and <\/p>\n
on the next day went home.\n<\/p>\n
36.There   are   enough   circumstantial   evidence,   as   discussed <\/p>\n
above,   to   hold   that  it   is   none  else   but  the   accused  who  could <\/p>\n
have caused the concealment of torso and limbs because it was <\/p>\n
the   accused   who   had   severed   the   head   of   deceased-Navarasu <\/p>\n
as   found   earlier   and,   therefore,   he   must   have   been   in <\/p>\n
possession   to   the   torso   and   limbs,   which   were   also <\/p>\n
subsequently   recovered   and   were   also   proved   to   be   that   of <\/p>\n
deceased-Navarasu.\n<\/p>\n
37.Therefore,   if   we   look   at   the   case,   we   find   that   the <\/p>\n
prosecution   has   succeeded   in   proving   its   case   on <\/p>\n
circumstantial   evidence.   In   the   present   case   all   the   witnesses <\/p>\n
are   independent   and   respectable   eye-witnesses   and   they   have <\/p>\n
                                      38<\/span><\/p>\n
not been shown to have any axe to grind against the accused.\n<\/p>\n
And   from   the   evidence   of   the   several   witnesses,   as   mentioned <\/p>\n
above,   it   is   clear   that   the   accused   nurtured   ill   feeling   against <\/p>\n
the  deceased as  the  deceased   refused   to  write   the  record  note <\/p>\n
for accused; that the deceased was last seen with the accused <\/p>\n
in   the   afternoon   of   06.11.1996   and   he   was   searching   for   him <\/p>\n
very   eagerly;   that   the   conduct   of   the   deceased  was   very   weird <\/p>\n
and strange and the bags\/suitcases kept by him also produced <\/p>\n
stinking smell; the recovery of skull from canal water, material <\/p>\n
objects, like, note books of deceased, gold chain, blood stained <\/p>\n
bags, knifes etc.,; and also the evidence of PW-66, PW-65 and <\/p>\n
PW-77  who  have   categorically   stated   that  the   skull,   torso  and <\/p>\n
limbs recovered were of the deceased only.\n<\/p>\n
38.It is well-settled proposition of law that the recovery of crime <\/p>\n
objects   on   the   basis   of   information   given   by   the   accused <\/p>\n
provides   a   link   in   the   chain   of   circumstances.   Also   failure   to <\/p>\n
explain   one   of   the   circumstances   would   not   be   fatal   for   the <\/p>\n
prosecution case and cumulative effect of all the circumstances <\/p>\n
is   to   be   seen   in   such   cases.   At   this   juncture   we   feel   it   is <\/p>\n
apposite to mention that in the case of  State of Karnataka v.\n<\/p>\n
K.   Yarappa   Reddy  reported   in  (1999)  8   SCC   715  this   Court <\/p>\n
                                        39<\/span><\/p>\n
has   held   that;   the   court   must   have   predominance   and   pre-\n<\/p>\n
eminence   in   criminal   trials   over   the   action   taken   by   the <\/p>\n
investigating   officers.   Criminal   justice   should   not   be   made   a <\/p>\n
casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers <\/p>\n
in   the   case.   In  other   words,   if   the   court   is   convinced   that  the <\/p>\n
testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free <\/p>\n
to act on it.\n<\/p>\n
39.Hence,   minor   loopholes   and   irregularities   in   the <\/p>\n
investigation process cannot form the crux of the case on which <\/p>\n
the   respondent   can   rely   upon   to   prove   his   innocence   when <\/p>\n
there   are   strong   circumstantial   evidences   deduced   from   the <\/p>\n
said   investigation   which   logically   and   rationally   point   towards <\/p>\n
the guilt of the accused.\n<\/p>\n
40.  Therefore   in   our   considered   opinion   prosecution   has <\/p>\n
established   its   case   on   the   basis   of   strong   and   cogent <\/p>\n
circumstantial   evidence   and   that   on   the   basis   of   the <\/p>\n
circumstances   proved,   there   cannot   be   any   other   possible   or <\/p>\n
plausible   view   favouring   the   accused.   The   view   taken   by   the <\/p>\n
High Court is totally erroneous and outcome of misreading and <\/p>\n
misinterpreting the evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
                                        40<\/span><\/p>\n
41.In view of the aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances <\/p>\n
of the case, we are of the considered view that the High Court <\/p>\n
erred in reversing the order of conviction recorded by the trial <\/p>\n
Court as the prosecution has established its case.  Accordingly, <\/p>\n
we   set   aside   the   judgment   and   order   of   the   High   Court   and <\/p>\n
restore   the   judgment   and   decision   of   the   trial   Court   but   only <\/p>\n
with   one   rider   that   the   sentence   awarded   shall   run <\/p>\n
concurrently   and   not   consecutively   as   ordered   by   the   trial <\/p>\n
court. While doing so we rely upon sub-section (2) of section 31 <\/p>\n
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.\n<\/p>\n
42.In   the   result,   the   appeal   is   allowed,   bail   bond   of   the <\/p>\n
respondent   is   cancelled   and   the   respondent   is   directed   to <\/p>\n
surrender before the jail authorities immediately, failing which <\/p>\n
the concerned authorities are directed to proceed in accordance <\/p>\n
with law.\n<\/p>\n
                                             ………………………………………J<\/p>\n
                                            [Dalveer Bhandari]<\/p>\n
                                            ………………………………………J<\/p>\n
                                             [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]<\/p>\n
New Delhi,<\/p>\n
April 20, 2011.\n<\/p>\n
                                       41<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David on 20 April, 2011 Author: . M Sharma Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, Mukundakam Sharma 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 […]<\/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-48721","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nInspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David on 20 April, 2011 - 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\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David on 20 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-30T04:29:36+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=\"44 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David on 20 April, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-30T04:29:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011\"},\"wordCount\":8853,\"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\\\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011\",\"name\":\"Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David on 20 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-04-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-30T04:29:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David on 20 April, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David on 20 April, 2011 - 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\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David on 20 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-30T04:29:36+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":"44 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David on 20 April, 2011","datePublished":"2011-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-30T04:29:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011"},"wordCount":8853,"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\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011","name":"Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David on 20 April, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-04-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-30T04:29:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-vs-john-david-on-20-april-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs John David on 20 April, 2011"}]},{"@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\/48721","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=48721"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/48721\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=48721"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=48721"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=48721"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}