MOORTHY vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SECRETARY

2023INSC739  NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.975 of 2011  Moorthy …..Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu                     …..Respondent J U D G M E N T Abhay S. Oka, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable   under   Sections   302   and   201   of   the Indian   Penal   Code   (for   short,   ‘IPC’).     He   was sentenced   to   undergo   life   imprisonment   for   the offence punishable under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment   for   seven   years   for   the   offence punishable   under   Section   201,   IPC.     Sentences were   ordered   to   run   concurrently.     The   appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Anita Malhotra Date: 2023.08.18 16:47:01 IST Reason: the High Court by the impugned judgment. Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 1 of 11 2. The   deceased   Shanthi   was   the   wife   of   the appellant.   According to the prosecution case, the appellant   suspected   that   the   deceased   had   illicit th intimacy   with  one   Peethambaram.     On   29   May 2006 at about 9:00 p.m., the appellant took the deceased to the bank of Ponnai River and assaulted her with a stick.  The said Shanthi succumbed to the injuries.  He buried the dead body in the same place.   PW   Nos.3   and   4   are   the   parents   of   the deceased   who   were   enquiring   with   the   appellant about the whereabouts of the deceased.  However, the   appellant   told   them   that   the   deceased   was missing. 3. The prosecution relied upon the extra­judicial confession   made   by   the   appellant   before   PW­1 Ganesan   Perumal   in   the   presence   of   PW­2 Tyagarajan   Kannan.     Secondly,   the   prosecution relied upon the recovery of the dead body and the stick allegedly used as a weapon of assault at the instance of the appellant.  Thirdly, according to the prosecution,   the   skeleton   was   identified   by   PW nos.3 and 4 on the basis of the clothes thereon. SUBMISSIONS The main submission of the learned counsel 4. appearing for the appellant is that PW nos.1 and 2 Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 2 of 11 were   complete   strangers   to   the   appellant. Moreover, the alleged extra­judicial confession was made by the appellant before the said two witnesses 2   months   and   11   days   after   the   date   of   the incident.   The learned counsel further submitted that   the   conduct   of   PW­1   who   was   the   Village Administrative Officer, does not inspire confidence as he immediately did not report the matter to the police.  The learned counsel further submitted that the   identity   of   the   body/skeleton   was   not established.   He submitted that recourse was not taken to DNA test for identification of the skeleton. He   also   submitted   that   there   is   a   material discrepancy in the evidence of PW­18 Investigating Officer and PW­1 about the place from which the stick,   which   was   the   weapon   of   offence,   was discovered.   He pointed out that PW nos.8 to 11 who were cited as witnesses to support the theory of   last   seen   together,   did   not   support   the prosecution.   5. Dr.   Joseph   Aristotle,   the   learned   counsel appearing for the State submitted that there are no major   discrepancies   and   contradictions   in   the version of PW nos.1 and 18.   He submitted that though PW­8 was declared as hostile, his evidence Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 3 of 11 cannot   be   discarded   in   its   entirety.     He   placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of  v.  Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. State of 1 .   He submitted that the discovery of the Gujarat dead body at the instance of the appellant is a very important circumstance against the accused.   He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of 2 Anuj Kumar Gupta  v.  State of Bihar .   OUR VIEW 6. Firstly, we will deal with the prosecution case about   the   extra­judicial   confession.     As   regards extra­judicial   confession,   the   law   has   been   laid down by this Court in the case of   Pawan Kumar 3 Chourasia  v.  State of Bihar .  In paragraph 5 it is held thus :

1 (2011) 11 SCC 111 2 (2013) 12 SCC 383 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 259 Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 4 of 11

We   have   perused   the   evidence   of   PW­1 7. Ganesan   who   was   posted   as   the   Village Administrative   Officer   at   the   time   of   the commission   of   the   offence.     He   was   not permanently posted in Village Seekkarajapuram as he stated that at the time of recording of evidence, he was transferred as Village Administrative Officer to   Ranipet.     PW­1   admitted   in   the   cross­ examination   that   he   did   not   know   the   appellant before   he   came   to   him   and   allegedly   made   the th extra­judicial  confession.   The  incident is  of 29 May 2006 but the alleged extra­judicial confession th was made on 10  August 2006.  It is impossible to Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 5 of 11 understand   why   would   the   appellant   meet   the Village   Administrative   Officer,   who   was   a   total stranger to him, more than two months after the incident for making a confession.   PW­1 and the th appellant were not known to each other till 10  of August   2006.     Normally   an   accused   will   confide only with a person in whom he has implicit faith. He would not go to a stranger to make a confession of guilt.   The fact that the alleged confession was made   by   him   more   than   two   months   after   the incident makes it more suspicious. 8. PW­1 claims that he recorded the statement of the appellant and took a thumb impression of the appellant.  There is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the thumb impression.  PW­1 claims   that   after   making   the   confession,   the appellant   took   him   to   the   place   of   the   incident which is located near the railway overbridge on the bank of the river Ponnai.   PW­1 did not take the appellant   to   the   police   station   after   the   alleged confession was made. He admittedly did not inform the police immediately after recording the alleged extra­judicial   confession.     PW­1   claims   that   he visited the place of incident with the appellant who showed him the scene of the alleged offence.  Only Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 6 of 11 thereafter he took the appellant to the police.  It is also pertinent to note that in his cross­examination, PW­1 admitted that there were 6­7 huts near the place of residence of the appellant and the families residing therein belonged to the same caste as that of the appellant.   Thus, there were people around before whom the appellant could have confessed. 9. PW­2 was working as an Assistant with PW­ 1.   He has deposed on the same lines as PW­1. However, it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant confided with PW­2.  He was present when the appellant allegedly made an extra­judicial confession and was recorded by PW­1.   He stated that   he   along   with   PW­1   were   taken   by   the appellant to the place where he committed murder and   buried   the   body.     He   claimed   in   the   cross­ examination that he knew the appellant before the incident but the appellant did not confide before him.   10. Extra­judicial   confession   is   always   a   weak piece of evidence and in this case, for the reasons which   we   have   recorded   earlier,   there   is   serious doubt   about   the   genuineness   of   the   prosecution case   regarding   the   extra­judicial   confession. Therefore,   the   prosecution   case   about   the   extra­ Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 7 of 11 judicial confession does not deserve acceptance.   11. Now we consider the evidence of PW­18 who is the Investigating Officer.  He stated that the dead body was found at a depth of 2 ft. after digging.  He stated   in   the   cross­examination   that   the   stick allegedly   used   by   the   appellant   as   a   weapon   of assault was recovered from a bush at a distance of 50 feet from the place where the dead body was found.  He accepted in the cross­examination that none   of   the   relatives   had   lodged   a   missing complaint. 12. As   far   as   the   alleged   recovery   of   the   dead body at the instance of the appellant is concerned, we must note that the dead body was recovered from a place which was accessible to all.   A day prior to the alleged discovery at the instance of the appellant, PW nos.1 and 2 had gone to the place where the dead body was found.  It is not the case of the prosecution that the place where the dead body was buried was accessible and known only to the appellant.  This also raises serious doubt about the theory of the prosecution about the discovery of the body at the instance of the appellant. Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 8 of 11 13. PW nos.3 and 4 have deposed mainly on the issue of the identity of the dead body as they were present   when   the   dead   body   was   recovered. However, the body had decomposed and only the skeleton was exhumed.   In the cross­examination, PW­3   Rajagopalan,   the   father   of   the   deceased, stated that the appellant came to him one month prior to the date of knowledge of the murder of his daughter.     PW­3   stated   that   at   that   time   the appellant asked him whether he had murdered the deceased.  He stated that the appellant went to the police station to lodge a complaint.  PW­3 accepted that he did not search for his daughter and did not file any missing complaint.  This conduct of PW­3 is not natural. If we peruse the evidence of PW­1 and PW­18, 14. the recovery of the weapon of the offence at the instance   of   the   appellant   becomes   extremely doubtful.  PW­1 deposed that the stick was buried 1 ft deep in the river bank about 5 ft away towards the west of the place in which the body was buried. However, PW­18 stated that the stick was recovered from a bush at a distance of about 50 ft. on the north of the place where the dead body was buried. This also makes the prosecution case vulnerable as Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 9 of 11 far as the discovery of the stick at the instance of the appellant is concerned. 15. Though the respondent tried to rely upon the evidence of PW­8 who has been declared hostile, we find that he had made a general statement that he had seen the appellant and deceased together two years   back.     Moreover,   the   other   witnesses examined   to   prove   the   last   seen   together   theory were declared hostile. Thus, the prosecution could not establish the last seen together theory.   16. There is serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case regarding the recovery of a dead body at the instance of the appellant and the recovery of the alleged instrument of the offence at the instance of the appellant.  Most importantly, for the   reasons   we   have   recorded   earlier,   it   is   not possible to accept the case of the prosecution which is   entirely   based   on   the   extra­judicial   confession made by the appellant.   Thus, there was no legal evidence on record to convict the appellant.  In any case, the guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 17. Accordingly,   the   appeal   is   allowed.     The st judgment and order dated 31  March 2008 passed by   the   Court  of   Additional  District  and   Sessions Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 10 of 11 Judge in Sessions Case No.24 of 2008 as well as th the   impugned   judgment   and   order   dated   28 January   2009   passed   by   the   High   Court   of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2008   are   hereby   set   aside   and   the   appellant   is acquitted of the offences alleged against him. 18. As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. ……………………………J. [ABHAY S. OKA] ..…………………………J. [SANJAY KAROL]  New Delhi August 18, 2023. Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 11 of 11