ANIL@RAJU NAMDEV PATIL versus ADMINISTRATION OF DAMAN & DIU, DAMAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 466 · Decided: 24-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANIL@RAJU NAMDEV PATIL 
v. 
ADMINISTRATION OF DAMAN & DIU, DAMAN AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 24, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial. 
C 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Sections 215, 221 and 364-
Misjoinder of charges-Effect-Held, accused should not suffer any prejudice 
by reason of misjoinder of charges-Conviction for lesser offence is 
permissible-Minor child kidnapped for ransom and murdered-Charge framed 
under section 364-Conviction under section 364A-Held, prejudice caused 
to accused as ingredients of higher offence not put while framing charge-
D In the facts, sentence modified from death sentence to rigorous imprisonment 
fdr llfe-lndian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 201,364 and 364A. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 27-Statement of accused-
Discovery of fact-Whether admissible in evidence-Held, information 
E disclosed leading to discovery of fact based on mental state of affair of 
accused is admissible in evidence. 
F 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 32-Co-accused committing suicide 
leaving behind suicide note implicating other co-accused-Whether admissible 
in evidence-Held, suicide note implicating other co-accused is inadmissible 
in evidence. 
Prosecution alleged that on 3.8.2000 at 6:15 P.M., a phone call was 
received by mother of 5 year old boy, P, informing that P was in their custody 
and a demand of Rs. 25 lakhs was made as ransom money for returning the 
child safely. A, father of P, thereafter went to the police station and lodged a 
G complaint. A was asked to come to a place near Ankleshwar with the amount 
of ransom. A trap was arranged at Ankleshwar but nobody turned up to claim 
the amount of ransom. The name of the appellant-accused was disclosed '\vhen 
a query was made to A as to whether he knew a person who was a resident of 
Ankleshwar. Appellant had worked as driver with family of A for 3 months. 
H 
466 
ANIL@RAJUNAMDEV PATIL v. ADMIN. OF DAMAN & DIU, DAMAN 
467 
Appellant was arrested and on conducting search his personal diary was A 
sei7.ed. Appellant made confession that the boy P had been murdered. Appellant 
made statement which led to recovery of a few bones on 7.08.2000 which along 
with blood samples of the parents of P were sent for DNA test to Hyderabad. 
Two other persons, Sand C, who were also allegedly involved in commission 
of the crime committed suicide in a hotel. A purported suicide note written by B 
S was found wherein they implicated not only themselves but also the appellant 
Appellant was sent to judicial custody on 15.08.2000 and a request was made 
to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daman on 16.08.2000 for recording the 
confessional statement of appellant which was recorded on 17.08.2000 and 
18.08.2000 wherein appellant admitted kidnapping P for ransom but stated 
that P was murdered by S and C. Trial Court inter alia relying upon C 
circumstantial evidence viz discovery of remnants and articles at the instance 
of accused ; confession before the Magistrate ; extra judicial confession of 
co-accused ; motive to extort ransom, etc. convicted appellant for commission 
of offence under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and imposed 
sentence of death and also convicted him for commission of an offence 
punishable under Section 201 IPC. High Court affirmed the order of the Trial D 
Court. Hence the present appeal by the accused. 
Appellant inter alia contended that charges having only been framed 
under sections 364, 302 and 201 IPC, the appellant could not have been 
convicted under Sections 364-A and 201 thereof; and that the purported E 
confession made by the appellant being not voluntary could not have been relied 
upon. 
Respondent inter alia contended that when the provisions of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 viz., Sections 221, 251and364 have substantially 
been complied with, mere omission to frame proper charge may not be F 
sufficient to absolve appellant there'from only on mere technicality ; that the 
confession of the accused, disclosing information leading to discovery of bones 
proved the place where the dead body was disposed of and, thus, established 
his knowledge as to how P was murdered and how his dead body was disposed 
of and the same having been proved by two eye-witnesses, full reliance 
thereupon has rightly been placed by the trial Court; that judicial confession G 
made by the appellant having not been retracted, the same would form the 
best evidence to sustain the judgment of conviction

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.