LexBASKARAN & ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 5 S.C.R. 824 BASKARAN & ANR. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2008) APRIL 25, 2014 [T.S. THAKUR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860- ss.302 and 376- Rape followed by murder- Conviction of appellants (A-1 and A-2) u/ss.376, 302 C by trial court - High Court affirmed conviction of A-1 for both rape and murder but held A-2 guilty of rape only and not murder - On appeal, held: A-1 and A-2 committed rape on the victim one after the other whereafter A-1 throttled the neck of the deceased with his hands resulting in her death which o act was questioned by A-2 - In the circumstances, even though A-2 committed rape on the victim and was convicted for the same, he was rightly acquitted by the High Court of the offence of murder- Insofar as A-1 was concerned, he was insulted by the deceased when he attempted to develop E intimacy with her whereupon A-1 got angry and conspired with his friend and committed not only rape on her, but also murdered her - Although, there was no eye-witness to the incident, confessional statement of the accused fully corroborated circumstantial evidence as the post-mortem F report revealed that deceased had died of strangulation which matched with the confessional statement of A-1 - Sexual assault of rape was also established from the post-mortem report - Evidence of PW-10 and PW-13, the then Village Administrative Officers before whom A-1 and 2 gave their G extra-judicial confessions, clearly unveiled the case of the prosecution and this evidence was further corroborated - PW- 11 and PW-14 even though treated as hostile, not able to establish that the extra-judicial confessions had not been recorded in their presence - Merely because one of the H 824 BASKARAN & ANR. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 825 witnesses to the confessional statement did not support the A confession in its entirety, the entire confession cannot be brushed aside as unreliable even though independent witness like the Village Administrative Officer had supported the recording of conviction - In addition, recovery memos from A-1 and A-2 clearly established the charges leveled B against them - Conviction of appellants not based merely on confessional statement but also on other substantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution - No infirmity in the judgment of High Court holding the appellants guilty. Evidence - Confession - Extra judicial confession - c Reliability of- Held: An extra-judicial confession can be relied upon only if the same is voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind - But it is not open to any court to start with the presumption that extra-judicial confession is insufficient to convict the accused even though it is supported by the other D circumstantial evidence and corroborated by independent witness which was the position in the instant case - If evidence relating to extra-judicial confession is found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability, · it can solely form the basis of conviction. E The prosecution case was that the appellants -A1 & A2 along with two others forcibly took a girl to a secluded place, where she was raped and then in course of the same transaction, A1 strangulated her to death; and that F further, with a view to screen the offence, all of them threw the dead body to a secluded place in an agricultural field. Subsequently, A-1 made extra-judicial confession before PW10 which was witnessed by PW11 while A-2 made extra-judicial confession before PW13 which was G witnessed by PW14. Both PW10 and PW13 were Village Administrative Officers. Placing reliance upon the said extra-judicial confessions made by A-1 and 2, the trial court convicted them under Sections 302 and 376 IPC. On appeal, the H 826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 5 S.C.R. · A High Court affirmed the conviction of A-1 under Section 376(2)(g) and 302 l.P.C. As regards A-2, the High Court acquitted him of the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC but upheld his conviction under Section 376 IPC. 8 The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal was whether the appellants could be convicted solely on the basis of two extra-judicial confessions, allegedly witnessed by PW-11 and PW-14 respectively though they had turned hostile with regard C to some portions of the prosecution evidence. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. There is substance in the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.