LexINSPECTOR OF POLICE, T.N. versus PALANISAMY @ SELVAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 126 l- A INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T.N. f1 v. PALANISAMY @ SELVAN (Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2003) B OCTOBER 1, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] ·:r Evidence Act, 1872 - Circumstantial evidence - Con- viction under s.302 /PC on the basis of circumstance that wit- \ c '• nesses last saw <Jeceased in company of accused before the incident and extra judicial confession made by accused be- , fore the village head - Acquittal by High Court _disbelieving ,_ evidence of prosecution witnesses - Correctness of - Held: D Correct - The incident took place at night- Witnesses claimed to have identified accused from his voice but such identifica- \ tion was not possible as there was no evidence to show that -\- witnesses were closely acquainted with the accused - Rea- sons given by High Court to discard evidence of witness re- E garding extra judicial confession a/so did not suffer from any infirmity - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Extra judicial confes- sion. The trial court convicted the accused under s.302 IPC on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The first circum- F stance was that PWs1 and 2 saw the deceased in the com- Ji pany of the accused around 11 O'clock in the night of ;, 5.6.1991 and second was an alleged extra judicial con- fession made by accused on 12.6.1991 at 9 A.M. before PW-3, the village head. On appeal, the High Court held G that the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 was not reliable. It also did not accept the extra judicial confession made before PW-3 on the ground that PW-3 was the former President -~. of Village Panchayat Board and being responsible wit- ness ought to have surrendered the accused to police or H 126 0 l) -K / 't ..I INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T.N. v. PALANISAMY 127 @SELVAN advised him to surrender at the police station immediately A after the extra judicial confession was made before him. The High Court accordingly ordered acquittal. Hence the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 8 HELD: The High Court found the possibility of iden- tification of the accused, as claimed by PWs1 and 2, an impossibility. Undisputedly it was a dark night. They claimed to have identified the accused from his voice. Though such identification in some cases is possible, in c the instant case, .no evidence was adduced to show that the witnesses were closely acquainted with the accused to even identify him from his voice, that too from a very short replies, purported to have been given. This fact was lost sight of by the trial court. So far as the purported ex- D tra judicial confession is concerned, the High Court found that the same also has not established through the evi- dence of PW3. The reasons given by the High Court to discard the evidence of PW3 did not suffer from any infir- mity. [Para 4] [128-E,F,G] E CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2003 From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.3.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. F 697 of 1992 • S. Thananjayan and Revathy Raghavan for the Appellant. K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G DR. ARIJIT ASAYAT, J. Heard. The State of Tamil Nadu questions the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court directing acquittal of the respondent. Learned Addiitonal H 128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. '(-i A Sessions Judge, Erode had found the respondent guitly of of- fence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (in short ,IPC') and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to un- dergo imprisonment for life. The case at hand rests on circum- stantial evidence. The first circumstance which was highlighted B by the prosecution was that Pws. 1 and 2 allegedly saw the deceased in the company of the accused around 11 O' clock in the night. The second was an alleged extra judicial confession before PW3 the village head. Though the trial Court placed re- liance on these factors to find the accused guilty the High Court c found the evidence of Pws. 1 and 2 to be unreliable so far as the claim to have seen accused and the Gleceased together around 11 O'clock in the night. Similarly the High Court found that the so-called extra judicial confession has not been estab- lished by PW3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State sub- D mitted that the High Court should not have discarded the evidencne of Pws 1 and 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.