INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU versus BALAPRASANNA

Citation: [2008] 11 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 21-07-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 31 
~ 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU 
A 
v. 
BALAPRASANNA 
(Criminal Appeal No.1125 of 2008) 
JULY 21, 2008 
B 
-f 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
s.27 - Confessional statement leading to recovery of ar- c 
tic/es - Prosecution while relying upon the confessional state-
ment leading to recovery of articles under s.27 of the Act, has 
to prove through cogent evidence that the statement was made 
voluntarily and led to discovery of the relevant facts - On facts, 
alleged confession made belatedly - Hence cannot be relied 
D 
upon as it created doubt regarding its authenticity and 
A 
voluntariness - Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302. 
Circumstantial evidence - Links in the chain of circum-
stances - Held: Must be complete and proved by cogent evi-
dence - Where case rests squarely on circumstantial evi-
dence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all the in-
E 
criminating facts and circumstances are found to be incom-
patible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any 
other person. 
Prosecution case was that deceased was found dead 
F 
~ 
in her room. On the basis of FIR filed by PW-1, investiga-
tion was taken up by P.W.40. Subsequently on the basis 
of the order of the High Court, such investigation was 
completed by P.W.42. 
The accused was arrested on suspicion. On the ba-
G 
• 
sis of his statement, knife and a log allegedly used for 
--\ 
killing, and certain other materials were recovered. Initially, 
P.W.40 suspected the role of P.W.1, his wife P.W.2, P.W.3, 
from whose house certain incriminating materias were re-
31 
H 
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORrs 
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
covered allegedly on ttte basis of statement'of the ac-
cused as well as P.W.4, who was working as a cleaner in 
the vehicle of P.W.1. Subsequently, however, P.W.42, who 
took over investigation from P.WAO filed charge-sh~et only 
against the respondent on the footing that P.Ws. 1 to 4 
B had no role to play in the crime. · 
ihe .prosecuti'cin'-relied up~~ ortly circurtt.stanti~I· evi-
dence, namely, confessional statements of the accused 
leading to recovery of various incriminating materiais. The 
C prosecution has also relied upon the alleged motive to 
the effect that the accused urgently wanted money with a 
view to.increase his marks·in-Mathematics and, therefore, 
the .ac-.cused had stolen articles: belonging to the de-
ceased: 
-' 
-
~ 
·-. ' 
. 
, 
• 
. 
'" 
I 
~ '· . . 
' 
. 
\ 
• 
. 
-
, 
•• • 
,• 
p 
. T_rial .. court convicted accused unqer ·s.302 IPC on 
E 
the basis of circumstantial evidence. High Cou.rt found 
that the circumstances highlighted were not ·sufficient to 
fasten the guilt on the accused, ·and directed .acquittal. 
Hence: the present appeal, -
Dismissing. the appeal, 'the. Court 
. . 
~ 
; 
. 
HELD: 1.1 Where a· cas·e rests squarely on circum-
stantial evidence; the inference of guilt can be justified 
only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances 
are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the 
F 
a·ccused .or the guilt of_ any ~ther' person.'.The ma.l'n cir~ 
cumstances_ reiled upon by the prosec'utiorr reTates to the 
" 
-
- ' 
.: 
- --
' 
' ~ 
~ 
-
~ 
' . 
. ' 
• 
• 
~ 
\ 
'! 
G 
statements .ofthe. accused leading to discovery of m·ate~ 
riat' facts~ ad~issible uride'r s:21 of the Eyidenc~ Act, 1'si2. 
[Paras 9,18] [41-E, 45-8,C] 
·. 
.. · 
· · 
1·· ·· · 
. ' • 
. . 
' 
• . 
.·. . 
. f 
. • 
. . 
-
Hukam. Singt1v. State ofRajqsthan AIR (1977)' s~ 1063; 
Eradu' and. Ors. v.' ·~sttite of Hyderab'ad°flJR. (19S6) SC ·316; 
Earabhadrappa v.' State of Kamataka ·AiR (1 ~83) sc 446; State 
of UP. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR (1985)° SC 1224; Ba/winder 
H Singh · v. State: of Punjab Al R (1987) sc 3·50; Ashok Kum~r 
r 
(. 
I 
\-
r
i 
/ 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. 
33 
BALAPRASANNA 
).._ 
Chatterjee v. State of M.P AIR (1989) SC 1890; Bhagat Ram A 
v. State of Punjab AIR (1954) SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and 
Ors. v. State of A.P (1996) 10 SCC 193; Padala Veera Reddy 
v. State of A.P and Ors. AIR (1990) SC 79 State of UP v. Ashok 
Kumar Srivastava (1992) Crl.LJ 1104; Hanumaht Govind 
Nargundkar and Anr. v. State ofMadhya Pradesh AIR 1952 B 
.>, 
SC 343; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 
AIR (1984) SC 1622; State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram (2003) 8 
SCC 180; State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh & Anr. (2003) 11 
sec 261 - relied on. 
---!' 
c 
"Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" by Sir Alfred Wills - re-
ferred to. 
1.2. Law is wel

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