LexINSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU versus JOHN DAVID
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 7 S.C.R. 354 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN DAVID (Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 2002) APRIL 20, 2011 [DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 201, 364 and 342 - C Gruesome murder - Dead body cut into different pieces - PW1 's son was studying for a medical degree and staying in the college hostel - He was allegedly killed by respondent, a senior student in the same college - A/legation that respondent caused head injury to the deceased and when D deceased was lying on the ground unconscious, the respondent severed his head and limbs and removed his gold ring, watch and gold chain - Further a/legation that thereafter, respondent put the head and the gold articles of deceased in a zip bag and threw it into canal water near the E hostel and burnt the bloodstained clothes of the deceased in the open terrace of the hostel building and took the torso in a suitcase along with the limbs in a train and threw the limbs in a river while the train was in transit and put the torso in a bus - Trial court convicted respondent under ss. 302, 201, 364 F and 342 /PC and sentenced him to life imprisonment - High Court acquitted the respondent - Justification of - Held: Not justified - All the witnesses were independent and respectable eye-witnesses - From the evidence of the witnesses, it was clear that the respondent nurtured ill feeling against the deceased as the deceased refused to write the record note G for respondent; that the deceased was last seen with the respondent and that the conduct of respondent was very weird and strange and the bags/suitcases kept by him also produced stinking smell - Skull of deceased was recovered H 354 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 355 DAVID from canal water, and material objects, like, note books of A deceased, gold chain, blood stained bags, knifes etc. were also recovered - Also, evidence of three specialist doctors who categorically stated that the skull, torso and limbs recovered were of the deceased only - Strong and cogent circumstantial evidences deduced from the investigation logically and B rationally point towards the guilt of the respondent - No other possible or plausible view favouring the respondent - Conviction of respondent restored. Appeal -Appeal against acquittal - Power of the appellate court - Held: While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, C the appellate Court has no restriction to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded - On such review, the appellate Court would consider the manner in which the evidence was dealt with by the lower Court - At the same time, if the lower Court's decision is based on D erroneous views and against the settled position of law, then such an order of acquittal should be set aside - Further, if the trial Court has ignored material and relevant facts or misread such evidence or has ignored scientific documents, then in such a scenario the appellate court is competent to reverse E the decision of the trial court. Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of - Held: Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the F circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is the guilt of the accused and that no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible - In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a. danger that G conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof - The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been estafjfished clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused - There H 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R. A is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. Investigation/Inquiry - Held: Minor loopholes and iffegularities in the investigation process cannot form the crux 8 of the case on which an accused can rely upon to prove his innocence when there are strong circumstantial evidences deduced from the investigation which logically and rationally point towards the guilt of the accused. PW1 's son was a first year junior student in a Medical C College and was staying in the college
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.