INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU versus MUTHUSAMY AND ANR.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 10-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

t-+ 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 309 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU 
A 
v. 
MUTHUSAMY AND ANR. 
J 
(Criminal Appeal No.655 of 2002) 
~ 
SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH . BEDI, JJ.] 
Criminal Trial - Conviction by Trial Court - Set aside by. 
High Court - On grounds that extra judicial confessions were 
not reliable; that witnesses resiled from statements made dur- c 
ing investigation and that there was manipulation in date of 
receipt of report by Magistrate from police station - Held: In 
' 
view of these discrepancies, no case made out for interfer-
ence in the judgment of High Court - Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 302 rlw s:34. 
C'f 
'· 
D 
According to the prosecution, the deceased was 
throttled and poison was also administered to ·him. The 
accused-Respondents are the father and brother respec-
tively of the deceased. As the report of ForeJ1sic Science 
Laboratory stated that the viscera of the deceased did E 
not contain any poison, prosecution later on gave up its 
stand that the deceased was administered poison. Trial 
Court relied upon the extra-judicial confessions purport· 
edly made by the accused-Respondents and accordingly 
convicted them under s.302 rlw s.34 IPC. On appeal, the 
High Court directed acquittal. Hence the present appeal. F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The High Court referred to the extra-judicial 
confessions and found that they are not reliable. The wit-
G 
nesses gave varying version' about the so called extra· 
~ 
judicial confessions. Apart from that, the persons .who 
claimed to have witnessed the ·incident resiled from the 
statemehts made during investigation and there was prac-
309 
H 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
---1-
A tically no evidence to implicate the accused persons. To 
add to other factors, one more significant factor which 
the High Court has noticed is that there was manipula-
tion done to show as if the Magistrate had received the 
report from Police Station on 3.1.1990. In reality the date 
B of seal found on Exh.P1 and Exh.P9 of the Court of 
Keeranoor shows that the date was 5.1.1990. In view of 
these discrepancies, the High Court's judgment does not 
suffer from any infirmity to warrant any interference. [Para 
3] [311-C-E] 
c 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 655 of 2002 
From the JudgmenUOrder dated 30.3.2001 of the. High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 738 of 1992 
D 
Shanmugasundaram, S. Thananjayan and V.G. Pragasam 
,.., 
for the Appellants. 
V. Ramasubramanian for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard. 
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of acquittal 
recorded by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The 
accused persons are the father and brother respectively of the 
F deceased. The incident purportedly took place on 3.1.1990. 
Though the prosecution relied on the evidence of many per-
sons who supposedly witnessed the occurrence, while depos-
ing in Court, most of them resiled from the statements made 
during investigation. The version projected by the prosecution 
G was that the deceased was throttled and also poison was ad-
ministered to him. But the report of the Forensic Science Labo-
ratory stated that the viscera did not contain any poison. The 
...
prosecution, therefore, gave up its stand that the deceased was 
~I 
administered poison by the accused persons. There were pur-
H portedly some extra-judicial confessions on which the Trial Court 
J 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. 
311 
MUTHUSAMY & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT. J.] · 
relied. Accordingly, the accused persons were convicted for A 
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of 
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). In appeal the High 
Court has, by the impugned judgment, directed acquittal. 
.... 
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that B 
the analysis made by the High Court to direct acquittal cannot 
be maintained as the High Court lost sight of several relevant 
factors. 
3. We find that the High Court has referred to the extra-
judicial confessions and found that they are not reliable. The c 
witnesses gave varying version about the manner in the so-
called extra-judicial confessions. Apart from that the persons 
who claimed to have witnessed the incident resiled from the 
statements made during investigation and there was practically 
no evidence to implicate the accused persons. To add to o

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