JOHN ANTHONISAMY @ JOHN versus STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 19-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
279
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 279
279
JOHN ANTHONISAMY @ JOHN
v.
STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2017)
JANUARY 19, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C.T RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.201 – Murder – Circumstantial
evidence – Purported extra-judicial confession – Effect – Five
accused including appellant (A-1) – Prosecution case that in
pursuance of a conspiracy, the accused persons killed the deceased
and stole/took away his car – PW11 (Sub inspector) closed the case
as undetected – However, case was subsequently re-opened and
investigation initiated by police witness (PW30) on basis of
confessional statement made in letter allegedly written by appellant
to PW22 – Trial Court convicted appellant u/s.302 r/w s.201 IPC –
Conviction confirmed by High Court – Challenge to – Held: It was
contended by appellant that he was convicted on confessional
statement in his letter /communication to PW22 and the instant case
being a case of circumstantial evidence, therefore, unless and until
the complete chain of events were proved and established, he could
not have been convicted on confessional statement – However, High
Court did not give much weightage so far as the letter /communication
by appellant addressed to PW22 is concerned and therefore, it
cannot be said that appellant was convicted on the confessional
statement made in the letter /communication concerned – Further,
as rightly observed by the High Court, by other circumstances the
prosecution established and proved that the deceased was killed
after his car was stolen/taken away by the appellant – First strong
circumstance against the appellant was that the dead body was
exhumed from the place identified by appellant and super imposition
test and DNA examination proved that the dead body was that of
the deceased – Second strong circumstance against the appellant
was that the car was recovered from the place and the person
disclosed by the appellant – Another circumstance against the
appellant was that the car engine and gear box sold by him was
recovered from PW-17 on disclosure statement made by appellant –
Conviction of appellant accordingly confirmed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that he
has been convicted on the confessional statement and therefore,
in case of circumstantial evidence and unless and until the
complete chain of events were proved and established, he could
not have been convicted on confessional statement. However,
the so-called communication by the appellant addressed to PW-
22 is as such not believed by the High Court being secondary
evidence and the same has not been proved. Therefore, as such
the High Court has not given much weightage so far as the letter/
communication is concerned. Therefore, it cannot be said that
the appellant has been convicted on the confessional statement
made in the letter /communication. [Para 6.1][286-E-H; 287-A]
2. During investigation, appellant disclosed the place where
he had buried the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was
exhumed from the place identified by appellant. Thereafter, the
super imposition test was conducted and the DNA examination
was conducted on the bones and the skull and it was proved that
the dead body was that of the deceased. [Para 6.2][287-B-D]
3. There is a recovery of car driven by the deceased from
the place and the person disclosed by appellant. The prosecution
has successfully proved the same by examining PW-16, a
person to whom the stolen car was sold by appellant.
[Para 6.3][287-E-F]
4. The prosecution has been successful in proving that the
car engine and gear box which were sold by the appellant was
recovered from PW-17 on the disclosure statement made by
appellant. [Para 6.4][287-G-H]
5. It is rightly observed by the High Court, by other
circumstances the prosecution has established and proved that
the deceased was killed after his car was stolen /taken away by
the appellant. [Para 6.5][288-D-E]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 466 of 2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.171 of 2015.
Rakesh K. Sharma, Ms. N. S. Nappinai, V. Balaji, Asaithambi
Msm, C. Kannan, Nizamuddin, Advs. for the Appellant.
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Shobhit Dwivedi, Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi,
Sanjeev Kr. Mahara, Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
281
T

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