LexJOHN PANDIAN versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T. NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B (2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R 1012 JOHN PANDIAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE;, T. NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 452 of 2007) DECEMBER 3, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: c s. 302 rlw s. 34, s. 302 rlw s. 109, ss. 34 and 120-8 - Hom.icidal death - A/legations of criminal conspiracy - Prosecution case that A-1, owing to his failure in marrying a girl he loved, hatched a conspiracy to ki/J her husband, for which A-9, 10 and A-11 were hired as assassins -A-10 and A-11 0 allegedly waylaid the deceased pursuant to which A-9 severely assaulted him with a sharp edged weapon - Eleven accused - Two accused, A-3 and A-8, acquitted- Conviction of the other accused - Challenge to - Meanwhile, A-1 committed suicide - Held:' Conviction of A-9, 10 and 11 affirmed in view of the consistent direct evidence of the eye-witnesses which was E corroborated by the evidence of Test Identification Parade and circumstantial evidence - However, it is not possible to hold that the acts done by A-2, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 along with A- 1 and the subsequent act on the part of A-9, A-10 and A-11 formed a chain of circumstances which irresistibly proved the F offence of conspiracy against A-2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 - Prosecution was extremely confused as to how much money was agreed to be paid for the murder and as to how much money was distlibuted - All these things completely shatter the case of conspiracy at least in so far as A-2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are concerned G - They have to be given the benefit of doubt for that purpose and are acquitted. s.302 rlw s.34 - Murder-A/legation that A-10 and A-11 had stopped the deceased whereafter A-9 severely assaulted H 1012 JOHN PANDIAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF1013 POLICE, T. NADU the deceased with a sharp weapon - Three eye-witnesses - A Conviction·of A-9, A-10 and A-11 - Justification - Held: Justified - All the three witnesses gave graphic description of the incident, which was in consonance with each other - They a/so identified the accused persons in Test Identification Parade, which had the effect of corroborating the evidence of B the eye-witnesses - Further corroboration from circumstantial evidence such as discovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of A-9 and recovery of the photograph of deceased from the taxi in which A-9, A-10 and A-11 travelled prior to the incident - Evidence against A-9, A-10 and A-11 was sufficient c - Trial and the appellate Courts rightly convicted them. s. 1208 - Conspiracy - Proof of - Held: The evidence of conspiracy is very hard to be found and the prosecution would always have a great difficulty in proving the conspiracy and, therefore, the conspiracy has to be inferred - Every such D circumstance, which is relied upon by the prosecution for establishing conspiracy, must be proved to have nexus with that conspiracy - Evidence - Evidence of conspiracy. s.120-B and s.302 rlw s.109 - Murder - Criminal E conspiracy - Eleven accused: ' Conviction of A-7, a political leader, as a co-conspirator- Justification - Held: Not justified - The evidence against A-7 was insufficient - No effort was made by the prosecution to identify A-7 though he could have been easily identified -A-7 granted benefit of doubt. F Conviction of A-5 - Justification of - Held: Not justified - Held: There was hardly any evidence against A-5 which can brand him as a conspirator - He was never put"up for G identification -A-5 had no enmity with the deceased - Merely because he travelled along with some of the other accused not enough to prove any part of the conspiracy- The travels could have been for various other reasons - He, therefore deserves acquittal. i \ ' H 1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Conviction of A-6 - Justification - Held: Not justified - No presumption that merely because A-6 had some things in his possession, which he failed to explain, therefore, all this must have come only on account of the money that he had allegedly received as a member of the conspiracy - This evidence not B enough to hold that he was a member of the conspiracy - A-6 therefore entitled to benefit of doubt. Conviction of A-4 - Justification - Held: Not justified - In the absence of any convincing evidence, merely because A- 4 travelled together with other accused and stayed in two Hotels, C it cannot be said that it was in order to perpetrate a conspiracy - Nothing brought on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.