K.T. PALANISAMY versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 581 · Decided: 11-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 1 S.C.R. 581 
. .,; 
K.T. PALANISAMY 
A 
\I. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
(Crl. A. No. 1107 of 2005) 
JANUARY 11, 2008 
B 
[S.B.· SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
~ 
Penal Code, 1860: ss.302, 1208 r.w. ss.34 and 109 -
Dead body of deceased not found - Conviction for murder of 
deceased based on circumstantial evidence - Justification of c 
- Held: Not justified - No evidence in regard to death - Nothing 
to show that current in river was suc;h as to take dead body 
away '- Death as a fact thus not proved - All prosecution 
witnesses related to deceased - Difficult to believe that all 
witnesses saw deceased accompanying accused persons one D 
after the other at different places - Thus, chance of their 
~ 
deposing falsely not ruled out - When circumstantial evidence 
made basis for establishing charge, all links must be 
~ 
completed -Appellant was not suspected on the day of alleged 
crime - Fact that dec~ased was last seen with appellant was E 
not specifically disclosed in FIR- Suspicion was raised about 
involvement of appellant only because three other dead 
bodies were recovered - Recovery of golden chain at the 
instance of appellant itself not sufficient· for upholding 
conviction under s.302 /PC. 
.... 
F 
The prosecution case was that the deceased was 
•· 
passing through tough times. The appellant-accused who 
was astrologer had advised him to perform some poojas 
on the bed of a river. On 29.4.1996, the deceased went to 
the place fixed for the said purpose along with the accused G 
persons. The deceased at that time was said to be wearing 
i 
a gold chain and two gold rings. He was last seen by PW-
3, PW-4 and his brother-in-law PW-5. He however, did not 
come back home. On inquiries, made from the appellant, 
·the family members of the deceased were informed that H 
581 
582 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A after performing pooja, deceased went to attend some 
function. He was thereafter not heard of for a long time. 
;..__, 
An advertisement was issued in local newspaper after few 
days to search for deceased. The wife of deceased PW-1 
sought for assistance of the appellant who advised them 
B to perfc1rm a pooja at temple. The parents of the deceased 
and his grandmother went to the temple for performing 
the pooja in the company of the appellant. However, they 
also did not return home. From a report which appeared 
in a newspaper, PW-1 came to learn that 3 persons were 
c found murdered at a place. She went to the said place 
and lodged FIR. An FIR was registered under the caption 
'man missing'. A case was registered against the accused 
persons under ss.302 and 379 IPC. Based on the 
purported confessional statement made by the appellant, 
D the Investigating Officer recovered gold chain and some 
bangles Accused No.2 allegedly was having a gold ring 
in his finger which was also seized. 
). 
The trial Court convicted the appellant and two other 
• 
accused persons were convicted under ss.1208, 302 r.w. 
E ss.34 and 109 IPC as also ss.379 and 209, based on 
circumstantial evidence. High Court affirmed the same. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. The dead body of the deceased was not 
~ 
recovered. There is no evidence in regard to death. 
Nothing has been brought on record to show that there 
... 
was enough water in the river or the current in the water 
was such so as to take a dead body away. The fact that 
G the river was a tidal one had not been proved. The corpus 
delicti has not been proved. The same need not be but 
the death as a fact must be proved. No piece of mortal 
~ 
remains of the deceased was found. If the prosecution 
witnesses were to be believed they had no reason to 
H suspect the appellant at the relevant point Qf time. They 
K.T. PALANISAMY v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
583 
-~ 
knew that the deceased was to attend another function. A 
PW-2 who was running a shop with the deceased 
deposed that on 29.4.1996 deceased came to his shop 
with the appellant and informed him that they were going 
to the temple to perform pooja whereafter he would go to 
some function. It cannot be believed that the deceased B 
would take all the accused to the shop of PW2 or allowed 
:>( 
to be found in their company by all of his relations and 
partners. None of the witnesses testified that they were 
seen near the place of worship. None said that they were 
found to be performing any pooja. No evidence was c 
adduced to show that any pooja was perform

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