KADAMANIAN @ MANIKANDAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 513 · Decided: 31-08-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 4 S. C.R. 513 
KADAMANIAN @ MANIKANDAN 
v. 
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of20 I 0) 
AUGUST31,2016 
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARuN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 201, 302, 376 and s.404-Prosecution 
under - Circumstantial Evidence- Extra-judicial confession-
Recovery in consequence of confession - Two accused - Victim-
deceased went missing- Her dead body was found - Without clothes-
Mutilated face, but nose intact-Her nose pin was missing- PW-6 
had seen appellant near place of occurrence-Police suspected 
appellant of offences- Extra-judicial confession made by appellant 
before village administrative officer, PW-12 - Consequent to that, 
nose pin recovered, which was identified by the family members of 
the deceased - Trial court convicted both accused - High Court 
acquitted co-accused - On appeal, held: Extra-judicial confession 
was made by appellant to PW-12, who was totally unbiased, 
unconnected with the controversy in hand and also could not be 
stated to be inimical to the appellant- Testimony of PW-12 remained 
unshaken and therefore extra-judic"ial confessiOn is reliable- Nose 
pin worn by the deceased was clearly different from the usual nose-
s tuds- No injury whatsoever was found on the nose, in the 
photograph of the deceased- There was no justification in the plea 
of appellant that the acquittal of co-accused was based on same 
evidence, proved through same set of witness- The recovery of nose 
pin was at the instance of accused and not at the instance of co-
accused - The case of co-accused on a clearly different footing -
Therefore, there was sufficient justification for the High Court, to 
have taken a different view in the case of the co-accused. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. There was a clear and categoric extra-judicial 
confession made by the appellant to PW-12. During the course of 
recording his testimony, PW-12 was subjected to vigorous cross-
examination. His testimony however remained unshaken. 
Resultantly, the trial Court, as also, the High Court, concluded 
H 
513 
<.· 
514 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 4 S.C.R. 
that the extra-judicial confession was genuine. The nose-pin has 
been identified by the members of the family of the deceased, as 
the one that was actually worn by the deceased, when she went 
missing. Since the nose-pin was recovered at the instance of the 
appellant, from a remote place under an electric transformer, no 
one but the appellant could have been aware of its location. [Para 
18) [525-B, D-EJ 
2. The extra judicial confession made to PW-12, was by the 
appellant, and not by the co-accused. The recovery of the nose-
pin found missing from the nose of the deceased was at the 
instance of the appellant, and not at the hands of the co-accused. 
Therefore, the case of the co-accused, was on a clearly different 
footing, and there was sufficient justification for the High Court, 
to have taken a different view, SW in the case of the co-accused. 
[Para 19) [526-E] 
Kala @ Chandrakala v. State through Inspector of 
Police 2016 (7) SCALE 735 - distinguished. 
Case Law Reference 
2016 (7) SCALE 735 
distinguished 
Para 14 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
E 
No. 2341 of2010. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2009 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras, in Criminal Appeal No. 528 of2009. 
Su nil Fernandes, Puneeth K. G., Ms. Astha Sharma, Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
M. Yogesh Kamm, Ms. Nithya, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. I. The prosecution in the 
instant case was lodged against the appellant herein - Kadamanian @ 
G 
Manikandan, as well as, against co-accused -1.T. Manian@Manikanda, 
for the offences under Sections 201, 302, 376 and 404 of the Indian 
Penal Code. The aforesaid offences were allegedly committed by the 
accused with reference to M. Jayalakshmi. 
2. As per the prosecution version, M.Jayalakshmi went missing at 
H 
7 a.m. on 6.9.2007, having left her residence to answer the call ofnature. 
KADAMANIAN@ MANIKANDAN v. STATE REPRESENTED 
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] 
Since she did not return, a missing person's report was lodged on 7 .9 .2007 
by her father P.Matheswaran at Namakkam Kumarapalayam Police 
Station. It is also relevant to mention, that in the first information report 
registered on 7.9.2007, the complainant had attached the photogr

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