MANI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 228 · Decided: 08-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.P. NAOLEKAR · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 1 S.C.R. 228 
A 
MANI 
·.--. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
(Crl.A. No. 443 of 2006) 
B 
JANUARY 8, 2008 
[P.P. NAOLEKAR AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Prosecution of 
.. 
two accused - Circumstantial evidence - Deceased last seen 
c with both the accused - Motive for murder alleged to be 
strained relation between the co-accused and father of the 
deceased - Offencf! alleged to have been committed in the 
house of the accused - Blood stainecl articles found in the 
house - Delay in lodging FIR - Recovery of clothes and 
D weapon of offence at the behest of both the accused - · 
Witnesses to the recovery turning hostile - Conviction of both 
the accused by trial court- High Court convicting the accused,· 
but acquitting the co-accused disbelieving the circumstances 
.,., 
of motive and discovery - On appeal held: Conviction not 
E 
;ustified - Prosecution failed to prove exclusive ownership and 
possession of the house where blood stains found - No proof 
that the discovered clothes belonged to the accused - In the · 
circumstances of the case discovery is without any credence 
- Motive against the accused not proved. 
/Evidence Act, 1.872 - s. 27 - Discovery - Evidentiary 
.. 
F value of- Held: It is a weak kind of evidence - Conviction on. 
~ .. . 
the basis of such evidence alone, not permissible. 
Appellant-accused along with another accused (A·2), 
was prosecuted for having kllled one person. According 
G to the prosecution case, the motive for murder was on 
account of strained relationship between A·2 and father 
of the deceased. Circumstances leadlng to the Incident 
were that the appellant-accused took the deceased 
alongwlth him at about $.00 P.M. on the day of the Incident. 
H When the deceased did not return home tlll 10.00 P.M., 
228 
MANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
229 
. ..,. 
PW-1 (father of the deceased) went to the house of the A 
appellant, he saw that blood was oozing from the water 
passage underneath the door frame of the locked house 
of the ippellant. He returned back and was told by PW-2 
that the deceased was last seen in the company of the 
appellant and A-2. On the next day morning, when PW-1 B 
went to the house of the appellant, he found trail of blood 
near the house. The body of the deceased· was traced 
-~ 
lying in the field belonging to PW 5. Thereafter PW-1 lodged 
the~complaint with police. During investigation, when the 
house of the appellant was broke open, blood-stained c 
materials like cement flooring, human hair and brass lock 
were found. Appellant surrendered before the court. Blood 
stained clothes of accused (MO 15-17) and koduval (MO 
18) were recovered as his behest. A-2 was also arrested 
and his blood-stained clothes were recovered. Trial Court 
convicted both the accused u/s 302 IPC. High Court D 
acquitted A-2 disbelieving the circumstances of motive 
)r 
and recovery. However, appellant was convicted. Hence 
the present appeal against the conviction. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1. This is not a c;ase where the prosecution 
has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable 
doubts. This is clearly a case for benefit of doubt. [Para 25] 
[242-DJ 
2. The first circumstance held by the High Court F 
against the appellant is that the Koduval (iVl.0.18) was 
found with sticking hair and it is proved that the scalp 
hair of the diceased was found similar to the hair sticking 
.to the Koth.ivai and that M.Os 15, 16 and 17 were the 
clothes found with stained blood. This circumstance by G 
I 
-
-
Itself IS of no consequence. Even if it is accepted that the 
Koduval and the alleged clothes had the blood stains, that 
does ·not connect the appellant with the crime.[Paras 15 
and 22) (237-D, E; 241-F] 
3.1 High Court suggested that if the appellant took H 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
{2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A the deceased at 6.00 p.m. on 24.11.1996 to his house 
where ttre deceased was done away with, the burden 
shifted on the first accused to show how the· deceased · 
died in- his house. This is not the correct position of law .. ' 
The appellant had very clearly :stated in his examinatioh 
B under Section 3-13 ChP:C. that the house did not belong 
to his father and that it was lying vacant and nobody had 
occupied it:There-is no evidence worth the name lead by· ' 
the prosecution to -suggest the _exdusive owne·r.shi)> or.·. 
the possession of the house belonged to th1f appeffa11t. '. 
C Much could have been done.to establish itS'd

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