NAGARAJ versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SALEM TOWN, TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2015] 3 S.C.R. 450 · Decided: 10-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 450 
NAGARAJ 
v. 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 
SALEM TOWN, TAMIL NADU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1311 of2006) 
MARCH 10, 2015 
C 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.] 
Penal Code 1860- s.302 - Murder- Prosecution 
. case that appellant and victim were working together in a 
o business - In connection thereof, they checked in at a hotel 
- Same day appellant locked the hotel room and left alone 
with the room key and did not return - Two days later, room 
boy noticed bad odour coming from the said room- However, 
the room was opened the next day with the master key given 
E by the manager- Decomposed body of the victim found in 
the room -Eighteen months later appellant surrendered 
before the Judicial Magistrate - Appellant allegedly 
voluntarily confessed that he killed the victim - However, in 
the statement uls. 313 Cr.PC. appellant denied his complicity 
F in the offence - On basis of circumstantial evidence, courts 
below convicted and sentenced the appellant uls. 302 - On 
appeal, held: High Court was not correct in drawing an adverse 
inference against the accused because of what he stated or 
G what he failed to state in his examination uls. 313 CrPC - It 
was incumbent on the High Court to deal with the so-called 
confession in detail - Reading of the judgment does not 
immediately reveal whether the conviction of the accused 
by the courts below was predicated on his alleged confession 
H - Investigation conducted by the police was not satisfactory 
450 
NAGARAJ v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 451 
SALEM TOWN, T. N. 
- Both the prosecution and the High Court took the deposition A 
of the room boy to be trustworthy, ignoring the fact that the 
room boy as well as the Manager had access to the hotel 
room for three days before the body of the deceased was 
found - They had as much motive and opportunity to have 
committed the crime as was remotely attributed to the B 
accused- Thus, the statement of the said witnesses cannot 
be relied - Failure of the prosecution to prove the case 
beyond reasonable doubt, the accused to be given benefit 
of doubt. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1.1 No suspicious or ulterior slant can be 
attributed to the accused for surrendering before the 
judicial magistrate after one and a half years, particularly D 
given that there were no outstanding warrants for his 
arrest or even for participating in the investigation. The 
statement of the accused that he did so because he was 
being harassed by the police to turn himself in seems 
very credible to us. In that case, there is no explanation E 
as to why the police did not arrest him even though they 
were frequenting his home, and the prosecution's 
version is not dependent on his interrogation, save for 
the alleged confession. [Para 11] [461-G-H; 462-A-B] 
F 
1.2 No identification parade was conducted. This 
aspect has no doubt been discussed in the impugned 
judgment; but it was held that there was no suspicion 
as to the complicity of the accused, who was allegedly G 
seen by several witnesses without any suggestion to 
them during the course of the cross examination that . 
the accused was not present at all. At least in the trial of 
capital offences, a duty is cast on the court to ensure 
that the accused has adequate legal assistance. It is H 
452 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 3 S.C.R. 
A evident that in this case this is strikingly absent. Keeping 
in perspective that the identification was a year and a 
half after the witness allegedly last saw the accused, an 
identification parade should have been properly 
conducted. Moreover, identification by the Manager was 
B not possible, as he had died before the trial commenced. 
The identification by PW3 and PW4 took place two and 
a half years after the incident, again without an 
identification parade, and eventually in the course of 
C court proceedings. Further, PW3 admitted that he only 
met the Accused once, which was on 24.7.2000. There 
is clearly a severe lapse on the part of the prosecution 
with no plausible and acceptable explanation 
forthcoming. [Para 12] [462-C-F] 
D 
1.3 The conviction is predicated on circumstantial 
evidence alone. Fingerprints have not been lifted from 
the scene, the murder weapon has not been recovered, 
and any credible motive is absent. It cannot even be 
E contended that the accused was the last person to be 
seen with the deceased since several persons including 
the Manager, 

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