LexPARAMSIVAM & ORS. versus STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 813 PARAMSIVAM & ORS. v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE (Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2010) JULY 01, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND DIPAK_ MISRA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860: s.302, s.302 rlw s.3,/,. 364 -Abduction and murder - Previous enmity between victim-deceased and C accused persohs - Allegation that accused persons abducted the victim-deceased and thereafter killed him and threw his body on railway tracks - Since at that time the identity of body was not known, the police after investigation buried the body - On complaint of missing of deceased and investigation, the D police exhumed the body and after DNA examination found it to be that. of the victim-deceased - Conviction of accused no. 1 to 3 based on circumstantial evidence - On appeal, held: Prosecution was successful in bringing on record fi.te circumstantial evidences such as existence of motive, the E circumstances in which the deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused nos. 1 to 3, homicidal death and recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused persons - The evidence proved that prosecution succeeded in pr-00ng the facts that the accused nos. 1 to 3 took away F deceased - What happened thereafter to deceased was especially within the knowledge of accused nos. 1 to 3 - When deceased is shown to be abducted, it is for the abductors to explain how they dealt with the abducted victim - In the absence of explanation, Court is to draw inference that G abductors are the murderers - It was for accused nos. 1 to 3 · to explain what happened to the deceased after they took him away but they failed to explain the same - The deceased was found dead immediately thereafter - Therefore, accused nos. 1 813 H 814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 8 S.C.R. A to 3 who abducted the deceased intentionally withheld the information from the Court and, there was every justification for drawing inference that accused nos. 1 to 3 murdered the deceased - Guilt of the appellants-accused nos. 1 to 3 proved beyond all reasonable doubt - No interference with the order B of conviction. Evidence: Held: In cases of circumstantial evidence, proof of motive is material consideration and a strong circumstance. C The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased took on lease the land belonging to PW-3 and PW-6. Accused no. 6 was the owner of the neighboring land. Since accused no. 1 and 6 threatened the deceased not to break the stone, the deceased had filed a suit for D permanent injunction restraining accused no. 6 and PW- 3 and 6 from interfering with the quarrying. About 10 days prior to the date of occurrence also accused no.1, 6 and 7 threatened the deceased. About 4 E days prior to the date of occurrence, accused no.2 and another person approached the deceased for purchase of stone and since it was late hours, the deceased refused to accompany them and asked them to come on some other day. Again accused no.2 and another person approached the deceased on 18.1.2004 and asked for F stones and deceased accompanied the accused to the quarry. PW1 and PW2 witnessed that deceased went along with accused no.2 and accused no.3. On the said date i.e.18.1.2004, PW8 and PW9 who were returning from the Petrol Pump, saw a van parked on the road side. PW9 G saw the deceased and accused no.1 sitting inside the van. Next day, a dead body was found on the railway tracks. Since the identity of the dead body was not known, after investigation and autopsy, it was burjed. H On 20.01.2014, PW-1 lodged complaint regarding PARAMSIVAM v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF 815 POLICE missing of the deceased. After investigation, PW-41, the A investigating officer made arrests of the accused persons. The accused person made confessions which led to recovery of many items. On 17 .02.2004, the dead body was exhumed and after DNA test the same was identified to be that of the deceased. B The trial court held that the prosecution has proved that in connection with quarry business, there was previous enmity which resulted in abduction and murder of the deceased by accused no. 1 to 3. Accused no.1 to 3 were convicted under Section 364 IPC and accused C no.1 under Section 302 IPC and accused no.2 and 3 under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. With regard to accused nos.4 to 7, the trial court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt against them and acquitted them. The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.