PATTU RAJAN versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 535 · Decided: 29-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
535
    PATTU RAJAN
v.
    THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 680-681 of 2009)
 MARCH 29, 2019
[N.V. RAMANA, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Abduction and murder of husband
of complainant (PW1) – Prosecution case was that accused no.1
wanted to take PW1 as his third wife knowing that she was already
married to victim-deceased and made several attempts with the help
of other accused to severe the relationship between PW1 and her
husband – Prior to the day of incident, the deceased and PW1 were
abducted by accused no.1 and his henchmen but on the same day
were released for which a separate complaint was lodged by PW1
and separate trial was conducted – Subsequent to this event of
abduction, accused committed murder of the PW1’s husband so as
to marry PW1 without any obstruction – Conviction of appellant by
trial court under ss.364, 304 Part-I and 201 – High Court modified
conviction under s.304 Part-I  to one under s.302 – Appeal against
conviction – Held: There was detailed deposition of PW-1 as to
how accused no.1 wanted to marry her and how he often tried to
lure her through undue favours, role of each of the appellants in
the crime, last seen circumstance as well as the identification of the
personal belongings of the deceased and his dead body – The
evidence of PW1 was fully supported by the evidence of PW2, the
mother of PW1 – Based on the confession of accused no.6, recovery
of wallet containing photograph of PW1, gold chain etc. was
effected from the house of accused no.6 and identified by PW1 and
her family as belonging to the deceased – Recovery of body at the
instance of accused no.2 and the identification of body as that of
her husband by PW1, her family as well as by the accused, on the
basis of photographs, the clothes and belongings of the deceased
and his scar stood proved beyond reasonable doubt – The evidence
of PWs 1 and 2 with regard to the motive for commission of the
offence, the last seen circumstance and recovery as well as the
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 535
 535
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
identification of the dead body was consistent with the case of the
prosecution – The superimposition test strengthened the evidence
of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the identification of the body – Therefore,
no case was made out for interference with the conviction –
Evidence – Circumstantial evidence.
First Information Report: Plea of the accused-appellant that
there cannot be a second FIR relating to the same incident and that
the incident of murder reported in FIR was merely a continuation of
the earlier offence of abduction which had triggered proceedings
pursuant to the FIR – Held: Plea is not sustainable – There is no
doubt that the case arising out of a second FIR, if relates to a
separate transaction, cannot be investigated along with a previous
FIR under the clause ‘further investigation’ as contemplated under
ss.8 to s.173 of the Cr.P.C. – In the instant case, the time and place
of occurrence of the two incidents were different – Even the number
of accused involved in the incidents was different – There was no
continuity of action from the sequence of events either – The first
offence was committed with the intention to abduct the deceased
and PW1, the purpose for which was merely to threaten and
pressurize them – In contrast, the intention behind the second
offence was to murder the deceased with a view to permanently get
rid of him – Therefore, unity of purpose and design between the
two offences was also absent  –  Thus, the incident of murder was
entirely separate and distinct from the earlier incident of abduction
– Further investigation, as envisaged under ss.8 of s.173 of the
Cr.P.C, connotes investigation of the case in continuation of an
earlier investigation with respect to which the chargesheet was
already filed – In case a fresh offence is committed during the course
of the earlier investigation, which is distinct from the offence being
investigated, such fresh offence cannot be investigated as part of
the pending case, and should instead be investigated afresh – The
separate first information lodged in this case is, therefore, just, legal
and proper – Penal Code, 1860 – s.302  - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – s.173(8) – Investigation.
Evidence: Circumstantial evidence – Reliability of – Held:
Human agency may be faulty in expressing the picturisation of the
actual incident, but circumstances cannot fail

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