LexPERIYASAMI S/O. DURAISAMI NOVANAGAR versus STATE REPRESENTED THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, Q B.RANCH CID, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI, TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• '.. [2014) 11 S.C.R. 483 PERIYASAMI S/O. DURAISAMI NOVANAGAR A v. STATE REPRESENTED THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 'Q' B.RANCH CID, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI, TAMIL NADU. (Criminal Appeal No. 1272 of 2012) B APRIL 11, 2014 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJANA ·PRAKASH DESAI . AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] Terrorist And Disruptive Act~vities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - ss. 3(2), 3(3), 4(1), 5 and f5 - Criminal conspiracy - Accused allegedly manufactured explosive bombs and caused blast of the rails of a bridge - Confessional statement c of A 1 - Conviction of A 1 and A2 - Sustainability - Held: D Confessional statement of A 1 was a major piece of evidence against him - Evidence of PW-13 and PW-32 provided necessary independent corroboration to the confessional statement of A 1 - Incriminating wall posters found at the scene of offence bore handwriting of A 1 which was a clinching E circumstance and established his guilt - However, prosecution not able to establish case against A2 beyond reasonable doubt - Conviction of A 1 confirmed while A2 acquitted - Penal Code, 1860 - s.1208 and 124 - Explosive Substances Act- ss.3 and 5- Railways Act, 1989- s.150- F Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act - s.3 rlw s.4. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - s. 15 - Confessional statement under - Retracted confessional statement - Evidentiary value of - Held: Retraction does not always dilute or reduce or wipe out the G evidentiary value of a confessional statement - In each case, the court will have to examine whether the confession was voluntary and true and whether the retraction was an afterthought - Evidence - Confession. 483 H A B 484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 11 S.C.R. • Evidence - Witness - Hostile witness - Appreciation of - Held: Evidence of a hostile witness need not be completely discarded - Prosecution can use that part of his evidence which is corroborated by other evidence on record. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD:1.1. The confessional statement of A1 is a major piece of evidence against him. A confessional statement recorded under Section 15 of the TADA, if found to be voluntarily made and is truthful and properly C recorded, can form the basis of conviction. The contention that A1 has retracted his confession and, hence, it has no evidentiary value, cannot be accepted. Retraction does not always dilute or reduce or wipe out the evidentiary value of a confessional statement. In each D case, the court will have to examine whether the confession was voluntary and true and whether· the retraction was an afterthought. In the case at hand, A1 's confessional statement was recorded after following the correct procedure; it was voluntary and truthful; A1 was E not forced or compelled to give his statement and the retraction of the said statement is clearly an afterthought and should be ignored. [Paras 20, 21] [499-B; 500-E; 501- C-D; 502-A-B] 1.2. The evidence of PW-13 and PW-32 provides F necessary independent corroboration to the confessional statement of A1. That the incriminating wall posters found at the scene of offence bear handwriting of A1 is a clinching circumstance and goes a long way in establishing his guilt. The trial court, therefore, has rightly G convicted him. [Paras 24, 27] [205-H; 503-A; 505-B] Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 3 SCALE 565; Kalawati v. State of Himachal AIR 1953 SC 131: 1953 SCR 546; and State of Tamil Nadu v. Kutty H AIR 2001 SC 2778: 2001(11) Suppl. SCR 433 and Bhajju • PERIYASAMI v. STATE REP. THR. THE INSt'. OF POLICE, 'Q' BRANCH 485 CID, TAMIL NADU . @Karan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC A 327: 2012 (5) SCR 37 - relied on. Pu/in Das @ Panna Koch v. State of Assam (2008) 5 SCC 89: 2008 (3) SCR 257; Prakash ffumar @ Prakash .. \ Bhutto, etc. v. State of Gujarat (2007) 4 SCC 266: 2007 (5) B SCR 532; Vijf!yan, etc. v. State of Kera/a (1999) 3 SCC 54: 1999 (1) SCR 659 and State v. Nalini & Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 253: 1999 (3) SCR 1 - referred to. 2. However, the prosecution has not been able to establish its case against A2 beyond reasonable doubt. C He must, therefore, get benefit of doubt. In the circumstances, the conviction of A1 is confirmed while A2 is acquitted. [Paras 28, 29) [505-G-H; 506-A-B] Case Law Reference: 2008 (3) SCR 257 referred to Para 11 2007 (5) SCR 532 referred to Para 11 1999 (1) SCR 659 referred to Para 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.