S. ARUL RAJA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 30-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 356 
S. ARUL RAJA 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1494-95 of 2009) 
JULY 30, 2010 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 302 and s. 120-8 -
Death caused allegedly in 
C pursuance of criminal conspiracy -
Various accused -
Statement of one accused while in police custody -
Circumstantial evidence - Acquittal by trial court - Conviction 
of accused-appellant by High Court- Challenge to - Held: 
On facts, the chain of events did not establish a clear motive 
D 
for the appellant to commit the offence of murder -
Prosecution failed to substantiate the allegation of conspiracy 
against the appellant - The statement of co-accused did not 
constitute a valid dying declaration or a confession or an 
evidence in any manner to implicate the appellant , and also 
E 
did not fall within the ambit of s.10 of the Evidence Act -
Appellant given benefit of doubt and acquitted - Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.164 - Evidence Act, 1872 -
s.10. 
F 
s. 120-8 -
Criminal conspiracy -
Ingredients of -
Discussed. 
Evidence: 
Confessional statement - Admissibility of - Guidelines 
G discussed - Held: A statement that does not prescribe to the 
procedure laid down in s. 164, CrPC is not admissible as a 
confessional statement - On facts, the statement in question 
was neither recorded by a Judicial Magistrate nor fulfilled 
procedural requirements, including that of a certificate to be 
H 
356 
S. ARUL RAJA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
357 
appended by the Magistrate - Besides, it is doubtful as to 
A 
whether the statement was made voluntarily - Hence, the 
statement is not admissible as a confession under s. 164 
CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 164. 
Extra-judicial confession - Admissibility of -
Rules of 8 
caution before accepting an extra-judicial confession -
Discussed. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
s.32 - Dying declaration - Admissibility of- Held: When 
C 
a person who has made a statement perhaps in expectation 
of death, is not dead, it is not a dying declaration and is not 
admissible uls. 32. 
s.10 - Post-arrest statement - Held: Does not fall within 
0 
the ambit of s. 10. 
The accused-appellant and PW8's father were 
running their respective educational institutions in the 
same area, and their relations were allegedly strained in 
view of the cancellation of the affiliation of appellant's 
E 
college to Anna University, purportedly at the instance of 
PW8's father; and subsequent exodus of students from 
appellant's college to the college of PW8's father. 
According to the prosecution, in view of the said 
animosity, the appellant hatched a criminal conspiracy 
F 
with the other accused which led to the death of PW8's 
father. 
The trial court acquitted the appellant. The High 
Court, however, relying upon the post-arrest statement 
(Ex. P22) made by A1, co-accused, in hospital that he had 
G 
been engaged as a contract killer, which was recorded 
by the Executive Magistrate (PW-46) as a dying 
declaration; and the theory of motive as projected by the 
prosecution i.e. the alleged animosity between the 
H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 OJ 9 S.C.R. 
A deceased and the appellant, set aside the acquittal of the 
appellant and convicted him u/ s.302 IPC r/w s.120-8 IPC 
and also u/s.307 IPC r/w s.120-8 IPC. 
In the instant appeals, the questions which thus fell 
8 
for consideration were; 1) whether there existed a motive 
for the appellant to murder PW8's father; 2) whether the 
appellant conspired with the other accused to commit the 
crime; and 3) whether A 1 's statement could constitute a 
valid dying declaration or a confession or could constitute 
C an evidence in any manner so as to be used to implicate 
the appellant for murder. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The alleged motive is claimed to have been 
D evidenced by threats from the appellant. PW8 has testified 
to a conversation with the appellant wherein he spoke of 
"dire consequences" for having the affiliation of Anna 
University removed from his college. However, according 
to PW 38 (the Chief Superintendent of Anna University), 
E the cancellation of affiliation was done on the basis of 
irregularities in the appellant's college. Moreover, the 
appellant had obtained a stay from Court on Anna 
University's order. Seen in this light, there does not 
appear to be any role of the deceased in the act and 
hence, the argument that the cancellation of affiliation 
F compelled the ap

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