LexSAHADEVAN & ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 4 S.C.R. 366 SAHADEVAN & ANR. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 1405 of 2008) MAY 08, 2012 [A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Two witnesses had allegedly last seen the C deceased with accused - Extra-judicial confession - Recovery of articles at the instance of accused - Conviction by courts below - Appeal by two of the three accused - Held: Prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt - There are contradictions in the statement of the witnesses D - Confessional statements are not worth credence - Last seen theory not proved - Time of death of deceased not established - Motive not proved - Order of conviction is unsustainable - Benefit of the judgment extended to the non- appealing accused as he had been attributed the same role E as the other two accused - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arlie/es 136, 142 and 21 - Administration of Justice. Evidence: Extra-judicial Confession - Evidentiary value - Held: It F is a weak piece of evidence - In circumstantial evidence when prosecution relies on extra-judicial confession, court should examine it with greater degree of care and caution - Principles which would make it an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction - G Explained. H Circumstantial Evidence - Theory of last seen together -: Evidentiary value - Held: The theory can raise the suspicion, but independently, it is not sufficient to lead to a 366 SAHADEVAN & ANR. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 367 finding of guilt - The theory should be applied taking the A prosecution case into consideration in its entirety. Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 27 - Recovery statement - Admissibility in evidence - Explained. Administration of Criminal Justice - Criminal case - In 8 appeal accused acquitted - Extention of benefit of acquittal order to non-appealing accused - Access to justice is essential feature of administration of justice - Concept of fair trial would take within its ambit, the right to be heard by appellate court - If accused is unable to file appeal, it would C amount to denial of access to justice to such accused - Where the court disbelieves the entire occurrence or where role of the non-appealing accused is identical to that of the appealing accused or where the ends of justice demand, the court will be well within its jurisdiction to return the finding of D acquittal and even suo moto extend the benefit to the non- appealing accused - Powers of Supreme Court under Articles 136, 142 and rights of the accused under article 21 are wide enough to do complete justice to the parties - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles, 136, 142 and 21. E Appellants-accused Nos. 2 and 3 and accused No. 1 were prosecuted u/ss. 1208 and 302 IPC for having caused death of a person. The prosecution case was that A-1 was the brother of PW2 (wife of deceased). He had grievance against with the deceased because, he used F to torture PW2. In order to make life of PW-2 peaceful, he entered into a criminal conspiracy with A-2 and A-3 to commit murder of the deceased. PWs 4 and 5 had last seen the accused and the deceased together. Next day dead body of the deceased was found. After 4 days, the G accused persons came to PW6 and made confession to him in the presence of one person to the effect that on account of the family problem, they murdered the deceased by strangulating him and after putting kerosene on him, set the body on fire. The confessional statement H 368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R. A was reduced into writing (Ex.P-4). Thereupon, the accused were arrested by the police. On the basis of the statement u/s. 27 of Evidence Act, Police recovered M06 (TVS moped), M07 (bottle smelling kerosene) and MOS (matchbox). The accused in their statement u/s. 313 B Cr.P.C. denied the incident and retracted from their extra- judicial confession. Trial court acquitted the accused u/ s. 1208 IPC, but convicted them u/s. 302 IPC. High Court upheld the order of the trial court: The present appeal was preferred by A-2 and A-3. A-1 did not prefer any appeal. c Allowing the appeal and extending the benefit of the judgment to the non-appealing accused, the Court HELD: 1.1. The present case is a case based upon circumstantial evidence. In case of circumstantial D evidence, the onus lies upon the prosecution to prove the complete chain of event
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.