LexSEYAKA PERUMAL, ETC versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SEY AKA PERUMAL, ETC. v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU MAY 7, 1991 [B.C. RAY AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302 read with section 34 and sections 120-B, 364 and 392 read with section 397-Enticing young boys to bring cash and jewellery-Murdering them for gain and throwing into wells etc.-Recovery of dead body-Whether absolutely necessary to convict accused-Benefit of doubt-Whether a relevant factor in impos- ing sentence. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sections 309 and 235(2)-Right to be heard on 1h~ question of sentence-Necessity of-Adjournment on that ground-Whether and when necessary. Evidence Act, 1872: Sections I 14 and 133-Evidence of approver -Nature of corroboration required. Penology: Award of sentence-Showing undue sympathy harm- A B c D ful to justice system~Would undermine public confidence-Hence courts to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the E. offence and the manner in which it was exec!<ted. According to the Prosecution, appellants 1 and 2 have been friends and were in the habit of selling ganja and spending money lavishly. They attempted to commit theft in their locality, but were not successful. Therefore, they hatched a conspiracy to entice boys from F affiuent families to bring cash and jewellery and murder them after taking away the cash and jewellery. Likewise, they killed 4 boys, in a span of about 5 years. Both of them were charged with offences under sections 120B read with section 34 IPC, sections 364 and 392 read with section 397 G ,. IPC in all the fonr cases filed against them, and were convicted by the Sessions Conrt. However, in one case, on appeal, they were acquitted by the High Court. In another case, the death sentence imposed by the Sessions Conrt is pending conf'irmation by the High Court. In the other two cases, both the appellants were sentenced to H 711 A l3 c 712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991) 2 S.C.R. death by the Sessions Court and on appeal the High Court confirmed the sentence in one case and in the other, the High Court confirmed the death sentence passed against appellant No. I and acquitted appellant No. 2 of all the charges. The appellants preferred the present appeals challenging the said orders of the High Court confirming the sentence against them by con- tending that there was no proper identification of the dead body and that the approver was not a reliable witness and since his evidence did not receive corroboration, it cannot form the basis for convicting the appellants. It was also contended that the extreme penalty of death sentence imposed was not justified. Dismissing the appeals, this Court, HELD: 1.1 In a trial for murder it is not an absolute necessity or an essential ingredient to establish corpus delicti. The fact of death of the deceased must be established like any other fact. Corpus delicti in D some cases may not be possible to be traced or recovered. If a murder was committed and the dead body was thrown into flowing tidal river or stream or burnt out, it is unlikely that the dead body may be recovered. If recovery of the dead body, therefore, is an absolute necessity to convict an accused, in many a case the accused would manage to see that the dead body is destroyed etc. and that would afford a complete E immunity to the guilty from being punished and the accused would escape even when the offence of murder is proved. What, therefore, is required to base a conviction for an offence of murder is that there should be reliable and acceptable evidence that the offence of murder, like any other factum, of death was committed and it must be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, although the dead body may not be f: traced. [717 A-DI 1.2. In the instant case, the evidence of PWs. 7 to 10 would establish that they have seen the dead body of the deceased in the well and brought it out and the photograph was taken at the time of inquest. It was identified to be that of the deceased by no other than the mother G of the deceased. Thus there is no doubt as regards the identity of the dead body. Also the medical evidence establishes that the deceased died due to stabbing with sharp edged weapon like knife. [717E] 2. Law is settled that an approver is a competent witness against the accused person. But the court, to satisfy its conscience, insists as H caution and prudence to seek, as a rule, corroboration to the evidence .>. ... SEVA
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.