LexSIVAKUMAR versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SIVAKUMAR v. ST A TE BY £NSPECTOR OF POI.:.ICE DECEMBER 8, 2005 B . (S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: C Section 304, Part 11--Circumstantial evidence-Basis of conviction- Accused · al'ld ·deceased were relatives as well as friends-Accused and deceased going together was seen by PW-I-On the same day PW-I came to lean1'that the body of the deceased was lying near a tea stall-PW-I and PW-2 went there and found the deceased dead-Postmortem revealed in injury caused by an air gun-The air gun was recovered pursuant to D disclosure statement by the accused-Trial Court convicted accused under S. 304, Part ll--High Court affirmed the conviction-Correctness of-Held: When the possession of the air gun and recovery thereof had been proved ownership of the air gun takes a back seat-The deceased was also last seen with the accused-The cumulative effect of these circumstances satisfies the E test of proof of the guilt of the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence for the commission of the offence under s.304, Part II-Conviction upheld Evidence Act, 1872: Section 25-Confession-Extra-judicial confession-Before Village F Administrative Officer-Admissibility of-Held: With a view to excluding the admissibility of the confession made before a person, he must be a police offic~r-A Village Administrative Officer is not a police officer-Hence, extra- judicial confession before a Village Administrative Officer is admissible. According to the prosecution, the appellant-accused and the deceased G were relatives as well as friends. The deceased was addicted to drinks. On the fateful day, PW-t'had seen the appellant, PW-7and the deceased going together. On the same day, PW-2 came to learn that the body of the deceased was lying near a tea stall. PWs I and 2 went there and found the deceased dead. Postmortem revealed an injury caused by an air gun. The appellant made I . H an extra judicial confession of his guilt before the Village Administrative 578 ., SIV AKUMAR v. ST A TE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 579 Officer. The appellant also allegedly made a confession before the Inspector A of Police leading to recovery of the air gun from a canal. The appellant was found guilty of an offence under Section 304, Part II of the Penal Code, 1860. The High Court affirmed the conviction. Hence the appeal. The following question before the Court :- Whether the extra judicial confession by the appellant before the Village Administrative Officer was admissible in view of Rule 72 of the Cri111inal Rules of Practice and Orders, 1931 of the Madras High Court? Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. PW-1 in his deposition categorically stated that he had seen the appel!ant, the deceased and PW-7 going together. He, of course, stated that he was not aware as to where they had been going which shows his truthfulness, but the fact that the deceased was last seen with the appellant is not in dispute. (584-D-EI 2. PW-I is a natural witness in the sense that when he was informed that the body of the deceased was lying near the tea shop, he went there with PW-2. He had at that time no reason to suspect any person for commission of B c D the crime. He, therefore, did not raise any finger of suspicion against the appellant as a result whereof the case under Section 174 of the Penal Code, E 1860 came to be registered. [584-E-F( 3. PW-2 also appears to be a truthful witness. He also stated that he did not know the reason of death of his elder brother. He as well as PW-1 admitted that the deceased used to consume liquor. (584-GI 4. The Village Administrative Officer categorically stated that the F appellant made an extra-judicial confession before him. From a perusal of the statement of the said witness, it appears that the story was narrated in great detail. The appellant is said to have stated that a realization came to him that although he was well-educated, he could do such thing and, thu~,}ntended to surrender before the police but could not do so as he was afraid that if did so G he would be beaten up. In the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, the appellant made a statement; also before the Inspector wherein he disclosed that if he was taken to the canal he could produce the air gun. The said air gun was recovered pursuant to the said statement. [585-B-C-D) 5. PW-11 categorically stated that the foreign body seen through X-ray H 580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.