SOMASUNDARAM @ SOMU versus THE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation: [2020] 10 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 03-06-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
27
SOMASUNDARAM @ SOMU
v.
THE STATE REP. BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 403 of 2010)
JUNE 03, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN, K.M. JOSEPH AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss.365 and 302 – Abduction followed by
murder in appropriate cases can enable a court to presume that the
abductor is the murderer – The principle is that after abduction, the
abductor would be in a position to explain what happened to his
victim and if he failed to do so, it is only natural and logical that an
irresistible inference may be drawn that he has done away with the
hapless victim.
Penal Code, 1860: s.107 – Abetment – The key and
indispensable elements under the law to constitute abetment is
instigation, conspiracy or the intentional aiding by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of the thing – The law does not permit the abettor
to escape punishment for abetment even if the actual player who
commits the offence is not criminally liable for the actual act which
results in the commission of an offence.
Penal Code, 1860: ss.364, 201 365/109, 302 – Abduction
and murder – Prosecution case was that the accused abducted the
victim-deceased (MLA) and illegally detained him and demanded
huge sum and when he refused to succumb to demand, by
strangulation murdered him and cremated his body under fictitious
name – Trial court convicted all the accused while acquitting A12
and A18 based on circumstantial evidence, accomplice evidence
(PW10 and PW11) and evidence of other prosecution witnesses –
High Court acquitted A10 also – On appeal, held: A3 belonged to
a political party – Other accused except A12 were all henchmen of
A3 – The plan was brain child essentially of A1 and A2 – A3
organised the whole thing which commenced with the search for an
appropriate house where the victim could be confined after the
abduction – Role of A3 along with his men in carrying out the crime
[2020] 10 S.C.R. 27
27
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 10 S.C.R.
culminating in cremation under fictitious name of the abducted
person is clear – Not only there was evidence of PW10 and PW11
but other evidence which included PW32, PW33, PW36 and PW8 –
The other players were roped in on the basis of their acts which
was in tune with the conspiracy hatched by A1 and A2 – Evidence
showed that it was the body of the deceased which was cremated
and a fictitious name was used and a certificate issued at the instance
of A3 which circumstance was clinching in establishing the
prosecution case – Recovery of a nylon rope and chain at the
instance of A16 strengthened the prosecution case – The evidence
of PW33 was that A3 engaged A13, and at the behest of A3, a
certificate was issued by PW32 certifying that one person passed
away on the fateful day – PW11 stated that on 30.12.2001, he saw
three cars at the factory led by a Tata Sumo (recovered at the instance
of A9) – While A4, A11, A15, A16 and A17 were guilty under s.364
which was already found by the courts below, other appellants would
be guilty under s.364 read with s.109 on the basis that they actively
aided the abduction – Also as far as A5, A6, A7, A8,  A11 and A14
were concerned, there was evidence of PW10 that he saw the
deceased in a clear state of wrongful confinement, as he was found
tied on the first floor of the factory where A5, A6, A7, A8, A11 and
A14 were present – They were also convicted under ss.347 and 387
–  A4, A11, A16 and A17 were referred in the evidence of PW 11 as
emerging out of the car along with the deceased – PW3 witnessed
three persons pushing another into a Maruti Van on day deceased
went missing – The accomplices were credible witnesses and as
regards the crime and the accused, their testimony brought home
the truth – There was no motive attributed to them to falsely implicate
– If that is so, even in the absence of any direct evidence relating to
murder, the presumption of murder, being committed by the appellants
would apply – Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it
cannot be contended that no case was made out against the
appellants.
Penal Code, 1860: s.109 – For a charge under s.109, a
minimum of two persons are required – There can be any number of
accused charged with the aid of s.109 – In order that there is
abetment, it is indispensable also that there is a person who abets
another – There is a principal player and the abettor – The principal
player would be guilty for the acts or omissions which amount to
offences under the la

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