STATE OF TAMIL NADU versus MANMATHARAJ

Citation: [2008] 16 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 28-11-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 16 S.C.R. 735 
"" 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
A 
v. 
MANMATHARAJ 
· (Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2002) 
NOVEMBER 28, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
• 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
)-
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
c 
ss. 302 and 201 - Accused convicted of his wife's murder 
- Trial court relying on the extra-judicial confession stated to 
have been made to village Administrative Officer - Acquittal 
by High Court as it did not find reliable the confession and 
the evidence led to corroborate it - HELD: High Court has : D 
rightly held the prosecution version unacceptable - There is 
no infirmity in the reasoning of High Court to warrant 
interference - Evidence - Extra-judicial confession. 
~ 
The respondent was prosecuted ulss 302 and 201 
E 
IPC for casing death of his wife. The prosecution case 
, emanated from the confession (Ext. P-1) stated to have 
been made by the ·respondent before the Village 
Administrative Officer (PW-1) in the presence of PW-7. 
; 
The trial court on the basis of the extra-judicial confession 
and the evidence of PW-1 and PW-7, convicted the 
F 
... 
( 
,.ii( 
accused, /but the High Court acquitted him~ 
In th·e instant appeal filed by the State, it was 
contended for the appellant that the High Court erred in 
doubting authenticity of Ext. P-1 and acquitting the G 
accused. 
> 
·~ 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
735 
H 
... 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court, having cohcluded that the 
extra-judicial confession (Ext. P-1) lacks corroboration, 
has referred to the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 7 to find 
out whether their evidence would pass the test of 
reliability. The High Court was of the view that it could rely 
B upon their evidence if it was held that Ext.P~1 had come 
to be 'recorded ·withouf any s~spiciou·s circumsfance 
surrounding it. In this 'context, a perusal of Ext .P-15 
(printed First Information Report) as well as Ext. P-1 itself 
gives room to doubt the very truth of these two 
c documents. At the foot of Ext. P-1, PW-1 made an 
endorsement. The endorserrlent as it stood originally 
reads that PW1 himself had taken the accused and Ext. 
P-1 to the Police Station. However, there is a correction 
in the. en.dor~ement made at the foot of Ext.P.;1 and it is 
o made to appear that the accused was sent to the Police 
Station along with Ext. P-1 and other material records 
only with PW-7, the village menial. The contradictory 
statements of PW-7, J>W-10 and PW-14 also cast doubt 
on. the time and manner of registration of Ext. P-1 and 
E preparation of other mate,rial records in 1the Police 
Station. [Pa_ra 5 and 6] [739-H; 740-A-C] 
· ~ .2. When an extra judicial confession i~ given to the 
Village Administrative ·officer, he goes to the scene of 
occurre_n.ce-; .. -observes ttie dead body as well as the 
F scene; satisfies himself about the truth of the st~tement ·'. 
given by the person concerned and then,. prepares the ' 
,.material records,in duplicate and sends the same to the 
court and a copy thereof to the Police Station. But in the 
instant case, the Village Administrative 9fficerciid not do 
G anything of that sort thol¥Jh he had 10 years of 
experience and categorically admitted that he knew the 
procedure. The failure on the part.of PW1 to send the 
material records to the Court, especially, when he was 
aware of his duty in that regard is yet another 
H 
; 
... 
' 
1 
--. 
:1, 
STATE OF TAMIL NADUI v. MANMATHARAJ 
737 
-.., 
circumstance which is sufficient to doubt the entire case 
A 
of the prosecution put through PWs 1 and 7. [Para 7] 
[741-F-H; 742-A-B] 
1.3. The High Court has rightly held that the 
prosecution yersion is unacceptable. There is no infirmity 
B 
1-./ 
in the reasoning of the High Court to warrant interference. 
[Para 8 and 9] [7 42-C] 
}-
. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 815 of 2002. 
C' 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.4.2001 of the 
#. 
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 718 
of 1993. 
V. Shunmugasun Daram, S. Thananjayan and R. 
D 
Nedumaran for the Appellant. 
V.J. Francis, A. Radhakrishnan and Anupam Mishra for the 
1 
., 
Respondents . 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
DR. ARIJFr PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is, 
to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court 
allowing the appeal filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred 
' 
to as the 'accused') who was convicted for the offence 
F 
~ 
punishable under 

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