PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL  (APPELLANT)  Vs.  STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE   ( RESPONDENT)

CRIMINAL APPEAL arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 863 of 2019

(2JB, SANJIV KHANNA and S. V. N. BHATTI JJ., delivered by SANJIV KHANNA, J.)

Facts: The impugned judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Madras affirms the conviction of the appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal for murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Section 201 of the IPC, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in SC No. 22 of 2014, in the charge sheet arising from the First Information Report No. 80 of 2008 registered on 24.04.2008 in Police Station Odiansalai, District – Puducherry. The appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal stands sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. The other co-accused, namely, Saravanan @ Krishnan, Mohan @ Mohankumar, and Ravi @ Ravichandran were acquitted by the trial court, which acquittal has become final. One ‘N’ was tried as a juvenile and acquitted. On 15.02.2013, the case of another co-accused – Chella @ Mugundhan was split up since he was absconding. Subsequently, vide judgment dated 04.06.2019, which has been placed on record as additional evidence, Chella @ Mukundhan has been acquitted

Issue: Whether conviction of the appellant is sustainable in view of the evidence placed on record in the present case?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for the appellant:

On behalf of the appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal, it is submitted that as per Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry no definite cause of death could be ascertained due to decomposition of the body. However, it is pertinent to note that Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry has also deposed that the deceased could be between 25-30 years of age and probable death could have occurred six months prior to the autopsy. It must be further noted that the deceased – Rajini @ Rajinikanth was about 30 years of age and he had been missing for about six months prior to the date on which the autopsy was conducted. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal that Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry, in his cross-examination, has accepted that body parts were sent to him in two nylon sack bags only once, and nothing was sent thereafter.

Held: The court dismissed the present appeal and held that, “The conviction of the appellant is, sustainable in view of the evidence placed on record in the present case. The judgment of acquittal would not qualify as relevant and of evidentiary value so as to acquit the appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal in the present case.”

The court further observed that, “Section 27 of the Evidence Act is frequently used by the police, and the courts must be vigilant about its application to ensure credibility of evidence, as the provision is vulnerable to abuse. However, this does not mean that in every case invocation of Section 27 of the Evidence Act must be seen with suspicion and is to be discarded as perfunctory and unworthy of credence.”