Moorthy (Appellant) Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Respondent)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.975 of 2011
(2JB, ABHAY S. OKA and SANJAY KAROL JJ., delivered by ABHAY S. OKA J.)

Facts: The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable   under   Sections   302   and   201   of   the Indian   Penal   Code.     He   was sentenced   to   undergo   life   imprisonment   for   the offence punishable under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment   for   seven   years   for   the   offence punishable   under   Section   201,   IPC.     Sentences were   ordered   to   run   concurrently.     The   appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment.

Issue: Whether the court has rightly convicted the appellant based entirely on the extra­judicial confession of the appellant?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

The main submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that PW nos.1 and 2 were   complete   strangers   to   the   appellant. Moreover, the alleged extra­judicial confession was made by the appellant before the said two witnesses 2   months   and   11   days   after   the   date   of   the incident.   The learned counsel further submitted that   the   conduct   of   PW­1   who   was   the   Village Administrative Officer, does not inspire confidence as he immediately did not report the matter to the police.  The learned counsel further submitted that the   identity   of   the   body/skeleton   was   not established.   He submitted that recourse was not taken to DNA test for identification of the skeleton. He   also   submitted   that   there   is   a   material discrepancy in the evidence of PW­18 Investigating Officer and PW­1 about the place from which the stick,  which   was   the   weapon   of   offence,   was discovered.   He pointed out that PW nos.8 to 11 who were cited as witnesses to support the theory of   last   seen   together,   did   not   support   the prosecution.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent: Dr.   Joseph   Aristotle

The   learned   counsel appearing for the State submitted that there are no major   discrepancies   and   contradictions   in   the version of PW nos.1 and 18.   He submitted that though PW­8 was declared as hostile, his evidence cannot   be   discarded   in   its   entirety.     He   placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. v. State of Gujarat.   He submitted that the discovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant is a very important circumstance against the accused.   He relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Anuj Kumar Gupta v. State of Bihar.

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and acquitted the accused, holding that, “There is serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case regarding the recovery of a dead body at the instance of the appellant and the recovery of the alleged instrument of the offence at the instance of the appellant.  Most importantly, for the   reasons   we   have   recorded   earlier,   it   is   not possible to accept the case of the prosecution which is entirely based on the extra­judicial confession made by the appellant.   Thus, there was no legal evidence on record to convict the appellant.  In any case, the guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Further, the court observed that, “Extra­judicial   confession   is   always   a   weak piece of evidence and in this case, for the reasons which we  have recorded earlier,  there  is serious doubt   about   the   genuineness   of   the   prosecution case   regarding   the   extra­judicial   confession. Therefore,   the  prosecution   case  about   the   extrajudicial confession does not deserve acceptance.”