TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Reinstates Conviction, Emphasizes Validity of Judicial Confession</h1> <h3>STATE OF TAMIL NADU Versus KUTTY @ LAKSHMI NARASIMHAN</h3> STATE OF TAMIL NADU Versus KUTTY @ LAKSHMI NARASIMHAN - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the judicial confession of A-2 (Lakshmi Narasimhan).2. Corroboration of the confession with other evidence.3. Evaluation of the High Court's reasoning for acquitting A-2.4. Adequacy of the sentence imposed on A-2.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Judicial Confession of A-2 (Lakshmi Narasimhan):The judicial confession of A-2, recorded by a magistrate, contained detailed narration of events, including the planning and execution of the murders. The High Court declined to act on this confession primarily because it was retracted and because the recovery of articles was made prior to the confession. The Supreme Court found these reasons insufficient. It emphasized that retraction does not automatically taint a confession and that the court must evaluate whether the confession was voluntary and true. The Court noted that A-2 was not in police custody when he made the confession and that there was no evidence of pressure or torture by the police. The magistrate had followed proper procedures, and A-2 was aware he was speaking to a magistrate.2. Corroboration of the Confession with Other Evidence:The Supreme Court refrained from using the confession of A-3 for corroboration due to the High Court's rejection of it. The extra-judicial confession made by A-1 to PW-30 was also not used due to the inebriated state of A-1 at the time. However, other circumstances corroborated A-2's confession. These included his employment as a watchman, his disappearance after the murders, the recovery of articles belonging to the deceased at his instance, and his fingerprint found on the kitchen door. The Court dismissed the contention that PW-30 mistakenly identified A-1 instead of A-2 during recovery, emphasizing the sturdy evidence of the investigating officer.3. Evaluation of the High Court's Reasoning for Acquitting A-2:The Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in dismissing the judicial confession of A-2. The reasons given by the High Court were deemed insufficient and unsustainable. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court should not have sidelined the judicial confession, which was found to be voluntary and true.4. Adequacy of the Sentence Imposed on A-2:While restoring the conviction of A-2, the Supreme Court decided that a lesser sentence of life imprisonment was sufficient for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court directed the trial court to take prompt steps to ensure A-2 serves the sentence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's acquittal of A-2, and restored the trial court's conviction. A-2 was sentenced to life imprisonment, and the trial court was directed to ensure the sentence is served.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
