TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olice Station [or short, "PS"] Odiansalai, District - Puducherry. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: (i) On 20.04.2008, Rajaram, who was settled in France, returned to Puducherry as his son Rajini @ Rajinikanth, who was living in India, had gone missing. (ii) On 20.04.2008, Rajaram had approached PS Odiansalai, Puducherry, and made an oral complaint stating that when he had opened his house No. 13, Chinna Vaikkal Street, Puducherry,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....two sack bags. The knife and rope were put in another sack bag. The three sack bags were taken by them from Chinna Vaikkal Street, and after passing through Gandhi Street they threw the sack bags in the canal/river from the Uppanaru Bridge near the railway crossing. (xi) On the basis of the disclosure statement (Exhibit P-37), the sack bags with the decomposed dead body of Rajini @ Rajinikanth were recovered on 26.04.2008 from the Uppanaru canal/river. Knife was also recovered. (xii) The body parts which were in a decomposed state were sent for post mortem, which was conducted by Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry on 26.04.2008. (xiii) On 30.04.2008, eight articles were recovered from the water sump tank at the house of the deceased, namely, gloves, lower jaw, rib, cervical vertebrae, tarsal and metatarsal, small and big size bone pieces, and knee cap. (xiv) The skull recovered from the canal/river and the lower part of the jaw recovered from the sump tank were sent for superimposition test to ascertain whether they belong to the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-68); (iv) sale agreement in favour of Thangaveni Ammal, mother of Rajaram, executed on 19.08.1981 (Exhibit P-69). 9. Chinta Kodanda Rao (PW-30), Inspector of Police, PS Grand Bazaar, the investigating officer in FIR No. 204 of 2008 relating to the murder of Rajaram by unknown persons, has testified on the disclosure statement made by the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal (Exhibit P-37). The relevant portion of the disclosure statement reads: "...myself and xxx pull Rajni's xxx, put him in the sump tank near the bathroom and closed it... ...took xxx, Iron box, Home theatre, xxx, xxx, rental documents of my uncle's house at Chittankudi, Hero Honda CD Dawn motorcycle, RC book and key, Rajini's passport book, Rajini's passport size photo, birth registration of grandmother, family ration card of uncle and the copy of documents written in English, bunch of keys of the house and my uncle Ranjith's notebook, xxx xxx xxx, took Hero Honda CD Dawn motorbike of my uncle Rajaram.....one bag was put by Mohan xxx xxx xxx the house of Mohan nearby to the Tollgate of Ariyankuppam, kept 2 bags in Mohan's house... ...I, immediately, went to N (name withheld) h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eceased, namely, gloves, lower jaw, rib, cervical vertebrae, tarsal and metatarsal, small and big size bone pieces, and knee cap. T. Bairavasamy (PW-32), Circle Inspector, PS Odiansalai has deposed about the recovery and proved the Mahazar (Exhibit P-48). The recovery was photographed by Subburayan (PW-25), police photographer vide photographs marked Exhibit P-18 and duly witnessed by public witness Devadass (PW-21). 13. To determine the identity of the deceased person, some of the body parts were sent for a superimposition test to C. Pushparani (PW29), who was working as a Scientific Assistant Grade II, Anthropology Division, Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai. She has deposed about having received the case properties, consisting of a skull with mandible on 10.09.2008. The mandible was attached with the skull by means of a spring. For the purpose of identification, she had two identical colour photographs of a male individual sent to her in a sealed envelope as Item Nos. 2 and 3. The photographs were enlarged to the size of a self-portrait. Using the computer aided video superimposition technique, she had examined the skull and mandible viz. the photographs. For the purposes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lly refer to the lower jaw. We have examined this contention. Dr. S. Diwakar (PW24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry, in his examination-inchief, has testified that the police had sent the skull, sternum and right femur which were preserved by him from the autopsy material. Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry has also stated that the lower jaw and the left lower first premolar tooth were preserved by him from the skeleton remains for onward transmission to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for necessary photo superimposition and DNA test through the Judicial Magistrate-II, Puducherry. The mahazar dated 21.5.2008 (Exhibit P-15) was prepared after collecting the aforesaid body parts. 16. We do not find that any confusion or doubt arises from the deposition of Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry. He had conducted the post mortem examination (Exhibit P-16) on 26.04.2008, wherein he had examined the remains/body parts of the deceased which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry (Exhibit P-61). 19. The prosecution's case, in the absence of eye witnesses, is based upon circumstantial evidence. As per Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [For short 'the Evidence Act'], a confession made to a police officer is prohibited and cannot be admitted in evidence. Section 26 of the Evidence Act provides that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer shall be proved against such person, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Section 27^[3] of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. It makes that part of the statement which distinctly leads to discovery of a fact in consequence of the information received from a person accused of an offence, to the extent it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered, admissible in evidence against the accused. The fact which is discovered as a consequence of the information given is admissible in evidence. Further, the fact discovered must lead to recovery of a physical object and only that information which distinctly relates to that discovery ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... custody. Lastly, it is only so much of information which relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object which is admissible. Rest of the information is to be excluded. The word 'distinctly' is used to limit and define the scope of the information and means 'directly', 'indubitably', 'strictly' or 'unmistakably'. Only that part of the information which is clear, immediate and a proximate cause of discovery is admissible. 23. The facts proved by the prosecution, particularly the admissible portion of the statement of the accused, would give rise to two alternative hypotheses, namely, (i) that the accused had himself deposited the physical items which were recovered; or (ii) only the accused knew that the physical items were lying at that place. The second hypothesis is wholly compatible with the innocence of the accused, whereas the first would be a factor to show involvement of the accused in the offence. The court has to analyse which of the hypotheses should be accepted in a particular case. 24. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is frequently used by the police, and the courts must be vigilant about its application to ensure credib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dence is sought to be led in a criminal trial was in custody at the time of making the confession. Further, for the ban to be effective the person need not have been accused of an offence when he made the confession. The reason is that the expression "accused person" in Section 24 and the expression "a person accused of any offence" in Sections 26 and 27 have the same connotation, and describe the person against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal proceeding. The adjectival clause "accused of any offence" is, therefore, descriptive of the person against whom a confessional statement made by him is declared not provable, and does not predicate a condition of that person at the time of making the statement. 27. Elaborating on this aspect, a three judge Bench of this Court in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar [AIR 1966 SC 119] has held that if the FIR is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence, except to the extent that the ban....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act. This Court in Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 5 SCC 509], has held that the expression "custody" in Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody, but includes any kind of surveillance, restriction or restraint by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused is, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police and the bar vide Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and accordingly exception under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, apply. Reliance was placed on the decisions in State of A.P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy [(1997) 1 SCC 272] and A.N.Vekatesh and Anr. v. State of Karnataka [(2005) 7 SCC 714]. 30. However, evidentiary value to be attached on evidence produced before the court in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act cannot be codified or put in a straightjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. A holistic and inferential appreciation of evidence is required to be adopted in a case of circumstantial evidence. 31. When we turn to the facts of the present case, the body parts of the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth were recovered on the poi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice, PS Grand Bazaar and T. Bairavasamy (PW32), Circle Inspector, PS Odiansalai, have referred to the conduct of the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal with regard to any fact in issue or a relevant fact when the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal was confronted and questioned [See State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu, (2005) 11 SCC 600, ¶¶ 190, 204-206, 219-223, 225.] Reference in this regard may also be made to the judgment of this Court in Sandeep v. State of U.P. [(2012) 6 SCC 107] which held that: "52. (...) It is quite common that based on admissible portion of the statement of the accused whenever and wherever recoveries are made, the same are admissible in evidence and it is for the accused in those situations to explain to the satisfaction of the court as to the nature of recoveries and as to how they came into possession or for planting the same at the places from where they were recovered." 36. On the basis of the prosecution evidence, the following factual position has been established: (i) Rajini @ Rajinikanth was missing for months before his father Rajaram came from France to India, on 20.04.2008. (ii) On return, Rajaram had n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....@ Mohan and a juvenile, whose name is withheld. 37. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116], this Court referred to Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71], and laid down the five golden principles ('panchsheel') that should be satisfied before a case based on circumstantial evidence against an accused can be said to be fully established: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established; (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 38. This Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) rejec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... In this circumstance, the failure of the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal to present evidence on his behalf or to offer any cogent explanation regarding the recovery of the dead body by virtue of his special knowledge must lead to a reasonable adverse inference, by application of the principle under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, thus forming an additional link in the chain of circumstances. The additional link further affirms the conclusion of guilt as indicated by the prosecution evidence. 41. The whereabouts of Rajini @ Rajinikanth were unknown. The perpetrator(s) were also unknown. It is only consequent to the disclosure statement by the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal, that the police came to know that Rajini @ Rajinikanth had been murdered and his body was first dumped in the sump tank and after some months, it was retrieved, cut into two parts, put in sack bags, and thrown in the river/canal. The police, accordingly, proceeded on the leads and recovered the parts of the dead body from the sump tank and sack bags from the river/canal. It has been also established that Rajini @ Rajinikanth was murdered. In addition, there have been recoveries of the motorcycle and ....